On Creationism

The Problem of Evil is the issue that first turned me away from Christianity (I was never actually a Christian, but was raised in a Christian family). Some Christians try to turn it around, and suggest this is also a problem for atheism. One such is this at BeliefNet . Atheism really has nothing to say on some of the issues here, such as human worth, but humanism does, so some of this is from an atheist-humanist position (humanism was originally Christian, so not inherently atheist). Human Worth The first argument is that we believe people have worth: To begin with, there is the shattering offense of evil. It seems to me that the breathtaking revulsion we experience when seeing Jeff Bauman being wheeled through the streets of Boston, his legs blown to ribbons by the unspeakable actions of terrorists, signals something about the perceived worth of human beings. We recognize at that moment that this is an objectively evil act, one that has marred a valued and loved creature of God. In Ju

Evangelical Christians in the US are very strongly anti-abortion. However, it was not always so. As recently as 1970 the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) - the largest Protestant denomination in the US - advocated for legalising abortion. A Complete Reversal The landmark law case in the US was Roe v. Wade, in 1973, and abortion has been legal since that time. Jane Roe was the pseudonym of the woman wanting the abortion; Henry Wade the district attorney who stood for the state, prohibiting it. Roe was represented by two attorneys; one was Linda Coffee, a member of the SBC. The Baptist Press interviewed her after the successful conclusion of the trial. The decision of Roe v Wade was generally regarded as a good one by the SBC. To evangelicals of that time abortion was seen as a Catholic issue. You can find a list of abortion-related resolutions made by the SBC from 1971 onwards  here . It is clear that in 1971 they saw abortion - quite reasonably - as undesirable, but it was consi

This is Joe Hinman's other argument , so I might as well it address it too. in contrast to his transcendental signifier argument, this looks like it has gone through some revision. It is a refinement of an old argument. 1. Something exists. 2. Whatever exists does so either because it exists eternally or because it's existence is dependent upon some prior cause or set of circumstances. 3.If all things that exist are dependent for their existnece there is no actual explanation of causes 4. Therefore, there exists at least one  eternal thing 5. The  one eternal thing is the logical explanation for all causally dependent things 6.Any eternally existing cause of all things is worthy of the appellation "God." 7. Therefore God exists. The argument is flawed in two ways. The False Dichotomy The first issue is that 2 is a false dichotomy. For example, it may be that the universe appeared spontaneous. Joe objects to this because there is no precedence for things appea

ETA (23/Jun/20): I have just heard Joe is in hospital. I wish him a speedy recovery. All the best, Joe. This is an argument for God that Joe Hinman has presented several times on various of his sites: http://www.doxa.ws/Ontological/TS2.html https://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2020/05/transcendental-signifier-argument.html http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2011/06/transcendental-signifier-argument.html http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2018/01/premises-4-7-ts-argumet.html The argument is a seven step syllogism: 1. Any rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose organizing principles (Ops) 2. OP's summed up in TS 3. Modern Thought rejects TS outright or takes out all aspects of mind. 4. Therefore, Modern thought fails to provide a rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe. 5. minds organize and communicate meaning 6. Therefore universal mind, offers the best understanding of TS 7. Concept of God unites TS with universal m