Creationist claim;
http://creation.com/that-quote-about-the-missing-transitional-fossils
Evolutionist rebuttle;
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html
Saturday, June 16, 2012
Friday, June 15, 2012
A possible world which is not feasible for God to create... whaaaaa?
In part of Plantinga's free will defense he argues that it is not possible for God to actualize a world in which all free creatures freely choose to follow God. But he also argues that it is possible for such a world to exist. One might fairly ask, why then can God not actualize it?
The answer is deceptively simple. If God were to actualize, and thus guarentee such a world said creatures would not be free. Thus the incoherence is not in the world itself but in it being actualized. God cannot do the logically impossible. Thus we have a world which is can exist, but cannot be forcibly actualized. And thus we have a world which is not feasible for God to create.
Pretty trippy right?
The answer is deceptively simple. If God were to actualize, and thus guarentee such a world said creatures would not be free. Thus the incoherence is not in the world itself but in it being actualized. God cannot do the logically impossible. Thus we have a world which is can exist, but cannot be forcibly actualized. And thus we have a world which is not feasible for God to create.
Pretty trippy right?
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Does Deuteronomy 25:11-12 command mutilation and promote sexism?
Deuteronomy 25:11-12 states; "if two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall show no pity."
Surely to anyone who has read this passage, it must seem absolutely bizarre, not to mention cruel. The wife of a man gets her hand cut off for defending him? How could someone possibly believe this nonsense? Well I've probably said this before and will explain it more in another post, but virtually no Christian views the Old Testament Mosaic law as a law meant for a perfect society. Rather the Mosaic law was meant to improve upon a society and culture with a great many issues, in a specific time period and in a specific cultural setting.
But even so, how does this law improve anyone's culture? It promotes absurd punishments and suggests a misogynistic view of women. Paul Copan in his book "Is God a Moral Monster?" I think answers this question fairly well. He points out that the Hebrew word used here for hand is kaph, a word which refers to any round or concave object in Hebrew language. This hebrew word, however, is never used to describe a hand as a whole, but only the palm of a hand. But it would be odd for the text to say that one must cut off the palm of a woman's hand. If the text was commanding that Israelites cut off the hand of a woman when she commits such an act, it would have made much more sense to use the word yad in place of kaph. A more plausible reading of this passage is that cutting off a woman's kaph really refers to shaving her groin. This was a practice commonly used to humiliate women in places such as Babylon and Sumer. What's more kaph is often used to refer to a woman's groin in the OT such as Song of Songs 5:5. In addition the word translated cut is not the standard word used to cut something off (piel) but has a milder connotation (qal). (Copan, p 121,122).
To grab a man's genitals especially in an effort to harm him, was considered a shameful act, and could prevent the man from ever having children. Thus this is a case of humiliation for humiliation. If one was going to cause humiliation, one would suffer humiliation. This certainly isn't ideal, but it is certainly an improvement to other ancient Near Eastern cultures, whose law codes would have endorsed mutilation. Such as the Middle Assyrian Law that if a woman damaged a man's testicle her finger was to be cut off, and if she damaged both testicles, her eyes were to be gouged out. (see the Cod of the Assyrians I.8.)
Surely to anyone who has read this passage, it must seem absolutely bizarre, not to mention cruel. The wife of a man gets her hand cut off for defending him? How could someone possibly believe this nonsense? Well I've probably said this before and will explain it more in another post, but virtually no Christian views the Old Testament Mosaic law as a law meant for a perfect society. Rather the Mosaic law was meant to improve upon a society and culture with a great many issues, in a specific time period and in a specific cultural setting.
But even so, how does this law improve anyone's culture? It promotes absurd punishments and suggests a misogynistic view of women. Paul Copan in his book "Is God a Moral Monster?" I think answers this question fairly well. He points out that the Hebrew word used here for hand is kaph, a word which refers to any round or concave object in Hebrew language. This hebrew word, however, is never used to describe a hand as a whole, but only the palm of a hand. But it would be odd for the text to say that one must cut off the palm of a woman's hand. If the text was commanding that Israelites cut off the hand of a woman when she commits such an act, it would have made much more sense to use the word yad in place of kaph. A more plausible reading of this passage is that cutting off a woman's kaph really refers to shaving her groin. This was a practice commonly used to humiliate women in places such as Babylon and Sumer. What's more kaph is often used to refer to a woman's groin in the OT such as Song of Songs 5:5. In addition the word translated cut is not the standard word used to cut something off (piel) but has a milder connotation (qal). (Copan, p 121,122).
To grab a man's genitals especially in an effort to harm him, was considered a shameful act, and could prevent the man from ever having children. Thus this is a case of humiliation for humiliation. If one was going to cause humiliation, one would suffer humiliation. This certainly isn't ideal, but it is certainly an improvement to other ancient Near Eastern cultures, whose law codes would have endorsed mutilation. Such as the Middle Assyrian Law that if a woman damaged a man's testicle her finger was to be cut off, and if she damaged both testicles, her eyes were to be gouged out. (see the Cod of the Assyrians I.8.)
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Analyzing Intelligent Design; Irreducible Complexity
Micheal Behe is famous for the argument against evolution known as irreducible complexity. His argument is quite simple and goes like this;
1) There are, in nature, certain biological constructs such that if one took away a single component from it, the entire construct would cease to function.
2) Such a construct could not have formed over time through evolution, for to do so it would have to develop without the parts it needs to function.
3) Therefore, evolution cannot account for various biological constructs in nature.
Kennith Miller, among many others, has pointed out a serious and fatal flaw to this argument. The argument assumes that such constructs can only have a single function. Miller uses Behe's favorite example, the mouse trap, to demonstrate his point. Behe points out that a mouse trap cannot preform its intended function without all of its parts. However, Miller points out that mouse traps can be used for many other things, such as tie clips, or key chains without all of the desired parts.
Here is a video of Kennith further explaining this refutation along with refutations of other I.D. arguments; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
1) There are, in nature, certain biological constructs such that if one took away a single component from it, the entire construct would cease to function.
2) Such a construct could not have formed over time through evolution, for to do so it would have to develop without the parts it needs to function.
3) Therefore, evolution cannot account for various biological constructs in nature.
Kennith Miller, among many others, has pointed out a serious and fatal flaw to this argument. The argument assumes that such constructs can only have a single function. Miller uses Behe's favorite example, the mouse trap, to demonstrate his point. Behe points out that a mouse trap cannot preform its intended function without all of its parts. However, Miller points out that mouse traps can be used for many other things, such as tie clips, or key chains without all of the desired parts.
Here is a video of Kennith further explaining this refutation along with refutations of other I.D. arguments; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
Monday, May 21, 2012
I know Paul Washer has some pretty extreme views on some Christian doctrines, but I think he has a point in this video; http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RzToNo7A-94#!
A central question arises in this video, are we good? We like to think we are. We view goodness as being only good most of the time. If we fulfill that requirement, then we are good. But on the Christian view, to be truly good (and I'm equating good with righteous) is to be perfect. But to be perfect means to have no imperfection. I think we all have to admit that we are full of imperfection. And so on the Christian view, we are not good. Thus I fail to see how God does not have the right to punish us, if He is truly just, He must punish us. Unless as Paul points out, He dies in our place. So on top of God being well within His rights to judge us, He expressed love and selflessness towards us. This is the main reason why I am skeptical of the atheist claim that God is a moral monster.
A central question arises in this video, are we good? We like to think we are. We view goodness as being only good most of the time. If we fulfill that requirement, then we are good. But on the Christian view, to be truly good (and I'm equating good with righteous) is to be perfect. But to be perfect means to have no imperfection. I think we all have to admit that we are full of imperfection. And so on the Christian view, we are not good. Thus I fail to see how God does not have the right to punish us, if He is truly just, He must punish us. Unless as Paul points out, He dies in our place. So on top of God being well within His rights to judge us, He expressed love and selflessness towards us. This is the main reason why I am skeptical of the atheist claim that God is a moral monster.
Friday, May 18, 2012
Does absence of evidence equal evidence of absence? I hear atheists spout this claim ad nauseam, and I'd like to post a hopefully helpful explanation to why such a claim doesn't logically follow.
Imagine there exists a planet around a distant star but we have no evidence it exists, no one has observed it, but no one has checked the star to see if a planet is orbiting it. In this case, we have no evidence that such a planet exists, but is such a planet improbable? Not at all, given the lack of information we have about the star we are forced to make the neutral claim that the probability of a planet orbiting that star is 50%. But, if we analyze the star and find no evidence such as the star shifting position due to the gravitational pull of the planet, then we can say it is improbable that such a planet exists. Why? Because there was no evidence, where there should have been. This is an elementary point in logic, that no logician or philosopher denies, so why so many atheists can't seem to understand it is beyond me.
Imagine there exists a planet around a distant star but we have no evidence it exists, no one has observed it, but no one has checked the star to see if a planet is orbiting it. In this case, we have no evidence that such a planet exists, but is such a planet improbable? Not at all, given the lack of information we have about the star we are forced to make the neutral claim that the probability of a planet orbiting that star is 50%. But, if we analyze the star and find no evidence such as the star shifting position due to the gravitational pull of the planet, then we can say it is improbable that such a planet exists. Why? Because there was no evidence, where there should have been. This is an elementary point in logic, that no logician or philosopher denies, so why so many atheists can't seem to understand it is beyond me.
Sunday, May 13, 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diBYdQFEAW8&feature=plcp
This video illustrates a mentality which is within almost every single atheist out there. God has committed atrocities against mankind. He has allowed us to suffer, He has allowed us to die horrible deaths. He has allowed famine, plagues, earth quakes and floods to destroy entire cities and people groups. How can such a being be just, compassionate, loving? The problem with this mentality is that it is taking a secular ethical code and placing it into a Christian world-view. What do I mean by this? Well our ethical views are largely affected by the rest of our world-view. If you believe that there is no afterlife for example, you will probably view death as more horrendous then someone who does believe in an afterlife. But this impact goes even deeper, secular ethics generally leans towards the principle of whatever does harm to a person is wrong, and whatever helps a person, is right. In a Christian world-view this principle is generally true. However, there is a different focus as to what constitutes harm to a person, and what constitutes helping a person. In Christianity, unlike secularism, the focus of ethics is on the afterlife, not this life. This means that suffering that occurs in this life is not necessarily a bad thing, especially if it leads to us accepting Christ and spending eternity without pain or suffering or evil.
From a Christian perspective I do not view suffering or pain as evil, I only view them as evil in certain contexts. A family killed by a tornado, for example, I don't view as evil. I distinguish between evil and bad, such an event would be bad in the sense that it would be unfortunate, but there was no malicious intent in the tornado to kill people, natural forces have no intent. You might say God had the intention of allowing the tornado to kill those people, but God is in a unique position. He knows all, and is in control of all, and as such, God has the right to choose who lives and who dies. This might be a difficult concept to grasp. but consider this God knows everything about you, He knows you better than you do. So He knows who is naughty and who is nice, so to speak. Thus He knows better than all of us who deserves punishment and who does not. But even more so, death in the Christian world-view is not always punishment, in many cases it is simply time for those people to go to heaven.
This is just one piece in the puzzle. There are many other factors to consider which give us a clearer picture as to why God allows suffering and evil to occur. Much like knowing the context of a particular action shapes the morality or immorality of it. For example; say a man is cutting a mans arm off with a dull saw. Given this data, the act is clearly immoral, but add the new data that the man is a soldier trying to save another soldiers life by getting rid of his mangled arm that is causing him to bleed to death. With this data the act is no longer immoral but quite noble and good. It is the same way with God, if we are not fair in looking at all the factors at play in many of God's actions, it is unfair of us to say that God is wicked or evil.
Another topic brought up in this video was this; God sends people to hell for refusing to believe in Him. This like the previous issue is a result of a straw man of the Christian position. In the secular world-view, most people are righteous. Righteousness is attained by doing the right thing as much as possible. In Christianity this is not the case. Righteousness is perfection in Christianity. Any evil deed or selfish act makes a person effectually deserving of eternal punishment. On Christianity we have all committed many selfish actions, so we are all deserving of hell. Given this data, it makes no sense to say that God sends people to hell because they don't believe in Him, He sends them to hell, because they, we are wicked people. The only way that we can escape such judgement is to have faith in Christ, to accept His gift of eternal life. Those who don't choose such life are choosing punishment.
This video illustrates a mentality which is within almost every single atheist out there. God has committed atrocities against mankind. He has allowed us to suffer, He has allowed us to die horrible deaths. He has allowed famine, plagues, earth quakes and floods to destroy entire cities and people groups. How can such a being be just, compassionate, loving? The problem with this mentality is that it is taking a secular ethical code and placing it into a Christian world-view. What do I mean by this? Well our ethical views are largely affected by the rest of our world-view. If you believe that there is no afterlife for example, you will probably view death as more horrendous then someone who does believe in an afterlife. But this impact goes even deeper, secular ethics generally leans towards the principle of whatever does harm to a person is wrong, and whatever helps a person, is right. In a Christian world-view this principle is generally true. However, there is a different focus as to what constitutes harm to a person, and what constitutes helping a person. In Christianity, unlike secularism, the focus of ethics is on the afterlife, not this life. This means that suffering that occurs in this life is not necessarily a bad thing, especially if it leads to us accepting Christ and spending eternity without pain or suffering or evil.
From a Christian perspective I do not view suffering or pain as evil, I only view them as evil in certain contexts. A family killed by a tornado, for example, I don't view as evil. I distinguish between evil and bad, such an event would be bad in the sense that it would be unfortunate, but there was no malicious intent in the tornado to kill people, natural forces have no intent. You might say God had the intention of allowing the tornado to kill those people, but God is in a unique position. He knows all, and is in control of all, and as such, God has the right to choose who lives and who dies. This might be a difficult concept to grasp. but consider this God knows everything about you, He knows you better than you do. So He knows who is naughty and who is nice, so to speak. Thus He knows better than all of us who deserves punishment and who does not. But even more so, death in the Christian world-view is not always punishment, in many cases it is simply time for those people to go to heaven.
This is just one piece in the puzzle. There are many other factors to consider which give us a clearer picture as to why God allows suffering and evil to occur. Much like knowing the context of a particular action shapes the morality or immorality of it. For example; say a man is cutting a mans arm off with a dull saw. Given this data, the act is clearly immoral, but add the new data that the man is a soldier trying to save another soldiers life by getting rid of his mangled arm that is causing him to bleed to death. With this data the act is no longer immoral but quite noble and good. It is the same way with God, if we are not fair in looking at all the factors at play in many of God's actions, it is unfair of us to say that God is wicked or evil.
Another topic brought up in this video was this; God sends people to hell for refusing to believe in Him. This like the previous issue is a result of a straw man of the Christian position. In the secular world-view, most people are righteous. Righteousness is attained by doing the right thing as much as possible. In Christianity this is not the case. Righteousness is perfection in Christianity. Any evil deed or selfish act makes a person effectually deserving of eternal punishment. On Christianity we have all committed many selfish actions, so we are all deserving of hell. Given this data, it makes no sense to say that God sends people to hell because they don't believe in Him, He sends them to hell, because they, we are wicked people. The only way that we can escape such judgement is to have faith in Christ, to accept His gift of eternal life. Those who don't choose such life are choosing punishment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)