Spoonseeking

Recently a fairly long article was promoted by some friends of mine as a criticism of “militant atheists”: http://highchurchpuritan.com/2015/07/27/god-is/ I enjoyed this article.  It seemed a fairly well-stated description of the epistemological basis argument for generic monotheism.  However, it was not without flaw (writing rarely is, especially my own). Believing When True Brandon writes, All truth rests on a single basic proposition: God is. This is the fountainhead of all true knowledge and wisdom. This is the bedrock of all true belief. There is no other foundation for epistemological certainty. This says that God is provides basis for knowledge.  But knowledge isn’t defined, and it has many meanings.  I think in this case it is used as: Knowledge: belief when you have good reasons to believe if the thing is true But using that we can know mutually exclusive things.  We can know Yahweh, and Krishna, and Suijin, and Thor....

Back in 2008 I wrote a blog post where I discussed what I use as a working definition of knowledge.  I recently re-read it and realize that I now strongly disagree with that definition. Here is what I wrote: Knowledge, according to Dr. Bahnsen, requires three things. Belief. To know something, one must first believe it to be true. This should not really be surprising or debatable. Basis. To know something, one must have a reasonable justification for the belief. The belief you have must not be based on invalid data or invalid or arbitrary reasoning. Truth. To really know something, that thing that you know has to be true. The thing known must accurately represent the truth of the situation. I got this during an apologetic course I took at Grace Baptist Church.  There are major flaws with this definition.  When applied it can claim as knowledge multiple mutually exclusive claims.  The biggest problem is #3 - truth.  This definition requires for somet...

There are a few popular arguments that are used by Christian apologists that I hear often, in varying forms.  Recently I was contacted by someone that wanted to discuss what they see as my irrationality.  The core of this discussion seems to me to be a form of the Cosmological argument.  I'm publishing it here for comment.  The identity of the other party is intentionally omitted.  I will refer to him as Bill.  If you know Bill and comment on this post, please do so in a way that conceals his identity. For clarity, the posts that are made by the other party will appear as quotes. The discussion Patrick, I see you are a physics major. do you agree that some entity (or thing if you prefer) must have the power of self existence? [Bill], how are you doing?  I hope you are having, in your vernacular, a blessed day.  I certainly agree that things exist, although our perception of that is quite misleading. Its been a good day thx. Perhaps I sh...

Three decades I have walked the Earth.  Almost four.  I have known what it is to be loved by good parents, to be alienated and abused by classmates, to be a failure at scholastic pursuits, to be a success at scholastic pursuits, to find a family apart from heredity, to know love with the joys and pains that brings, to be a father of three wonderful children, and to be a master craftsman at my profession.  I have seen the glory of man, and the failure of man. When I was a young child, I gave my life to Christ.  I still remember the event, or at least I think I do.  Evergreen Baptist Church.  Vacation Bible School.  Altar call.  I was moved to move, to walk the path, to commit my life to Christ.  I have never had a burning passion for Christ, but I have held him in my heart.  In college I drifted away, as is the tendency.  When I became serious with my now wife, we agreed to walk the road of life together as a Christian family....

In reference to:  The New Answers Book 3, Chapter 3 Several assertions are made that are false, and several questionable tactics are used. Abiogenesis and Evolution [Humanists] want a monopoly on the teaching of molecules-to-man evolution in the public school science classroom. ... evolutionism in the sense of the belief aspects of evolution [life arising by natural processes, etc.] ... Embedded in this assertion is that evolution includes the formation of life from non-life.  This is incorrect.   Evolution  is a biological theory that describes how species of life change into other species of life.   Abiogenesis  is the development from life from non-life.  It is fair to characterize abiogenesis in a pre-consensus state.  It is not fair to consider this a shortcoming of evolution as they are distinct. Advocating Evolution as Religious An effort is made to show that "belief" in evolution is religious, and as such, teaching evolut...

Recently an old friend of mine, upon seeing me post about finally finishing The Origin of Species , suggested that I take a look at a video by Ray Comfort, Evolution vs. God .  Reluctantly, I did so.  The video seems to be created by Ray Comfort in an interview-style on the UCLA campus.   He does the following: Interviews Students Led to believe they are mostly students in a science-related discipline All seem to be portrayed as agnostic or atheist Main Interviews PZ Meyers Craig Stanford Gail Kennedy Peter Nonacs Main Interview During the video, Ray repeatedly seems to come back to the question:   Can you give me one example of Darwinian Evolution , where one kind evolves into another kind .   While he doesn’t define kind , he does provide minor clarification that suggest that he thinks kinds are people, cats, fish, or bacteria.   Biologists use, as best as I can tell, 8 classifications for different kinds of animals: Life...

The argument that is typically made here against the Theory of Evolution is that it is just  a theory.  This is left hanging out there leading the audience to fill in the blank - the blank being that science has yet to prove  it to be true.  This stems from a lack of understanding, or intentional miscommunication, on what a scientific theory is.  Part of the problem here can be the equation of a scientific term with a conversational term.  We use theory in common language, and when doing so, theory generally means something more like an idea or guess.  This is definitely not what a scientific theory is.  A scientific theory is as good as it gets.  It will never transition from a theory to a law, although there is probably a general belief that it will. A scientific law describes a what  about nature.  A law is short, typically mathematical, and does not address the how .  Laws are typically created when repeated observation shows a very repeatable result, and it describes that result. ...