Scientific Determinism...The Ultimate Self Defeating Assertion

Read more!

Leibniz & Contingency...Absolutely FANTASTIC If The Goal Is TRUTH!

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (7/1/1646 ~ 11/14/1716) known as the last "universal genius", made deep and important contributions to the fields of metaphysics, epistemology, logic, philosophy of religion, as well as mathematics, physics, geology, jurisprudence, and history. This man was no lightweight and his most feared atheist debaters recognized it nearly without exclusion. What can we learn from him now? Take a listen:

Read more!

In The Matrix With Stephen Hawking

The one thing that we are sure of is if people want to make up excuses to not believe in God, they will go to the limits of craziness and strange assertions and "pretend" that they are being rational. One of the modern atheist "heroes" is no different. Here is a part of Frank Turek's examination of Stephen Hawking's book, "The Grand Design" and the philosophical metaphysical naturalist conclusions and presuppositions that he makes. 

If you liked that you may also like these articles I did on the philosophy of science and other modern novel speculations as it pertains to science.

Does Science Presuppose Atheism?

Is Evolution Science?

Unnaturally Selected, 150 Years Of Deception

Blessed!

Read more!

If Madonna Is Right...

>>>>> Say "HI" To Your Cousin <<<<<

On her 1984 album, Like A Virgin", Madonna introduced a song called "Material Girl" in which she claimed that she was simply a "material girl living in a material world". If her statements are true, there are many implications than can be drawn from it. Let's simply look at a few of them.

Rocks Do What Rocks Do

In the picture above, you see a rock. It is simply a rock. It is no more than a rock. It materially exists as a rock. It will always be a rock.

Rocks have no morals. Rocks have no values. You can call rocks good or evil, but they are nothing but rocks until you use them for a specific or certain purpose. Rocks have no value until someone, with a sense of values, ascribes values to them. In fact rocks have no thoughts nor do they have a mind. Rocks don't kill people, people kill people.

What makes one think that this rock or any rock will one day, over eons of time, and environmental pressure, develop DNA, gain consciousness, become self aware, gain a sense of values, start to think, develop a moral "ought" and ultimately make moral decisions, (settle down and have other, "little rocks") and further formulate opinions regarding abstract concepts such as logic, math and science?

Read more!

Does Science Presuppose Atheism?

"I toyed with atheism from the age of about nine, originally because I worked out that, of all the hundreds of religions in the world, it was the sheerest accident that I was brought up Christian. They couldn’t all be right, so maybe none of them was. I later reverted to a kind of pantheism when I realised the shattering complexity and beauty of the living world. Then, around the age of 16, I first understood that Darwinism provides an explanation big enough and elegant enough to replace gods. I have been an atheist ever since." [Richard Dawkins You Ask The Questions Independent February 20 2003]

The Problem

As mentioned in the post The Rottweiler Who Lost His Teeth & His Mind, and later questioned in Is Evolution Science? It seems that modern scientific theory comes with an automatic presuppositional bias against theism in general. This bias is constructed on the chassis of methodological naturalism, which primarily deals with how one gains "trustworthy" knowledge or information from the natural or material world in which we live. This is called epistemology.

Usually, along with the proposition of methodological naturalism, comes a stance know as Metaphysical Naturalism, which focuses on what actually exists within the natural world and makes bold statements of what doesn't exist within the natural world. This is called ontology. Both of these constructs usually lend themselves to anti-super-naturalism, which is the belief that there is no outside intervention in the present day world from any source and specifically the source called God. I've discussed that topic and the flaws of that sort of reasoning in depth HERE. The backbone of all of this sort of thinking is atheism (the denial of the existence of God).

Read more!

Is Evolution Science?

I: Evolution ~ Philosophical Metaphysical Naturalism

"May not a future generation well ask how any scientist, in full possession of his intellectual faculties and with adequate knowledge of information theory could ever execute the feat of cognitive acrobatics necessary to sincerely believe that a (supremely complex) machine system of information, storage and retrieval, servicing millions of cells, diagnosing defects and them repairing them in a teleonomic Von Newman machine manner, arose in randomness-the antipole of information"~Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith (Triple Doctorate) Huxley Memorial Lecture at the Oxford Union, Oxford University 2/14/1986

Dover, PA. 2005 Definition Of Science:

In the case where Intelligent Design (ID) was being taught in Public schools as science, the court held that the school board violated the establishment clause and that ID was no  more than  creationism repackaged. The court also held to the  validity of science according to the standards of the National Academy of Science's definition and said the following:

"As the National Academy of Sciences (hereinafter "NAS") was recognized by experts for both parties as the "most prestigious" scientific association in this country, we will accordingly cite to its opinion where appropriate. (1:94, 160-61 (Miller); 14:72 (Alters); 37:31 (Minnich)). NAS is in agreement that science is limited to empirical, observable and ultimately testable data: "Science is a particular way of knowing about the world. In science, explanations are restricted to those that can be inferred from the confirmable data – the results obtained through observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation. Explanations that cannot be based upon empirical evidence are not part of science." ( P-649 at 27)."

Read more!