CADRE Comments

Good Reasons For The Resurrection http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2018/05/good-reasons-for-resurrection.html link Over on the Secular Outpost Blog Jason Thibodeau introduces an argumemt against the resurrection: (1)  God is completely rational, thus (2)  Any action that God performs is undertaken on the basis of some good reason. (3) There is no good reason for God to resurrect Jesus from the dead. therefore (4)  God did not resurrect Jesus from the dead . [1]   Thibodeau issues a challenge to produce a "good" reason why God would raise Jesus from the dead. The  problem is with no criteria as to what is a "good" reason he just doesn't have to ever agree that there is a good one. It will be seen from the discussion that this is just what he's done. He doesn't actually ever deal with real reasons believers give for the resurrection.

This is an exchange from the comment section from this blog,it is not a personal attack   against the commemorate. I post  because think it illustrates important points about how to deal with science in apologetics. Also I am sire the discussion will continue and all readers are urged to join. Joe: that's like saying "you keep criticizing capitalism but you have to use economics to do it." Skep: - No, Joe. It's actually more like saying "you keep criticizing capitalism, but you take advantage of the capitalist system whenever you find it economically worthwhile." This statement does not imply that capitalism is the only economic system. But it does point out a blatant hypocrisy. Joe: there is no hypocrisy in being critical of science and using scientific thinking. The porpoise of criticism is to make science better. The use of science is limited to those areas where it applies. I don't use science to tell me about God because God is

We've almost all taken antibiotics at some time or another; this past week I took a few to take care of a pesky cut on my foot that required it. Which segues into another of the reasons "Terra Firma" gives for why the Bible is not inspired: he thinks if it was, it would have told us about things like quantum physics and antibiotics. As he puts it:   “ Thou shalt boil thy water lest the invisible creatures therein bring sickness upon your body .” Invisible creatures living in the water and making people sick? This would have sounded very odd to people in ancient times. But you know what? Not only would it impress modern day readers, it would have saved millions of lives. Why oh why didn’t Jesus warn people about germs? Apart from the egocentric self- privilege this awards modern people, it's also shortsighted, as I demonstrated in this video from 2011:   Yes, if God had told us how to create antibiotics, "Terra Firma" would today be complaining ab

Herbert Marcuse   (1898-1979)  warned of rise of one-dimensional  man The dangers of scientism and the loss of humanity have been lurking over modernity for a long time. These things go way back to the nineteenth century. What we see emerging today as the perils brought on by scientism is just the modern outcome of trends that were engaged by Albert Schweitzer as early as 1900. Schweitzer is all but forgotten today. He’s mainly remembered as a great humanitarian who went to Africa to nurse the poor. In the early part of the twentieth century and up to the 1960s he was given huge respect one of the most profoundly brilliant and great men of human history. Schweitzer had four brilliant careers going at the same time. He was a theologian, philosopher, Bible Scholar and concert musician. In addition to all that he built organs. After having achieved greatness with his book  Quest of the Historical Jesus [12]  he went to medical school and became a doctor. Then he went to Africa