It always is fascinating to me when people will try to refute a theistic claim and then turn around and make a claim based on the very logic they are trying to use to refute the other’s claim. An example of this came up during a recent debate with Dr. William Lane Craig and Dr. Lawrence Krauss. The topic of the debate was “Is there Evidence for God?”
The truth has an interesting characteristic about it. If something is true, you can generally work the idea backward or forward and it just works. Let’s take a simple math problem, for example. If you add together 2 + 3, you get 5. Now, if you work it backwards and start at 5 and subtract 3, you end up back at 2. Most math teachers will tell their students that this is a good way to verify that they have answered a math problem correctly.
There are many arguments for the existence of God. Many of the best philosophers in the marketplace today will use various cosmological arguments, teleological arguments (arguments from design) and moral arguments among others. A common tactic from non-believers is to post some alternative explanation and claim that this eliminates the necessity of belief in God.
I thought this would be a good time to go back into the recesses of history and bring up a topic that was taught in my church quite a number of years ago, now. That is, as the title of this post suggests, guilt and shame.
Once again, another court case is on the books regarding separation of church and state. This time due to high-school officials taking down a copy of the Ten Commandments from a student’s locker. Fortunately, this was reversed and the student is now allowed to post the Commandments on his locker again.
Many people who fall away from the Church have a number of reasons for doing so. While a number of the more outspoken of them tend to claim that they left the Church due to intellectual reasons. However, it seems that when one hears their “un-testimony” it becomes clear that they are more likely emotional reasons.
It is no secret that rhetoric can be very powerful when used the right way. It can be a very effective tool to persuade people to your point of view without ever offering any sort of argument or evidence to back them up.
It seems to be taking me an obscenely long time to read through Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion. One reason for this is the fact that shortly after starting the book, I began to realize how utterly ridiculous Dawkins’ arguments were against theism. They were riddled with double-standards and self-refuting ideas.
It seems that the more I read or listen to many of the common arguments from non-believers, there is a very narrow range of types of objections to Christianity or any sort of theism. One such argument has to do with the level of skepticism they have regarding any claims of a divine being. What I have found, however, is that this argument tends to be every bit as inconsistent as many others.
Recently, I read a news article about the now famous (or infamous) abortion doctor, Kermit Gosnell who was recently charged with eight counts of murder for abortions he performed. The story is not for the faint of heart, so if you’re going to read the entire article, please be prepared.