Answering Muslims: Killing Babies For Allah
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Answering Muslims: Killing Babies For Allah
Answering Muslims: Killing Babies For Allah
Breathingearth - CO2, birth & death rates by country, simulated real-time
Follow the link to see the map
Breathingearth - CO2, birth & death rates by country, simulated real-time
Sunday, December 2, 2012
Truthbomb Apologetics: Counterpoints: Antony Flew and Francis Crick
Chad sometimes runs posts on his blog where he posts two quotes from two scholars that contradict one another. You can read the quotes from Francis Crick and Anthony Flew at the following link: Truthbomb Apologetics: Counterpoints: Antony Flew and Francis Crick
Saturday, December 1, 2012
Is MuslimByChoice Actually Trying to Make the Muslims Look Bad?
Is MuslimByChoice Actually Trying to Make the Muslims Look Bad?
Thursday, November 29, 2012
FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: The Weird and Illogical World of Being a Bible Believing Christian
So I presented Paul with another hypothetical scenario:
If I were in a member of an Organized Crime group (such has the Mafia) and I demanded his church pay for protection or else I would have my men burn it to the ground and I gave Mount Calvary Baptist Church three months to decide: Pay for my protection or loose the church in a fire! What would your obedient Bible believing, God fearing church then do:
A. Over the three months given to decide; would they pray 24 / 7 that God would honor their Biblical obedience by divine protection from my attempted extortion via arson?
B. Or, would they call the police?
Like any good Bible believer, Paul (via his obedient faith and trust in God) really proved my point (as an atheist; yes, I’m envious of his faith and trust to this day). His answer: “We would pray after we had called the police!” Bam! Faith meets reality . . . thank you!
While Howard Mazzaferro is not Paul and the Kingdom Hall is not Mount Calvary Baptist Church, their illogical minds work the same. God (and the Bible) MUST be validated at all cost
Here is why McCall is "off the reservation": Why does he think that calling the police means that they would not be following the Bible? There is nothing in the Bible that says that calling the Police would be the sinful thing to do. Get real. Our civil laws mean that we should call the police in such a situation. The Bible tells us to obey the law.
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. - Romans 13:1-7
Debunking Christianity: The Weird and Illogical World of Being a Bible Believing Christian
Top Scientists and Theologians Weigh In: Does the Universe Have a Purpose?
Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Lawrence M. Krauss, Jane Goodall, David Gelernter, Paul Davies, Peter William Atkins, Nancey Murphy, Owen Gingerich, Bruno Guiderdoni, Christian de Duve, John F. Haught, and Elie Wiesel — all well-respected leaders in their respective fields — sought to answer the question to the best of their abilities. It may surprise you that half said “yes,” the universe operates with intent or exists to achieve something.
Of course, nothing would stop science from uncovering positive evidence of divine
guidance and purpose if it were attainable. For example, tomorrow night if we look up at the stars and they have been rearranged into a pattern that reads, “I am here,” I think even the most hard-nosed scientific skeptic would suspect something was up. - Dr Lawrence M Krauss
The issue here is the statement that science is capable of uncovering positive evidence of God's purpose. I think that is akin to a hammer and a nail trying to figure out what they are being used to build. Or trying to figure out what an artist is creating and you can only see part of the work. Unless the artist tells you what it is, you haven't clue until either you can see more or the work is finished. Krauss also wrote:
Thus, organized religions, which put humanity at the center of some divine plan, seem to assault our dignity and intelligence. A universe without purpose should neither depress us nor suggest that our lives are purposeless. Through an awe-inspiring cosmic history we find ourselves on this remote planet in a remote corner of the universe, endowed with intelligence and self-awareness. We should not despair, but should humbly rejoice in making the most of these gifts, and celebrate our brief moment in the sun. - Dr Lawrence M Krauss
I would agree that there is no need to despair and we should humbly rejoice in the gifts we have. But having gifts mean that there must have been a gift giver. We lack the ability to talk about such things without talking about God even if we try to deny God's existence. Krauss' seems to answer thus: I don't know if the Universe has a purpose but even if it does, there is no God. This is a very unsatisfactory answer but without God, it's the only answer possible.
Consider this question: Do the Earth and mankind have a purpose? If so, then the universe does too, ipso facto. If not, the universe might still have (some other) purpose; but I don’t have to face that contingency, because I believe we do have one…
Namely, to defeat and rise above our animal natures; to create goodness, beauty, and holiness where only physics and animal life once existed; to create what might be (if we succeed) the only tiny pinprick of goodness in the universe—which is otherwise (so far as we know) morally null and void. If no other such project exists anywhere in the cosmos, our victory would change the nature of the universe. If there are similar projects elsewhere, more power to them; but our own task remains unchanged. - Dr David Gelernter
Although Dr Gelernter believes there is a purpose, I do not fully agree with the purpose he seems to think it is. He pointed out that people do create things - and some of these things are good. Given human propensity to selfishness and self-fulfillment, we act against ourselves when we do good and generous things too. It isn't default behavior and sometimes it isn't easy to choose the right thing especially when it is uncomfortable. Almost as if we are constantly at war with urges and feelings that will destroy us but that we can't fully control. Kind of like described in Romans 7. So while we should be working to better the world and help others (begging the question who gave us that purpose), it can't be the purpose of the universe. Gelernter says the universe has a purpose but he conflates it with the purpose of the universe.
Science is a voyage of discovery, and as with all such voyages, you have to believe there is something meaningful out there to discover before you embark on it. And with every new scientific discovery made, that belief is confirmed. If the universe is pointless and reasonless, reality is ultimately absurd. We should then be obliged to conclude that the physical world of experience is a fiendishly clever piece of trickery: absurdity masquerading as rational order. Weinberg’s aphorism can thus be inverted. If the universe is truly pointless, then it is also incomprehensible, and the rational basis of science collapses. - Dr Paul Davies
Dr Davies makes the provocative point that if the universe is pointless than so is trying to understand it. Goodbye, Science. I agree. If science is meaningful than the object it is focused on must also be meaningful - purposeful. I don't think Davies spends much time explaining what that purpose is, but that isn't the question. Davies instead discusses why he thinks we cannot say that the Universe has no purpose.
Similarly, the universe has evolved over its 14 14 14 billion years of current existence by the directionless, unguided processes that are manifestations of the working out of physical laws: it has not been made for the purpose of providing platforms to enable cheetahs to stalk their prey or humans to generate great art or to entertain delusions. That we do not yet understand anything about the inception of the universe should not mean that we need to ascribe to its inception a supernatural cause, a creator, and therefore to associate with that creator’s inscrutable mind a purpose, whether it be divine, malign, or even whimsically capricious. - Dr Peter Williams Atkins
I must admit every time I read or hear something from Dr Atkins I am amazed at his close-mindedness. I see nothing wrong with the ideas that cheetahs and humans beings can have purposes for existence. He seems to find the who discussion distasteful because he has already made up his mind. The problem with agreeing that the universe has a purpose is that one has to then wonder what that/those purpose(s) is/are and who decreed it?
In the deep mystery of God’s vast creative experiment there may be many facets that we, in human terms, would relate to as purposes of the universe. I believe that, incredibly, this includes the creator’s self-revelation though human intelligence and personalities. With God’s experiment comes the freedom of choice, and I choose to believe in a purposeful universe.
My thoughtful atheistic friends who deny that the universe has any ultimate meaning are also men and women of faith. Perhaps intimidated by intimations of design, they seek to understand the universe in other ways. Ironically, they themselves may well be part of the purpose of the universe. - Dr Owen Gingerich
Amen.
Remember, our observable universe is just a tiny region among a large variety of regions, each with different properties. And many of these regions in the universe are sterile and inhospitable and thus lifeless (which makes it especially difficult for them to be observed!). Thus, say some scientists, there is no fine-tuning. And likewise, there is no purpose.
But I don’t agree. The fundamental scientific theories that support the multiverse require complex mathematics. The fact that these fundamental theories are even accessible to our brains, which, in a purposeless universe would be nothing but a by-product of our ability to find prey (and avoid being prey), in the millennia of Homo sapiens’ evolution is something I find quite . . . puzzling.
The reality is that we are able to contemplate such questions. And the bigger the questions our brains can ponder, the more unlikely that the cosmic drama we are all participating in is simply a cosmic lottery.
This is why, at the end of the day, I can’t refrain from thinking that there actually is
purpose in the universe. - Dr Bruno Guiderdoni
Dr Guideroni's comments definitely intrigue me. When I read his essay, I think he is saying unequivocally that the universe has purpose. But at the beginning of the e-book, the first page is a tally of all 12 scholars in the e-book on what their conclusions are. Guiderdoni is marked as "very likely" but in place in his discussion does he describe his conclusion as just very likely. I think he makes a very compelling case for the Universe having purpose.
Science has given us a glimpse of this reality, by revealing the strange objects and concepts, almost irreducible to our familiar world, that lie behind entities such as the cosmos, matter, life, and mind. Through music, art, and literature, we have been allowed to approach another facet of this reality, emotional and esthetic, rather than intelligible. With philosophy and religion, we have become aware of its ethical and mystical aspects. Encompassing all in a single manifestation, love has introduced us into its very heart.
It will be noted that there is no logical need for a creator in this view. By definition, a creator must himself be uncreated, unless he is part of an endless, Russian-doll succession of creators within creators. But then, why start the succession at all? Why not have the universe itself uncreated, an actual manifestation of Ultimate Reality, rather than the work of an uncreated creator? The question is worth asking. - Dr Christian De Duve
Dr De Duve argues against a God that is not in the Bible. The God of the Bible is indeed uncreated. And the Universe is not eternal. The question has been asked and answered.
The fact that we can ask such a question at all suggests an affirmative answer. The
impassioned search for meaning, perhaps our species’ most distinctive trait, is not a
longing that lifts us out of the universe, or that takes place outside of nature. We are, after all, as much a part of nature as roaches and rivers. So too is our thirst for meaning.
If we accept evolution, as indeed we must, our longing for meaning is nature—in the same sense that birdsong and the howling of wolves are nature.
Purpose, after all, means quite simply the bringing about of something undeniably and permanently good. Is that what is going on in the cosmos?
As long as you are drawn toward truth, so also is the natural world that gave birth to your mind.
The two, after all, are inseparable. As long as the search for truth persists, not only can you trust your mind, you can also trust the universe that has germinated such an exquisite means of opening itself to
what is timelessly worth treasuring. - Dr John F. Haught
Dr Haught is right that we have an inborn desire and curiosity to know - everything. I agree that asking such questions as to what is the universe's nature and purpose is itself part of humanity's purpose. So this is a start to understand what the purpose of the universe is.
So in the absence of human hubris, and after we filter out the delusional assessments it promotes within us, the universe looks more and more random. Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as other events that would just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible, to assert. So while I cannot claim to know for sure whether or not the universe has a purpose, the case against it is strong, and visible to anyone who sees the universe as it is rather than as they wish it to be. - Neil deGrasse Tyson
Last but not least. Dr Tyson said that he was not sure if the universe has a purpose but he is sure that people who believe God are wrong. One problem with his reasoning is that none of the reasons he gives in his essay means that there is no God giving the universe purpose. The thing is that according to the Bible, humanity arose and everyone has been born and raised and lived and died in the times and places God has desired. If it literally took 99% of cosmic history what of it? That's not inefficiency, that's what the Creator decided "after the counsel of His own will" (Ephesians 1:11). You can view Dr Tyson essay in an illustrated video.
Top Scientists and Theologians Weigh In: Does the Universe Have a Purpose?
Debunking Christianity: Pat Robertson Admits He Was Wrong About the Election
Debunking Christianity: Pat Robertson Admits He Was Wrong About the Election
Truthbomb Apologetics: Video: What Caused God? featuring J.P. Moreland
 |
| J.P. Moreland (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
Truthbomb Apologetics: Video: What Caused God? featuring J.P. Moreland
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth by Douglas Jacoby - Apologetics 315
How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth by Douglas Jacoby - Apologetics 315
Religious Tolerance
In our society today "Tolerance" has become an excuse for not being honest about truth. People act like that you have to accept that all religions are equal and that is the only way we can coexist. This is not true. Let's look at the proverbial elephant in the room. You know the one society embraces that the blind men/men in a dark room or cave grope about each feeling apart of the elephant and coming to different conclusions as to what it is based on the information they have. Some people think that by putting these pieces together we gain more truth about the elephant. I would agree if the information and the conclusions drawn weren't contradictory. This is the problem when this approach is taken toward religion. Whatever religious persuasion you have by definitions means you affirm that all others are wrong. For example, there is no way any religion can be simultaneously true if Christianity is true.
Does this mean that religions cannot coexist? No it does not. We can't mistake "coexistence" for what western civilization. It does not even mean that people of different religions can't discourse and debate and understand one another. What it does mean is that I can't flat out kill you or persecute you because you disagree with me. To coexist all various religions have to do is let them stand. No need to try to destroy them. When the time comes, the one true religion will be known by all. Even those people who go to hell will know which one was right and that they rejected it. There are many reasons I'm convinced that Jesus is the only way, but I refuse to kill others just because they don''t see that. If we all looked at it that way, we could co-exist. It's the way Christians are told to act.Make every effort to live in peace with everyone and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord. - Hebrews 12:14
Computer, PC, Systems Administrator, Sys Admins, Jobs, Work
Computer, PC, Systems Administrator, Sys Admins, Jobs, Work
This is a fun little infographic summarizing data about people who work in a specific branch of the IT industry. I couldn't resist re-posting following video
NASA is Building a Real Warp Drive
 |
| Digital art by Les Bossinas (Cortez III Service Corp.), 1998 (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
NASA is Building a Real Warp Drive
Profound Problems with Religious Pluralism | Reflections
Novelist Yann Martel’s book Life of Pi (now a major motion picture) embodies the popular notion that all religions are simultaneously true. The story’s young protagonist embraces aspects of multiple faiths (Hinduism, Islam, and Christianity), viewing these beliefs as equally valid but different paths to God. Unfortunately religious pluralism fails to appreciate the profound problems associated with it.
Read the his article at the following link to get his whole view point.
Profound Problems with Religious Pluralism | Reflections
Monday, November 26, 2012
FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Either Choose Science or God, You Cannot Have Both
John Loftus has been busy today. He has posted two articles today attempting to explain why he thinks you can't have science and believe that God exists. He is wrong, but it is entertaining to see him failing to do it...kinda like the proverbial train wreck. You can't just look away. There is quite a lot to look at but I will be looking at one of them.
I think for a blog post I pretty much nailed it, arguing that science would not be possible if there were a miraculous intervening God. But since science does work then there isn't a miraculous intervening God.
The first article goes off the rails really fast. First mistake: Loftus assumes that either God always intervenes or never intervenes in the natural order of the universe. Where does he get this from? It's not from the Bible. There is no reason to make either assumption.
So choose ye this day: Either science isn't possible because there is a miraculous intervening God, or science works precisely because there isn't a miraculous intervening God.
False choices because Loftus pretends that there are only two mutually exclusive options. He ignore the Biblical testimony. He bases his ideas of what God's intervention should look like based on what he thinks God should do. This is wrong.
Christian philosopher Victor Reppert objects of course, on two grounds as far as I can tell:
Reppert's first objection? This:
OK, so skepticism about God is front-loaded once we start doing science? Is this the materialist equivalent of presuppositionalism? If this is the case then it is otiose to mention particular scientific developments as evidence against theism. Science, by its very nature, could never say anything else.Scientists require evidence before accepting a hypothesis, and so science can only investigate that which is detectable. This is its limitation. We all know this.
So he agrees with Reppert here.
So it operates on the principle of methodological naturalism. It cannot do otherwise. Science assumes there is a natural explanation for everything it investigates precisely because this is the only way it can work.
And like he said that is its limitation. That means science cannot tell you everything there is to know.
If natural explanations for events were not possible because God regularly intervened in the world, then science simply would not be possible. Since science does work then a miraculous intervening God does not exist.
Notice the qualification Loftus keeps using in describing God: "miraculous intervening". The Bible tells us that God makes science possible because it is God that keeps the laws and nature going as it is. God set it up. All science is built on the idea that the laws of nature are repeatable, reasonable, predictable, understandable, and definable. Science is making since of those things but it doesn't explain why reality is set up that way. The Bible tells us God did this to make Himself known to His creation. The Bible tells us that God set all of it up and put it in motion and sustains it. Therefore the Bible completely disagrees with Loftus that if God continuously intervenes we can't do science. Instead it's because of God that we can do science.
Now there are ways that science could detect the existence of God even if he didn't intervene in the world today, but so far this is not what we find. In any case, that wasn't even my point.
The fact that the universe exists at all shows us that God exists.
The fact is that it didn't have to turn out that science works. God could have made science impossible by intervening into our daily lives just as ancient superstitious people thought he did.
Loftus cannot demonstrate that God does not intervene in our daily lives. He does. That is why science works. That is why we have order and random chaos.
That it has turned out the way it has is evidence a miraculous intervening God does not exist. You cannot say this is "a materialist presupposition" without taking into consideration what could have been.
Exactly. Why would having mass mean having gravity? Why is there equal and opposite reaction for every action? Why would celestial bodies orbit one another in elliptical paths? Why is everything in quantum physics comes in factors of 2 and 4? Why is energy in discrete packets? So much! It's God signing His work.
If God regularly intervened in the world then science would be impossible. The fact that he doesn't is significant. It's evidence he doesn't intervene at all, if he exists in the first place.
How does Loftus know God doesn't intervene in the world? He doesn't know that, nor can he prove that God doesn't.
Reppert's second objection? This:
I want to make sure I have this straight. If Jesus resurrected from the dead, the science buildings in all the universities should fall down, or never have been built in the first place.If God exists then it's entirely possible he could do a select few miracles here and there in the world, occasionally. So the Christian God could have resurrected Jesus from the dead (who else would have done this?) and science could still be possible.
This would, of course, be news to hundreds of living scientists, not to mention the likes of Newton, Kepler, Copernicus, et al.
But herein lies a problem fit for God.
The more God intervenes then the less likely science is possible.
Hold up. Why? Oh yeah, because if Loftus allows for Reppert's point he might actually learn something.
Conversely, the less God intervenes then the more likely science can work.
Still don't get why that's even a reasonable assertion. The Bible points out that it's God who sustains all things. This is what is making it possible for science to be done.You want to know who to thank for science:
In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. 3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. - Hebrews 11:1-3
But science is not only possible it has amassed an impressive amount of knowledge which has produced our modern world. So how likely is it that God has intervened compared with the weight of knowledge science has produced? At best, if God has intervened at all then he has done so in such minimal ways as to be indistinguishable from him not intervening at all.
Nope. Without God, nothing we have would have been possible.
The lack of divine intervention in our world is counter-productive for a God who wants us to believe or fry in hell.
Loftus, like many, make a mistake. We have to reach God and know God as God is on God's terms. God is far from hiding.
We are supposedly created as reasonable people.
Adam and Eve were created as reasonable. The rest of us are born in sin and shaped in iniquity - enslaved to sin and so blind that we actually like what we are doing although it is killing us. "Depraved" is the term the Reformers used. Without God we have no hope of getting out of that - characterized by irrationality and unreasonable.
Reasonable people need evidence. Reasonable people must go with the statistical trends. Reasonable people must compare comparables.
And that is the problem. Unregenerate and unrepentant people don't have the gift of comparables. You can't compare your life with God unless you have ever known God.
Given the fact that science works precisely because God does not intervene, then it seems to reasonable people that he doesn't intervene at all.
The fact that Loftus can't see that God gives science meaning shows how unreasonable Loftus' conclusion is. He can't know that God does not intervene at all.
And if that's the case it's reasonable to think he didn't raise Jesus up from the dead either. It's also a good reason to think he doesn't exist at all.
That is why Loftus desires to deny the intervention of God in daily life so much: so her can deny the Gospel and ignore his personal depravity.
Why would God be like this? Since he's portrayed as a reasonable God and a reasonable God would not do this, then a reasonable God probably doesn't exist at all.
Hint: God isn't like that. Therefore you can't really seriously follow this line of reasoning.
Debunking Christianity: Either Choose Science or God, You Cannot Have Both
Saturday, November 24, 2012
Richard Dawkins interviewing a Muslim guy - YouTube
Richard Dawkins interviewing a Muslim guy - YouTube
Truthbomb Apologetics: Documentary- The Magician's Twin: C.S. Lewis and the Case against Scientism
Truthbomb Apologetics: Documentary- The Magician's Twin: C.S. Lewis and the Case against Scientism
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)