If you didn't believe, why would you have studied for the clergy?.

Contradictions:. Contradiction exists when two statements make mutually exclusive truth claims. A contradiction is NOT:.* A statement you dislike.* A lack of detail.* A statement you've misread.* An unclear statement. Required are a proposition X, & a proposition !X. X or !X.

RT @TheBabylonBee: Men's Bible Study Once Again Derailed By Mention Of Nephilim

Table Salt - plain iodized salt you buy in a store - is better for you than "Sea Salt," "Kosher Salt," or (smh) "Himalayan Salt." btw, the pink in Himalayan salt is impurities. It's all NaCl - Sodium Chloride. But table salt has a trace amount of Iodine added. You know when.

What-about-ism: Why I rejected all religions except Christianity. In the late 70s, I adopted 2 rules of reason. The 2d was: I may not reject a proposition until I can elucidate why it is wrong. Then I rejected Islam b/c it makes Jesus a good prophet. By Lewis' Poached Egg,.

Suppose someone offered you a car for sale. It was unavailable most days, for a test drive, but the salesman assured you that it worked great. But on the few days when it was available to test drive, it always failed to start - even with a jump. So it is with COJCOLDS prophecy.

RT @The_Kyle_Mann: There is no other stream

RT @VbcApologetics: @CherylWroteIt Elephants once dominated a large portion of Italy. You've heard of Tuskany?.

Was just on a trial as a juror. 2 witnesses were prisoners serving life. 1 was 32 & had been in prison since 18yo, for murder (to which he admitted). The other was ~20, & had once been stabbed in a lung & near his heart. Without condoning these young men or their deeds, I could.

We noted at first that if we assume God, all of these things come with; Now we are left to wonder, if we reject God, why do all of these things still come with?. Why do we have all of the benefits of God, if in fact there is none? The simplest answer is that we do not receive.

And the least of these is reason - least as in most fundamental. This is a 2fold question: First, why logical tools work; 2ndly, why the meat in our heads is able to use those tools. We can point to the parts of the brain that make it functional - the frontal lobes - but we.

beyond the simple counting of herds and the reconciling of accounts need not work at all, and yet it works so well that religions have been built around it (notably the Pythagorean Order). It is not merely functional, but actually beautiful. And there is no reason why it should.

thinkers - early medieval, at least - Did not expect consistent behavior of their universe, or even that the world could be expressed on a consistent map. The idea of consistency below the moon's orbit arises with the dawn of modern science, in the 15th c. and onward. Math.

wrap our heads around this. We're accustomed to the universe working as it appears to do. But why aren't our physics akin to roadrunner-and-coyote physics? Why can we look at a question and expect there to be an discoverable answer?. Some cultures do not so assume. Medieval.

There is no reason, barring God, that the universe should make sense - that we should be able to say that what goes up must come down, or that a penny left in a drawer will be there when we look again - even more amazing, that another person may find it there!. It's a bit hard to.

Having chosen, at our first step, to reject God, and having taken the large leap of saying that .1. The universe appears objective;.2. Math appears to work universally; and.3. Reason appears to give us sound results;.We come to the first hurdle: Why?.

we digress). Reason and logic most of all are needed, and must be assumed, as we cannot form a foundation for them. Duhem points out, for example, that we are only ever one failed experiment from collapsing our entire house-of-cards structure of reasoning.

Random affair, that works most of the time, or in limited domains (times-tables perhaps) but not in the grander scheme (as calculus, maybe). Kurt Godel seemed to show that our mathematical systems cannot possibly ever be complete (He also wrote a proof of God based on this, but.

None of these are safe assumptions. Smart men have argued long and hard over them. The universe could be purely a subjective affair that only looks objective. We might, as Popper once proposed, be mere brains in vats, "fed" stimuli and perception by electrodes. Math might be a.

We find ourselves in a universe, or so it appears. We make our axioms: Assume this universe to be objective. Assume math to work (Peano Axiom Set). Assume that Reason works - that is, that we can in expressible thoughts, discern and communicate real things about the universe.