I recently finished a manuscript I entitled "Refuting Atheism" and have
decided to share some pre-published information regarding atheism with
the general public.

Let me start with point-counterpoint regarding
what is normally know as the "moral argument." Richard Taylor, in a
debate with William Lane Craig, relates a common hypothesis for the
origin of the knowledge of moral obligations.

I surveyed the arguments for the existence or non-existence of the
"soul"
next and suggested there are philosophical and medical evidences for
such an entities existence and near-death experiences confirm such an
existence. Then, later in discussing the reasonableness of believing in
Jesus' resurrection, I tie these evidences together.

I then relate this to the moral argument because people who have NDEs
often relate a "judgment" occurring of them either from some divine or
semi-divine being or themselves. This suggests a sort of moral law that
is not merely dependent on our culture's whims but one that transcends
cultures - in essence, an absolutist one.

What I do conclude from the discussion of bias is that if you wanted to
craft a theory of how people would act if the Biblical creationist
theory about man's rebellion against god were true, you would find no
better examples of the theory being true then Dawkins and others.

Subject: a funny thing happened while researching atheism: I found
it's not true

I recently finished a manuscript I entitled "Refuting Atheism"

I recently finished a manuscript I entitled "Refuting Atheism" and have
decided to share some pre-published information regarding atheism with the
general public. Let me start with point-counterpoint regarding what is
normally know as the "moral argument." Richard Taylor, in a debate with
William Lane Craig, relates a common hypothesis for the origin of the
knowledge of moral obligations.


Is the basis for morality natural or supernatural? It is neither. The basis
for morality is conventional, which means the rules of morality were
fabricated by human beings over many generations.

Take, for instance, the debate over abortion. The pro-choice and pro-life
do not agree among themselves what is correct and then craft laws to
reflect that. They instead grapple with their own innate knowledge of the
moral law and then attempt to craft laws that agree with what is morally
correct. Of course both sides disagree, but that is more a reflection of
our inability to properly understand the moral law and the fact our moral
intuition can sometimes be damaged by our own personal biases (the desire
for sexual activity devoid of consequences, for instance).

Humanist evolutionist arguments for the non-existence of knowledge of the
"moral law" proves faulty on every turn. This evolutionist argument is so
poor that humanists themselves cannot remain consistent on this issue.

I then relate this to the moral argument because people who have NDEs often
relate a "judgment" occurring of them either from some divine or semi-divine
being or themselves. This suggests a sort of moral law that is not merely
dependent on our culture's whims but one that transcends cultures - in
essence, an absolutist one.

What I do conclude from the discussion of bias is that if you wanted to
craft a theory of how people would act if the Biblical creationist theory
about man's rebellion against god were true, you would find no better
examples of the theory being true then Dawkins and others.

I recently finished a manuscript I entitled "Refuting Atheism"

I recently finished a manuscript I entitled "Refuting Atheism" and have
decided to share some pre-published information regarding atheism with the
general public.

I recently finished a manuscript I entitled "Refuting Atheism" and have
decided to share some pre-published information regarding atheism with the
general public. Let me start with point-counterpoint regarding what is
normally know as the "moral argument." Richard Taylor, in a debate with
William Lane Craig, relates a common hypothesis for the origin of the
knowledge of moral obligations.





Is the basis for morality natural or supernatural? It is neither. The basis
for morality is conventional, which means the rules of morality were
fabricated by human beings over many generations. These rules are: to
abstain from injury, to abstain from lying, theft, assault, killing, and so
forth. These rules were not the invention of God. No one in this room
imagines that if there were not a God to tell us these things, we would not
know any better. [i]



Certainly this idea has strong appeal, but is horribly wrong when it comes
to how we ruminate on moral obligations and use them to create our laws.
Normally we discover, by .. What we are to do and then craft our laws to fit
those innate obligations. Take, for instance, the debate over abortion.
The pro-choice and pro-life do not agree among themselves what is correct
and then craft laws to reflect that. They instead grapple with their own
innate knowledge of the moral law and then attempt to craft laws that agree
with what is morally correct. Of course both sides disagree, but that is
more a reflection of our inability to properly understand the moral law and
the fact our moral intuition can sometimes be damaged by our own personal
biases (the desire for sexual activity devoid of consequences, for
instance). Humanist evolutionist arguments for the non-existence of
knowledge of the "moral law" proves faulty on every turn.

This evolutionist argument is so poor that humanists themselves cannot
remain consistent on this issue. Take, for instance, Paul Kurtz who
suggests out loud, in Forbidden Fruit, that it was immoral for Abraham to
kill Isaac and immoral for God to demand Abraham kill him. Clearly if Kurtz
had taken his own evolutionist advice, he would have suggested that the
immorality or morality of killing one's son would have depended on the
culture one was in at the time. Clearly we believe killing one's child is
immoral, but that is our culture and someone else may differ in beliefs from
us. Who are we to suppose, just because we think so, that others, even God,
are immoral for thinking different?

I surveyed the arguments for the existence or non-existence of the "soul"
next and suggested there are philosophical and medical evidences for such an
entities existence and near-death experiences confirm such an existence.
Then, later in discussing the reasonableness of believing in Jesus'
resurrection, I tie these evidences together.

" There is one last salient point I want to add to this debate which links
the sayings, life, and resurrection of Jesus with the tales of near-death
experiences previously cited. When Jesus communes with the father in an
occurrence often seen as a fulfillment of his promise that he could come in
power and majesty, he is seen as a being of light. Amazingly, this is
exactly how Jesus and other spiritual beings are seen in near-death
experiences; they are creatures that seemingly are made of nothing but
light. Jesus, in His resurrected body, is able to enter a room and leave
the room, disappearing almost magically, merely by desiring to do so.
Compare this with the experience of Thetus Tenney, and others whose
spiritual movement transcends spatial dimensions. There is no way for these
disciples to have known what information would come out of near-death
experiences. Yet, for all the primitiveness of the environment in which
these Jews lived, at least compared to modern ideas, they got the spiritual
nature of humans exactly right!"

I then relate this to the moral argument because people who have NDEs often
relate a "judgment" occurring of them either from some divine or semi-divine
being or themselves. This suggests a sort of moral law that is not merely
dependent on our culture's whims but one that transcends cultures - in
essence, an absolutist one.

I junction into an argument on the bias inherent in evolutionist philosophy
and quote from Richard Dawkins from a debate between him and Francis
Collins, and later quote from Robert Jastrow who expresses his naturalistic
sentiments in the video The Privileged Planet.



[Dawkins] What I am skeptical about is the idea that whatever wonderful
revelation does come in the science of the future, it will turn out to be
one of the particular historical religions that people happen to have
dreamed up. When we [he and Collins] started out and we were talking about
the origins of the universe and the physical constants, I provided what I
thought were cogent arguments against a supernatural intelligent designer.
But it does seem to me to be worthy idea. Refutable - but nevertheless
grand and big enough to be worthy of respect. I don't see the Olympian gods
or Jesus coming down and dying on the Cross as worthy of that grandeur.
They strike me as parochial. If there is a God, it's going to be a whole
lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any
theologian of any religion has ever proposed.



[Jastrow] Just as I can't believe there was a creator, I can't believe
this all happened by chance which implies there was a creator. You see, I'm
at a completely hopeless bind and I stay there. Again, I find it hard to
believe that this is all a matter of atoms and molecules and so I try to fit
into my concept of the world the conclusion that there is a larger force of
some kind which we can call "god" or you can call it whatever. But I can't
accept that. I'm what's called a materialist in philosophy. It means that
I believe the world consists entirely of material substances . . . that's
what my science tells me.



What I do conclude from the discussion of bias is that if you wanted to
craft a theory of how people would act if the Biblical creationist theory
about man's rebellion against god were true, you would find no better
examples of the theory being true then Dawkins and others.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--

[i] http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-taylor1.html

I recently finished a manuscript I entitled "Refuting Atheism" and have
decided to share some pre-published information regarding atheism with the
general public. Let me start with point-counterpoint regarding what is
normally know as the "moral argument." Richard Taylor, in a debate with
William Lane Craig, relates a common hypothesis for the origin of the
knowledge of moral obligations.

Is the basis for morality natural or supernatural? It is neither. The basis
for morality is conventional, which means the rules of morality were
fabricated by human beings over many generations. These rules are: to
abstain from injury, to abstain from lying, theft, assault, killing, and so
forth. These rules were not the invention of God. No one in this room
imagines that if there were not a God to tell us these things, we would not
know any better. [i]

Certainly this idea has strong appeal, but is horribly wrong when it comes
to how we ruminate on moral obligations and use them to create our laws.
Normally we discover, by .. What we are to do and then craft our laws to fit
those innate obligations. Take, for instance, the debate over abortion.
The pro-choice and pro-life do not agree among themselves what is correct
and then craft laws to reflect that. They instead grapple with their own
innate knowledge of the moral law and then attempt to craft laws that agree
with what is morally correct. Of course both sides disagree, but that is
more a reflection of our inability to properly understand the moral law and
the fact our moral intuition can sometimes be damaged by our own personal
biases (the desire for sexual activity devoid of consequences, for
instance). Humanist evolutionist arguments for the non-existence of
knowledge of the "moral law" proves faulty on every turn.

This evolutionist argument is so poor that humanists themselves cannot
remain consistent on this issue. Take, for instance, Paul Kurtz who
suggests out loud, in Forbidden Fruit, that it was immoral for Abraham to
kill Isaac and immoral for God to demand Abraham kill him. Clearly if Kurtz
had taken his own evolutionist advice, he would have suggested that the
immorality or morality of killing one's son would have depended on the
culture one was in at the time. Clearly we believe killing one's child is
immoral, but that is our culture and someone else may differ in beliefs from
us. Who are we to suppose, just because we think so, that others, even God,
are immoral for thinking different?

I surveyed the arguments for the existence or non-existence of the "soul"
next and suggested there are philosophical and medical evidences for such an
entities existence and near-death experiences confirm such an existence.
Then, later in discussing the reasonableness of believing in Jesus'
resurrection, I tie these evidences together.

" There is one last salient point I want to add to this debate which links
the sayings, life, and resurrection of Jesus with the tales of near-death
experiences previously cited. When Jesus communes with the father in an
occurrence often seen as a fulfillment of his promise that he could come in
power and majesty, he is seen as a being of light. Amazingly, this is
exactly how Jesus and other spiritual beings are seen in near-death
experiences; they are creatures that seemingly are made of nothing but
light. Jesus, in His resurrected body, is able to enter a room and leave
the room, disappearing almost magically, merely by desiring to do so.
Compare this with the experience of Thetus Tenney, and others whose
spiritual movement transcends spatial dimensions. There is no way for these
disciples to have known what information would come out of near-death
experiences. Yet, for all the primitiveness of the environment in which
these Jews lived, at least compared to modern ideas, they got the spiritual
nature of humans exactly right!"

I then relate this to the moral argument because people who have NDEs often
relate a "judgment" occurring of them either from some divine or semi-divine
being or themselves. This suggests a sort of moral law that is not merely
dependent on our culture's whims but one that transcends cultures - in
essence, an absolutist one.

I junction into an argument on the bias inherent in evolutionist philosophy
and quote from Richard Dawkins from a debate between him and Francis
Collins, and later quote from Robert Jastrow who expresses his naturalistic
sentiments in the video The Privileged Planet.

[Dawkins] What I am skeptical about is the idea that whatever wonderful
revelation does come in the science of the future, it will turn out to be
one of the particular historical religions that people happen to have
dreamed up. When we [he and Collins] started out and we were talking about
the origins of the universe and the physical constants, I provided what I
thought were cogent arguments against a supernatural intelligent designer.
But it does seem to me to be worthy idea. Refutable - but nevertheless
grand and big enough to be worthy of respect. I don't see the Olympian gods
or Jesus coming down and dying on the Cross as worthy of that grandeur.
They strike me as parochial. If there is a God, it's going to be a whole
lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any
theologian of any religion has ever proposed.

[Jastrow] Just as I can't believe there was a creator, I can't believe
this all happened by chance which implies there was a creator. You see, I'm
at a completely hopeless bind and I stay there. Again, I find it hard to
believe that this is all a matter of atoms and molecules and so I try to fit
into my concept of the world the conclusion that there is a larger force of
some kind which we can call "god" or you can call it whatever. But I can't
accept that. I'm what's called a materialist in philosophy. It means that
I believe the world consists entirely of material substances . . . that's
what my science tells me.

What I do conclude from the discussion of bias is that if you wanted to
craft a theory of how people would act if the Biblical creationist theory
about man's rebellion against god were true, you would find no better
examples of the theory being true then Dawkins and others.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[i] http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-taylor1.html

I recently finished a manuscript I entitled "Refuting Atheism"

I recently finished a manuscript I entitled "Refuting Atheism"

I recently finished a manuscript I entitled "Refuting Atheism" and have
decided to share some pre-published information regarding atheism with the
general public.

I recently finished a manuscript I entitled "Refuting Atheism" and have
decided to share some pre-published information regarding atheism with the
general public.

Let me start with point-counterpoint regarding what is
normally know as the "moral argument." Richard Taylor, in a debate with
William Lane Craig, relates a common hypothesis for the origin of the
knowledge of moral obligations.

I recently finished a manuscript I entitled "Refuting Atheism" and have
decided to share some pre-published information regarding atheism with the
general public. Let me start with point-counterpoint regarding what is
normally know as the "moral argument." Richard Taylor, in a debate with
William Lane Craig, relates a common hypothesis for the origin of the
knowledge of moral obligations.





Is the basis for morality natural or supernatural? It is neither. The basis
for morality is conventional, which means the rules of morality were
fabricated by human beings over many generations. These rules are: to
abstain from injury, to abstain from lying, theft, assault, killing, and so
forth. These rules were not the invention of God. No one in this room
imagines that if there were not a God to tell us these things, we would not
know any better. [i]



Certainly this idea has strong appeal, but is horribly wrong when it comes
to how we ruminate on moral obligations and use them to create our laws.
Normally we discover, by .. What we are to do and then craft our laws to fit
those innate obligations. Take, for instance, the debate over abortion.
The pro-choice and pro-life do not agree among themselves what is correct
and then craft laws to reflect that. They instead grapple with their own
innate knowledge of the moral law and then attempt to craft laws that agree
with what is morally correct. Of course both sides disagree, but that is
more a reflection of our inability to properly understand the moral law and
the fact our moral intuition can sometimes be damaged by our own personal
biases (the desire for sexual activity devoid of consequences, for
instance). Humanist evolutionist arguments for the non-existence of
knowledge of the "moral law" proves faulty on every turn.

This evolutionist argument is so poor that humanists themselves cannot
remain consistent on this issue.

Take, for instance, Paul Kurtz who
suggests out loud, in Forbidden Fruit, that it was immoral for Abraham to
kill Isaac and immoral for God to demand Abraham kill him. Clearly if Kurtz
had taken his own evolutionist advice, he would have suggested that the
immorality or morality of killing one's son would have depended on the
culture one was in at the time.

Clearly we believe killing one's child is
immoral, but that is our culture and someone else may differ in beliefs from
us.

Who are we to suppose, just because we think so, that others, even God,
are immoral for thinking different?

I recently finished a manuscript I entitled "Refuting Atheism" and have
decided to share some pre-published information regarding atheism with the
general public. Let me start with point-counterpoint regarding what is
normally know as the "moral argument." Richard Taylor, in a debate with
William Lane Craig, relates a common hypothesis for the origin of the
knowledge of moral obligations.

I junction into an argument

I recently finished a manuscript I entitled "Refuting Atheism" and have
decided to share some pre-published information regarding atheism with the
general public. Let me start with ...

I recently finished a manuscript I entitled "Refuting Atheism"

I recently finished a manuscript I entitled "Refuting Atheism" and have
decided to share some pre-published information regarding atheism with the
general public. Let me start with point-counterpoint regarding what is
normally know as the "moral argument." Richard Taylor, in a debate with
William Lane Craig, relates a common hypothesis for the origin of the
knowledge of moral obligations.





Is the basis for morality natural or supernatural? It is neither. The basis
for morality is conventional, which means the rules of morality were
fabricated by human beings over many generations. These rules are: to
abstain from injury, to abstain from lying, theft, assault, killing, and so
forth. These rules were not the invention of God. No one in this room
imagines that if there were not a God to tell us these things, we would not
know any better. [i]



Certainly this idea has strong appeal, but is horribly wrong when it comes
to how we ruminate on moral obligations and use them to create our laws.
Normally we discover, by .. What we are to do and then craft our laws to fit
those innate obligations. Take, for instance, the debate over abortion.
The pro-choice and pro-life do not agree among themselves what is correct
and then craft laws to reflect that. They instead grapple with their own
innate knowledge of the moral law and then attempt to craft laws that agree
with what is morally correct. Of course both sides disagree, but that is
more a reflection of our inability to properly understand the moral law and
the fact our moral intuition can sometimes be damaged by our own personal
biases (the desire for sexual activity devoid of consequences, for
instance). Humanist evolutionist arguments for the non-existence of
knowledge of the "moral law" proves faulty on every turn.

This evolutionist argument is so poor that humanists themselves
cannot
remain consistent on this issue. Take, for instance, Paul Kurtz who
suggests out loud, in Forbidden Fruit, that it was immoral for Abraham
to kill Isaac and immoral for God to demand Abraham kill him. Clearly
if Kurtz had taken his own evolutionist advice, he would have suggested
that the immorality or morality of killing one's son would have depended
on the culture one was in at the time. Clearly we believe killing one's
child is immoral, but that is our culture and someone else may differ in
beliefs from us. Who are we to suppose, just because we think so, that
others, even God, are immoral for thinking different?

I surveyed the arguments for the existence or non-existence of the
"soul"
next and suggested there are philosophical and medical evidences for
such an entities existence and near-death experiences confirm such an
existence. Then, later in discussing the reasonableness of believing in
Jesus' resurrection, I tie these evidences together.

I recently finished a manuscript I entitled "Refuting Atheism" and have
decided to share some pre-published information regarding atheism with the
general public. Let me start with point-counterpoint regarding what is
normally know as the "moral argument." Richard Taylor, in a debate with
William Lane Craig, relates a common hypothesis for the origin of the
knowledge of moral obligations.

I recently finished a manuscript