There are a handful of famous arguments for the existence of a god. Some have been around for centuries, and new arguments are popping up every day. One such argument is the kalam cosmological argument. A classic which has recently been re-polished and re-popularized, it has withstood the test of time in its field.
The kalam cosmological argument sounds a lot more complex than it really is. There’s not much more to it than a simple, yet flawed, syllogism of three steps. They are: Continue reading “The Kalam Cosmological Argument”
Last year, we lost a man who was possibly one of the greatest scientific minds to date. Stephen Hawking took after Albert Einstein in a quest to discover how the universe works, even in the face of the greatest adversity. Hawking was a pioneer on the quest to reconcile quantum physics with Einstein’s theory of general relativity, and his specialties were the study of black holes and how we might be able to reverse what we know about them to find out how the Big Bang occurred. Brief Answers to the Big Questions was the first book I read by Hawking, but I already feel like I’ve learned so much. Continue reading “Brief Answers to the Big Questions Review”
Hello! This week I am continuing in my study of the creation doctrine of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. I introduced this new series two weeks ago; I’m following along a series of blog posts on the Concordia Theology blog studying old earth creationism, evolutionary creationism, and everyone’s favorite, young earth creationism. Which one will the Lutherans choose? Or will they make up a new narrative? Stay tuned to find out!
Continue reading “Lutheran Creation Doctrine: Old Earth Creationism”
Possibly the most common argument for the existence of God is that it is untenable to maintain that the universe came from nothing. This can come in the form of the Kalam argument, the argument from fine-tuning, and even in this popular but ignorant meme: Continue reading “Thoughts on the Big Bang”
Last semester, I took a very terrible (but mandatory) class called Science and Religion. A lot of the class involved bashing atheism and the worldview of naturalism as well as taking Dawkins, Hitchens, and Sagan quotes out of context and pinning the men as proponents of scientism. One big thing that this class got wrong was that it assumed that all atheists are believers in the theory of multiple universes. While this certainly is one hypothesis to explain the complicated naturalist stumbling block of fine tuning and the anthropic principle of the universe, it is just that: a hypothesis, and definitely not one that all atheists believe is true.
Continue reading “Why I Don’t Believe in a Multiverse”