It’s a long standing argument: can theism be justified within scientific thinking? There have been attempts to bypass the argument, by calling the two concepts “non-overlapping magisteria”: the claim that the two concepts simply answer different questions and therefore are never justified by each other and never in conflict (Gould, 2011). However, that is not… Continue reading Are theism and science incompatible?
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’?
There’s a way of thinking called abductive reasoning, commonly referred to as “the inference to the best explanation”. Sherlock Holmes famously uses it, and his use is fallacious. There are many structures of argument that would fall under abductive reasoning, which this post will look at, briefly, focussing on their errors. It will then focus… Continue reading Sherlock Holmes, ‘inference to the best explanation’, false dichotomies and God
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?
This is part 2 of looking at how a blogger, Michael Egnor, has assessed the mental competence of the Caltech physicist, Sean Carroll. Last time we assessed the claim that Carroll’s ideas on Boltzman brains make him illogical. This time, we are looking at whether finding a multiverse more believable than a God makes Carroll… Continue reading Many Worlds or a Straight Jacket? The pseudointellectual tantrum of Evolution News
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?