Friday, May 23, 2008
Milkshake
So tonight I was making a banana/chocolate/peanut butter milkshake and literally when I was about to turn on the blender I felt a stomach ache coming. It was like in Dumb and Dumber when all the sudden Harry got a knee-jerk reaction when the doo-doo fell to a new low. So I was standing there ready to turn on the blender realizing that if I ate this awesome milkshake I would have to become friends with the John. What did I do? I ate the doggone thing. I had to take a couple very productive trips to the pot, but I'm happy with my decision. It was a great milkshake.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
"The Case for a Creator"
I'm watching this sermon/speech from iTunes and it's made me realize how I hate people being convinced by bad arguments. I don't want people to come to Christianity because of bad arguments - I'd rather meet a thinking atheist than an unaware dumb Christian.
Some bad arguments here are: 1) if Darwinism is true there is no love/beauty, 2) no purpose, and 3) no truth.
1) Love and beauty are defined so broadly that they would still exist but perhaps their definition must be tweeked. I think very few people's definition of love and beauty would be affected.
2) We don't reject beliefs because of their implications. This is actually a good argument against non-evolutionists: "they cannot argue against the facts but reject the idea because they don't like the ramifications."
3) I don't even understand the argument - why would there be no truth? Why is only relative truth left?
Another suggestions non-evolutionists propogate is to say that there is no accountability because we are only machines/bunches of chemicals. This may be true for simpler machines but we have evolved with self-realization (well, my roommates haven't, but still). We have volition and these machines can choose so there is accountability. Darwinism doesn't negate free will.
Some bad arguments here are: 1) if Darwinism is true there is no love/beauty, 2) no purpose, and 3) no truth.
1) Love and beauty are defined so broadly that they would still exist but perhaps their definition must be tweeked. I think very few people's definition of love and beauty would be affected.
2) We don't reject beliefs because of their implications. This is actually a good argument against non-evolutionists: "they cannot argue against the facts but reject the idea because they don't like the ramifications."
3) I don't even understand the argument - why would there be no truth? Why is only relative truth left?
Another suggestions non-evolutionists propogate is to say that there is no accountability because we are only machines/bunches of chemicals. This may be true for simpler machines but we have evolved with self-realization (well, my roommates haven't, but still). We have volition and these machines can choose so there is accountability. Darwinism doesn't negate free will.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Beginnings
So I've started this thing and instead of giving updates of my life, which is boring, I am planning on writing on my thoughts on various things. Like most people I go through fads of thinking about different ideas and since that's what I find interesting that's what I'll write about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)