On Creationism

An article from 2012 on CARM is the starting point here. " Looking at Whitney Houston’s death through atheist eyes " https://carm.org/looking-at-whitney-houstons-death-through-atheist-eyes It wasn’t Wax’s argument that gave me pause but rather one of the comments made by one of the hatetheist trolls that consistently man the comment boards of Christian Post. Predictably, the hatetheist mocked anyone who would dare to believe in a personal evil such as Satan, but he went on to say that the death of Houston was “tragic.” You just know an article is going to be intellectual when the author uses terms like "hatetheist trolls"... If someone wants to define Whitney Houston’s death as “tragic,” then he is going to need a couple of things. First, he’ll need to show that she possessed some innate worth that was marred by the lifestyle that eventually took her life. Whitney Huston possessed innate worth because she was a person. It is as simple as that. Compare to the Christi...

With the CARM forum down for three weeks now, I am obliged to read the articles on the site. One that caught my eye is; " Atheists err when asking for material evidence to prove God’s existence ". https://carm.org/atheists-err-when-asking-for-material-evidence-to-prove-gods-existence He says: First of all, the scientific method is a system of learning that consists of observation, hypothesis, experimentation, prediction, and theory.  It is based on logic and observations of the material universe and its properties. Second, the scientific method, along with a materialistic worldview, necessarily excludes transcendence – that which exists independent of the universe.  Therefore, it can’t detect what is outside of the material realm since it is based on observing things inside the material realm. Third, the Christian worldview proclaims a transcendent God who exists outside of, and independent of, the material universe.  In other words, the Christian God is not dependent upo...

This is a response to an article of the same name by Matt Slick at CARM. https://carm.org/is-christianity-or-the-bible-misogynistic Wiki describes misogyny as: Misogyny (/mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls. It is a form of sexism that can keep women at a lower social status than men, thus maintaining the social roles of patriarchy. Misogyny has been widely practised for thousands of years. It is reflected in art, literature, human societal structure, historical events, mythology, philosophy, and religion worldwide. But Slick has an agendas, so he uses his own definition. Misogyny is a hatred of and distrust of women. In Slick's world having contempt for all women is not misogymy. Being prejudiced against girls and women is not misogyny. Keeping women at a lower social status is not misogyny. Why is that? Well, I would suggest that as a Christian he has been raised to believe that women really are less than men, and that it is therefore perf...

This is a response to an article by Matt Slick on CARM that seeks to answer the question: " Why would God increase the pain of childbirth because of Eve’s disobedience to Him? " https://carm.org/god-multiplies-the-pain-of-women-in-child-bearing The answer lies in two things. First, we must understand that Eve was the means God commanded to fill the earth with people.  ... Second, Adam was her “head.” What? So Slick is saying God made childbirth painful - and outright dangerous - for women because Eve was commanded to fill the world with people and because Adam was in charge of her! In what way does that explain God's choice here? Both of those are readily achievable without childbirth being painful and dangerous. Indeed the first would be more readily accomplished if it was not! I suppose we need to get into the details here. God commanded to fill the earth with people First, we must understand that Eve was the means God commanded to fill the earth with people. Her union ...

The Shroud of Turin is a length of linen cloth that bears a faint image of the front and back of a naked man. Supposedly this is the shroud that was used to wrap Jesus in. From Wiki: The documented history of the shroud dates back to 1354, when it began to be exhibited in the new collegiate church of Lirey, a village in north-central France.Whether the memo was actually sent to the Pope or not, it seems that at least its salient information, that the Shroud was being displayed as genuine when it wasn’t, was known by the beginning of 1390, when Pope Clement issued his very restrictive bull. Ulysse Chevalier dated it at the end of 1389, although Jack Markwardt suggests early August, on the grounds that although it mentions an appeal to the King to get the relic suppressed, it does not mention that the Bailly of Troyes, acting on behalf of the King, had failed to get hold of it on 15 August.  The shroud was denounced as a forgery by the bishop of Troyes, Pierre d’Arcis, in 1389. ... The m...

 This is a follow up to my last post , regarding the article: Loke, Andrew. ‘ The resurrection of the Son of God: a reduction of the naturalistic alternatives .’ Journal of Theological Studies, 60 (2009): 570-584. Last time I looked at how he tries to divide up the possible explanations for the resurrection. Now it is the empty tomb we focus on. My view is the empty tomb was made up later - after Paul was writing, given 1 Cor 15. Mark made up the women witnessing tomb, and had them tell no one specifically because they really did tell no one - they told no one because there was no empty tomb. I am going to skip some of his alternatives; I do not find them likely either. (7) Either (7.1), (7.2), or (7.3) is true:  (7.1) There was no crucifixion of Jesus in mid-first- century Palestine, in which case either 7.1.1. or 7.1.2. is true. ...  (7.2) Jesus was crucified in mid-first-century Palestine and he was not buried (Unburied Hypothesis; a possible scenario for this hypothesis i...