There is a claim that forms an integral part of the Teleological Argument for the existence of God, an argument that claims the universe has clear signs of purpose. This claim is that a life-permitting universe is so unbelievably unlikely that no thinking person should be able to say it happened due to chance. The… Continue reading What are the odds against a Life Permitting Universe
Introduction There is an argument for the existence of God called ‘The Modal Ontological Argument for the existence of God’ (MOAG). A major part of MOAG is the idea that something is ‘possible’. The “something” is a ‘maximally great being’, or something similar depending on which version you read. The vagueness of the “something” ―… Continue reading No way!? Is that ‘Possible’?
The Euthyphro Dilemma is a Theology 101 problem, without a satisfactory answer. Posed in Plato’s dialogues, it is often formulated like this: “Does God command something is good because it is good, or is it good because God commands it”. Plato was writing from a polytheistic culture, so this is a variation (and translation) on… Continue reading Is it good because it is God’s nature? or is it God’s nature because it is good?
My Shadow to Light Watch series is beginning to bore even me. But Michael, the author at Shadow to Light never ceases to amaze and infuriate with his Trump-esque spout-nonsense-with-confidence-then-divert approach to “persuasion”. Today (or, about a month ago ― because scheduling weekly posts has its drawbacks) Michael put something new under the chopping block… Continue reading “Goldilocks” is not evidence
There is an argument for God called the ‘Ontological argument’ and it received an ambivalent welcome whenever it is trotted out, which seems increasingly rarely. It isn’t at all compelling, and yet that appears to be irrational because it’s rare to see someone actually attack the premises or the structure. However, that, today, is what… Continue reading The Ontological Argument for God – and why it’s nonsense
Watching a debate between Matt Dillahunty and Mike Licona on whether Jesus was raised from the dead was a weird experience. Licona’s approach relied heavily on the supernatural is real therefore literally anything could have happened. And his defence for the supernatural also helped a lot in defining the supernatural. And it is to that… Continue reading Is there a supernatural realm?
In February, I read the case of the ‘Inexplicable Omelette’, in which the author played off a difficult question: how can you tell whether something has come into its current form ― been constructed or altered ― with intent? His argument was that some things are too complex to consider unintended, and even an omelette… Continue reading How do you identify intent?
A good philosophy has considerable reach. By this, I mean that a certain philosophy may have been expressed in some esoteric and academic area, but it can be applied in other specific disciplines as well as in broader contexts. Notice, this is more than just saying ‘a good philosophy is always true’. Instead, this is… Continue reading Another take on Freewill
I believe faith and evidence based reasoning are in opposition to each other. Science is the self-cleaning machine that tries to know as many true things as possible, where religion is the machine that cannot clean itself and is no different to how it was at conception. There is a religious response which asks why… Continue reading Do you believe that science and religion are in opposition of each other?
Obviously, our solar system is not arrow shaped: if it has a shape, it’s a slightly oval disc. It literally does not point to anything. But, is there something remarkably unique about our solar system that would lead a sufficiently curious and rational mind to believe it counts as evidence in favour of the existence… Continue reading Does our solar system point to God?