HT to MMI.
Friday, July 4, 2008
Thursday, July 3, 2008
0
Cectic.com
This is a common argument against Intelligent Design: "If complexity necessitates a creator, wouldn't our creator need a creator?" Or, to put it another way, if God made the world, then who made God? While this seems to make Creationism untenable, I do not find this argument compelling once one examines the alternatives.
Two Alternatives:
1. The universe came from nothing. Assuming that everything has a cause, or everything that exists was created by something else, this is ridiculous. This viewpoint would say that everything was caused by something, until you get to the beginning of the universe, then... what? Regardless of how one may try to explain it away, the logical terminus of this naturalistic viewpoint is that the universe popped out of nothing. How's that for a miracle?
2. The universe created itself. Very similar argument, very similar response. Nothing can create itself, as it would have to exist before it could create itself. This just doesn't make sense. (Kinda mind-numbing, isn't it?)
I argue that the universe was created by something outside of itself (for instance, God). As the cartoon above shows, this does sound incredible, but when you consider the other options, it actually makes more sense to assume that something beyond our natural system (super-natural, perhaps?), made the universe to exist. If so, it is also possible for this being to be self-existent, needing no cause for itself (a first cause, or uncaused cause).
Now, this is not proof positive, I'll give you that, but look at the alternatives. Which is more ridiculous?
More info at Wikipedia: Cosmological Argument.
Created or... What?
Cectic.com
This is a common argument against Intelligent Design: "If complexity necessitates a creator, wouldn't our creator need a creator?" Or, to put it another way, if God made the world, then who made God? While this seems to make Creationism untenable, I do not find this argument compelling once one examines the alternatives.
Two Alternatives:
1. The universe came from nothing. Assuming that everything has a cause, or everything that exists was created by something else, this is ridiculous. This viewpoint would say that everything was caused by something, until you get to the beginning of the universe, then... what? Regardless of how one may try to explain it away, the logical terminus of this naturalistic viewpoint is that the universe popped out of nothing. How's that for a miracle?
2. The universe created itself. Very similar argument, very similar response. Nothing can create itself, as it would have to exist before it could create itself. This just doesn't make sense. (Kinda mind-numbing, isn't it?)
I argue that the universe was created by something outside of itself (for instance, God). As the cartoon above shows, this does sound incredible, but when you consider the other options, it actually makes more sense to assume that something beyond our natural system (super-natural, perhaps?), made the universe to exist. If so, it is also possible for this being to be self-existent, needing no cause for itself (a first cause, or uncaused cause).
Now, this is not proof positive, I'll give you that, but look at the alternatives. Which is more ridiculous?
More info at Wikipedia: Cosmological Argument.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
0
I found it interesting that Dowd thought the reason behind the Christian aversion to evolution was a moral one. ("it would seduce me away from godly living" --I'm not sure I see the logic in that, but that's what he said... or was told) I don't think that is the main problem that Christianity has with evolution.
Dowd (and most others who claim to accept both Christianity and Evolution) is missing an important point: if Darwinian Evolution is true, the Bible is not, so we can know nothing about Jesus with any degree of certainty, therefore Christianity is truly as baseless as its opponents claim.
Here's what I mean: In Mark 10:6-7 Jesus directly references Genesis 1:27 and 2:24, and it is easily inferred that he believed that humans existed from the beginning of the world. Jesus believed in a young Earth, and even if one may argue that he didn't, Jesus certainly never tried to correct the "false teachings" from the opening chapters of Genesis.
If the world was created through evolution (either Darwinian or Theistic), the Christian is faced with one of two major problems: 1. Jesus was either mistaken or a liar, or 2. The Bible did not correctly record his statements. If option 1 is true, then Jesus certainly was not the Son of God, as how could Deity who was supposedly present at Creation (John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:16) be mistaken about how the creation occurred?
If option 2 is true, then we can know nothing about Jesus with any degree of certainty. For instance, if this account in the Bible is wrong, how can we know that the account of the resurrection isn't wrong as well?
Everything that Christianity has to offer hinges on the Bible's veracity. If it is inaccurate, then it is not even good enough to be called a good 'spiritual' book, or even a piece of literature (as it would then be fiction that tries to present itself as truth).
As convenient as it may be to try to find a way to reconcile the two, evolution and Christianity are incompatible.
If you'd like more information on Dowd, you can visit his website. I've also found this video. You may find InternetMonk's review of his book helpful as well.
...Thank God for Charles Darwin?
"Evolutionary evangelist" Michael Dowd, released an article yesterday to celebrate the 150th anniversary of Darwinian Evolution. The article, entitled "Why I Thank God for Charles Darwin," explains what evangelicals would call Dowd's "testimony," or story, of how his life has been changed... by accepting both Christ and evolution.
Dowd makes some very interesting claims in his article. Here are a couple:
...It is obvious to me now that God didn’t stop revealing truth vital to human wellbeing back when people believed the world was flat and religious insights were recorded on animal skins. God is still communicating faithfully today, publicly, through the worldwide, self-correcting scientific enterprise. I now see science as revelatory and facts as God’s native tongue.
...No longer do I fear that my family and friends will suffer for eternity in the fires of an otherworldly hell. No longer am I led astray by my instincts—my unchosen nature. And no longer do I find it difficult to live in integrity and know the peace that passes all understanding.
I found it interesting that Dowd thought the reason behind the Christian aversion to evolution was a moral one. ("it would seduce me away from godly living" --I'm not sure I see the logic in that, but that's what he said... or was told) I don't think that is the main problem that Christianity has with evolution.
Dowd (and most others who claim to accept both Christianity and Evolution) is missing an important point: if Darwinian Evolution is true, the Bible is not, so we can know nothing about Jesus with any degree of certainty, therefore Christianity is truly as baseless as its opponents claim.
Here's what I mean: In Mark 10:6-7 Jesus directly references Genesis 1:27 and 2:24, and it is easily inferred that he believed that humans existed from the beginning of the world. Jesus believed in a young Earth, and even if one may argue that he didn't, Jesus certainly never tried to correct the "false teachings" from the opening chapters of Genesis.
If the world was created through evolution (either Darwinian or Theistic), the Christian is faced with one of two major problems: 1. Jesus was either mistaken or a liar, or 2. The Bible did not correctly record his statements. If option 1 is true, then Jesus certainly was not the Son of God, as how could Deity who was supposedly present at Creation (John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:16) be mistaken about how the creation occurred?
If option 2 is true, then we can know nothing about Jesus with any degree of certainty. For instance, if this account in the Bible is wrong, how can we know that the account of the resurrection isn't wrong as well?
Everything that Christianity has to offer hinges on the Bible's veracity. If it is inaccurate, then it is not even good enough to be called a good 'spiritual' book, or even a piece of literature (as it would then be fiction that tries to present itself as truth).
As convenient as it may be to try to find a way to reconcile the two, evolution and Christianity are incompatible.
If you'd like more information on Dowd, you can visit his website. I've also found this video. You may find InternetMonk's review of his book helpful as well.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
0
Christian Guy Totally Owns Mormons
That's not my title. It's the title of this video from Break.com
Christian Guy Totally Owns Mormons
As Christians, should apologetics be about "owning" our opponent, or sharing the Truth in love? Did this guy go too far, or was he justified in his defense of the Bible?
0
The following is a very, very, basic breakdown, put in layman's terms. Forgive me if I'm not technical enough on some of the deeper portions of this argument. This isn't intended to be a defense of Plantinga's argument, it's just a simple presentation of the argument's basic points.
1. What is Naturalism?
2. What is Evolution?
3. What's the problem?
Naturalism simply put, is the assumption that there is no supernatural; the universe is a closed system, and only natural "laws" apply. There are no ghosts, no miracles, no unicorns, no Flying Spaghetti Monster, and no God. In many ways (in fact, in most circumstances) this can be a helpful assumption. This is how man has developed medicines, by assuming that diseases were caused by something natural instead of evil spirits, for instance.
Naturalism depends upon observation and the brain's ability to correctly interpret what it observes. This is why it is so "rational." The Naturalist only believes what he/she can see. If you can't see it, then it doesn't exist. (Of course, this is an extremely simplified explanation of this matter)
Evolution is a part of Naturalism. If there is no God or Flying Spaghetti Monster to create the world, then it must have come from, well, nothing, and evolution explains how that occurred.
The driving force behind evolutionary change is reproduction. Plantinga goes into the details of this in his lecture. Simply put, everything an organism develops is ultimately for procreation, spreading its genetic code.
If evolution is true, then our ability to observe and interpret the world around us is most likely unreliable. If the mind of man has evolved as an engine to get us to procreate, then it probably isn't very good at discovering things like "what is true." And, if it's not reliable for that purpose, how then can it say with any certainty that something like evolution is true?
Naturalism says that Evolution is true, but Evolution in turn, says that we can't trust our ability to be "rational." Then, if we can't trust our ability to be rational, how then can we know that Evolution is true in the first place? See how crazy this cycle becomes?
What are your thoughts on this? Before you respond, I highly recommend listening to Plantinga's presentation of this. I know that this is an over-simplified version of the argument, and frankly, I don't want to spend the next week listening to how flawed my argument is when you can hear the expert for yourself.
How to Show that Evolution and Naturalism are Incompatible
Alvin Plantinga, the John A. O'Brien Professor of Philosophy at Notre Dame, has developed a very keen argument to show that Evolution and Naturalism are incompatible. I like this argument because it deals with Evolution head-on.
The Veritas Forum has the full lecture to download as either a video or MP3.
Plantinga defines:
Wikipedia: EAAN
- N as naturalism
- E as the belief that we human beings have evolved in conformity with current evolutionary doctrine
- R as the proposition that our faculties are "reliable", where, roughly, a cognitive faculty is "reliable" if the great bulk of its deliverances are true. He specifically cites a thermometer stuck at 72 degrees placed in an environment which happened to be at 72 degrees as an example of something that is not "reliable" in this sense and suggests that the conditional probability of R given N and E, or P(R/N&E), is low.
The following is a very, very, basic breakdown, put in layman's terms. Forgive me if I'm not technical enough on some of the deeper portions of this argument. This isn't intended to be a defense of Plantinga's argument, it's just a simple presentation of the argument's basic points.
1. What is Naturalism?
2. What is Evolution?
3. What's the problem?
Naturalism simply put, is the assumption that there is no supernatural; the universe is a closed system, and only natural "laws" apply. There are no ghosts, no miracles, no unicorns, no Flying Spaghetti Monster, and no God. In many ways (in fact, in most circumstances) this can be a helpful assumption. This is how man has developed medicines, by assuming that diseases were caused by something natural instead of evil spirits, for instance.
Naturalism depends upon observation and the brain's ability to correctly interpret what it observes. This is why it is so "rational." The Naturalist only believes what he/she can see. If you can't see it, then it doesn't exist. (Of course, this is an extremely simplified explanation of this matter)
Evolution is a part of Naturalism. If there is no God or Flying Spaghetti Monster to create the world, then it must have come from, well, nothing, and evolution explains how that occurred.
The driving force behind evolutionary change is reproduction. Plantinga goes into the details of this in his lecture. Simply put, everything an organism develops is ultimately for procreation, spreading its genetic code.
If evolution is true, then our ability to observe and interpret the world around us is most likely unreliable. If the mind of man has evolved as an engine to get us to procreate, then it probably isn't very good at discovering things like "what is true." And, if it's not reliable for that purpose, how then can it say with any certainty that something like evolution is true?
Naturalism says that Evolution is true, but Evolution in turn, says that we can't trust our ability to be "rational." Then, if we can't trust our ability to be rational, how then can we know that Evolution is true in the first place? See how crazy this cycle becomes?
What are your thoughts on this? Before you respond, I highly recommend listening to Plantinga's presentation of this. I know that this is an over-simplified version of the argument, and frankly, I don't want to spend the next week listening to how flawed my argument is when you can hear the expert for yourself.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Search
Books
