Podcast Retired/Blog in Semi-retirement

Posted by:

As much as I told myself that by talking off the top of my head without any prep and piggybacking on other people’s material, that I would be able to record the podcast consistently, I recorded the 25 episodes in just 2 sessions during a 3 year period and have not recorded anything since. Moreover, this off-the-cuff approach just wasn’t producing the kind a quality I am comfortable with. So I decided to delete it altogether.

The blog itself is also ...

Continue Reading →
0

Theist-Atheist Debate

Posted by:

Loved the atheist in this debate. The first part of his presentation very well articulates what I’ve been trying to say about the shift in 21st century atheism and why 20th century apologetics is no longer adequate. (Can’t stand WL Craig or his arguments) Wish I were articulate enough to debate this atheist in his stead as I feel an understanding of 21st century atheism and it’s respective apologetics is my life work in the theism-atheism realm.

http://youtu.be/8KMd_eS2J7o

Continue Reading →
0

Manual For Debating Atheists

Posted by:

coverNew Introduction

As this material has been out for a while and has received significant amount of feedback I decided to write a new introduction that will hopefully better set the stage for the rest of the book. —

In science there are many topics that are under debate. One group of scientists holds to one view and another group has a different opinion. And, ...

Continue Reading →
0

Irreducible Complexity

Posted by:

Irreducible Complexity is a term that was coined by the microbiologist Michael Behe in the early ’90s intended as an argument against Evolution. It has since received a lot of criticism from the scientific community, some justified and some not so much. I sometimes find that the easiest way for me to articulate my opinion on a topic is to do it as a response to someone who does a good job articulating the opposing point of view.

This is the ...

Continue Reading →
20

A Response to M. Boudry on Methodological Naturalism

Posted by:

The following essay is a commentary on an article by Maarten Boudry called “How not to attack Intelligent Design Creationism: Philosophical misconceptions about Methodological Naturalism” and, in a secondary sense, on an article by Barbara Forrest called “Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection” which is one of the main articles Boudry is responding to.

Abstract

There appear to be two main camps regarding the proper role of Methodological Naturalism in science ...

Continue Reading →
0

For jonP

Posted by:

Since you have opened up so many topics it will take me a while to catch up. Did you read my post called “A Model of the Supernatural” and if so can you let me know your thoughts as I think it will be important for the free will conversation.

Continue Reading →
14

Response to miserlyoldman @134

Posted by:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/reasonabledoubts/2014/01/18/rd-extra-debate-is-belief-in-god-irrational-chris-hallquist-vs-randal-rauser/#comment-13538

I feel that I already addressed this. I made the point that some debates are not worth having so the fact that both parties agreed to the debate doesn’t make it any more worth having.

Also, take a look at the Wikipedia article on Omipotence. It describes some of the ways the omni-words have been defined. The two sides in the debate never explained which definition they were using.

Continue Reading →
2

Response to Lausten #132

Posted by:

 

http://freethoughtblogs.com/reasonabledoubts/2014/01/18/rd-extra-debate-is-belief-in-god-irrational-chris-hallquist-vs-randal-rauser/#comment-13538

Hey Lausten,

I am not sure I completely understand your question but it is not sensible to go thorugh life completely ignoring or outright rulling out any possitive claims that we don’t have evidence for, especially when it comes to things still out of our reach. You are right that the positive claim is the one that requires proof; but we must also aknowledge our limitations. Consider a reverse of this:

1) Abiogenesis is a positive claim
2) We don’t have evidence ...

Continue Reading →
30
Page 1 of 4 1234