This Toronto Star article gives a little background on the research done by Mark Crispin Miller, who originally set out to build a collection of all the stupid things (current White House) Resident Dubya has said over the years. What Crispin found makes a lot of sense.
Monthly Archive for November, 2002
The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (also known as TAG), is quite complicated. It is typically used as an attack on atheism, stating that atheists who use logic and science as a means for disproving God’s existence, are actually proving his existence, because their methods of reasoning are, themselves, dependent upon God’s existence.
Continue reading ‘The Transcendental Argument’
Pascal was a 17th century mathematician with an interesting approach to the problem. His argument is not so much a proof for the existence of God, as it is a presentation of why one should believe.
Continue reading ‘Pascal’s Wager’
The Argument from Design, also called the ‘Teleological Argument’, concludes basically that the universe and nature is far too complex to have happened by mere chance, as ’scientists’ or ‘evolutionists’ would claim. Those who argue from this perspective sometimes compare the explosion of a typewriter factory yeilding the entire works of the Library of Congress to scientists ‘by chance’ theory. The conclusion they reach is that, due to its complexity, like a book needs an author, the universe must have an intelligent creator; namely God.
Continue reading ‘The Argument from Design’
The word ‘ontological’ comes from ‘ontology’, which is the branch of metaphysics that deals with being; what it means to exist or not to exist. Ontological arguments for the existence of God conclude that God exists by logic and reason alone, and that no physical evidence is required. There are several flavors of the Ontological Argument. The most famous is that proposed by St. Anselm in his Proslogion. It is classified as a ‘conceptual’ ontological argument. It basically looks like this.
Continue reading ‘The Ontological Argument’
As discussed in Part 1, most scholars and philosophers agree that the burden of proof lies with the believer. For example, take the concept of a flying horse. Regardless of whether or not they exist, it is up to those who believe they do to prove their existence to the non-believers and not vice-versa. Being unjustified in holding a belief is justification for holding the negation of that belief. One can claim that he has never seen a flying horse, and therefore has no justification for believing they exist. Hence he is justified in believing they do not exist. In the same fashion, non-believers who do not feel justified in believing in the existence of God, are therefore justified in their belief in his non-existence.
Continue reading ‘In Search of God: Part 2′
The most basic tenet of Christianity, and all of the world\’s major religions throughout time for that matter, is the undeniable existence of a god or gods. Without this important premise, these religions would likely find their collection plates quite empty. Though many Christians feel they have good reason to believe in God, many (dare I say \’most\’) claim they know that God exists. Some even say they can prove it.
Continue reading ‘In Search of God: Part I’
Another classic I ran across and couldn’t help but post. View, then chuckle, then go back to work.
Continue reading ‘Bang her, then leave her’
A long time ago in a galaxy not so far away…
I haven’t seen anything this funny in quite some time. Open the article to view the movie poster.
Continue reading ‘Gulf Wars: Episode II’
It’s done. After he made the first 2 snips, cutting off the majority of the length in the back I asked, "It’s officially too late to change my mind now, isn’t it?"
So here we are, before and after. The first was taken earlier this afternoon… the other just a few minutes ago.
<table border=0 cellspacing=1 cellpadding=0 width="100%">
Recent Comments