Monday, June 27, 2011

Lawrence Krauss: Bigger Sore Loser Than Initially Thought!

Uncommon Descent links to an interview with Lawrence Krauss regarding his reflections on his debate (and I use the term lightly since it was more of a demolition of Krauss) with William Lane Craig.

So apparently accomplished physicists now, as well as not being able to understand Bayesian probability theory, also have to personally denigrate a colleague who thrashes them in the arena of ideas and debate. He also has gained the ability to search someone's motives and label them as evil and malicious within a debate and give that as the reason he looked like a moron.

Yes, people. Lawrence Krauss says WLC was disingenuous, and Campus Crusade for Christ had malicious evil intents in trapping him with an impossible debate question. MUAHAHAHAAAAAAAHHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!, sorry. My evil inner Christian came out.

Krauss is acting like a small child who lost the playground game and is now calling foul. Wow. Well there's your intellectual atheist folks, and your typical establishment elite college professor (see Barack Hussein Obama and Paul Krugmann for comparison). At least they're useful for a practical lesson and a good laugh.

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

What Makes one Catholic..err catholic?

This is a Facebook discussion I had earlier with a Roman Catholic who is a contributor to the blog Called to Communion. For the sake of forthrightness, my wife is Roman Catholic. As you'll see, I think Christians can disagree on doctrinal points and not be separated.

This is the post that generated the discussion.

Bryan Cross: I have explained why making a predicate apply to everyone (such as claiming that all Christians are catholics) evacuates the term of all meaning here in comment #40:

Me: But that's how the early fathers used the word, Bryan.

Bryan Cross: They didn't use the word 'catholic' of schismatics.
If you want to read what I have written about apostolic succession in the Church Fathers, see here:

Me: Of course not, because schismatics then weren't viewed as Christians. Heretics, it's pretty clear, were non-Christians. The Arians had stepped beyond the veil of essentials, to put it in modern Protestant vernacular.

I consider modern Roman Catholics as properly catholic, as I do Anglicans, Lutherans, Baptists, and Eastern Orthodox because they don't hold to heretical views, ie views that would take them outside of Christianity. Ergo, they are all catholic, but not all Roman Catholic.

Course the middle of my web of doctrine, the essentials, is pretty small. FYI, the official Roman Catholic stance on the issue is that Protestants are "separated brethren". Their semantics are different than mine and Michael's, but the idea is the same.

Bryan Cross: Do you agree with St. Optatus on schism?

Separated brethren are still in schism.

Me: Again, using different semantics, Bryan. Anyone who proclaims Christ as Lord and has the Holy Spirit are in communion in my mind. Ergo RCs and Protestants are in spiritual communion. The man made idea of communion, belonging to a specific institution, is a different issue. I think the fathers would agree, and that's why they set boundaries in the councils.

Bryan Cross: That's because you believe Christ founded only an invisible Church, while for Catholics, (and the Church Fathers, e.g. St. Cyprian, St. Optatus, St. Augustine) Christ founded a visible Church.

Me: No I don't, but thanks for putting words in my mouth. The church is visible in the One we proclaim, and in the works that we do. Upon that rock Christ founded the church. ;-)

Bryan Cross: If there were no visible Church, but only visible Christians, what would be different?

Me: The Church is the Christians.

Bryan Cross: I have explained why Protestantism has no visible catholic Church here:

Me: I'll try to read that at some point, but it seems to me you're just begging the question with regard to what the church is. Why can't I say that the RC institution is just Rites, priests, bishops, and Popes, and not a true visible Church? The logic seems the same.

Bryan Cross: Because an organizational unity is something different from a mere conceptual unity [e.g. the set of all Christians]. Tom Brown and I have explained why the Church cannot be merely the set of all Christians, in our article "Christ Founded a Visible Church."

Me: Is it Bryan? What makes the Catholic unity organizational and not just conceptual. Looks like a distinction without difference to me. Because at base, organization is pretty dependent on how we're conceiving of something, which again would make your assertion question begging.. [I realize he's trying to get at the Philosophical concept of what is a proper entity with regard to its constituent parts. The problem he has is that he's begging the question for his view, saying that the protestants aren't composed in the proper manner. My point is trying to get him to see that his "proper composition" of Popes, rites, bishops, etc is no less arbitrary a standard to consider a composed church than is individual believers who have the Holy Spirit. That's why we have to rely on divine revelation to tell us what the church is (1 Corinthians 12:13)]

[The protestant view seems to be supported] by the stress of the Greek word translated into church. Literally, "an assembly" or "called-out ones."

Bryan Cross: Here's an example. A set of atoms scattered around is not a genuine unity, but is rather plurality conceived as a unity (i.e. a set), whereas the set of atoms that composes your body comprise an actual unity, i.e. you.

Me: I agree. Now, why shouldn't one conceive of the body of believers as that unity of atoms?

Bryan, I can't go read through all of your blog posts regarding the issue and get back to you with prompt replies. It makes the discussion too cumbersome. Can you give me your summarized versions of your arguments?

Bryan Cross: I don't need prompt replies, and I don't have time to summarize them in FB chatboxes. I need to get back to work. This issue isn't capable of being worked out in a 30 minute chat session - it takes a long time to read then think about all this. Thanks for talking.

Me: In the meantime, my Biblical argument would start with 1 Cor 12:13.

So no response to my last post? Why should we consider individual men which constitute an institution known as the Roman Catholic Magesterium as properly "THE CHURCH ®" and not consider individual men (and women) who believe in Christ as "the Church"?

I don't see how your argument has any footing.

BTW, I read your post, and it's just relying on your question begging assumption. It's how you're conceiving of what the Church is. It's a semantic and definitional difference, and I don't see it supported in the idea of what the church is set forth by the apostles.

Monday, June 20, 2011

Palin is Such a Dummy....Ohhhh.......

Clip includes some profanity. HT to

Thursday, June 16, 2011

Properly Basically Hot

Somebody's air conditioner went out, and as a properly basic experience, he was hot...

Hat tip to Matt Palumbo.

Sunday, June 12, 2011

The Increase in the Atheist Fringe

I finally caught up to the most recent Reasonable Faith podcast, and on it Kevin Harris brings up some good points about how atheists have begun to act, not just online but in academic settings as well. Case in point, the questions that were asked in the Craig/Harris debate Q&A session. Apparently a local atheist group crowded the mics at the debate and asked really poor questions, many of which had nothing to do with the debate. One moron went on a tangent about God appearing to him and whatnot, and basically made a big fool of himself.

Harris' poor debate behavior was also an issue, as he really avoided the issue in much of what he said and just focused on getting his pet peeves out while he had a bully pulpit. Thinking atheists everywhere should be ashamed of what happened, and I think some are. But you sure don't see it on any of the infidel websites out there.

You see this happening in most of the blogs that deal with the issue of God's existence in their comment sections as well. A mixture of attempted one-upmanship mixed with irrelevant tangents and ad hominem attacks come forth from the internet infidel fingers. Even once respectable atheist blogs themselves have begun to devolve into Dick Dawk-esque rhetoric.

So I'll repeat the question Harris asked in his interview with Craig; is this what you atheists want? Do you want to ignore the issues, the arguments, the ideas that need to be discussed and grappled with, or do you just want to strike emotional chords and rhetorical victories and achieve your "you're no Jack Kennedy" moment? Is that what atheism is becoming? Because that's not reasonable or intelligent, it's dogmatic and dishonest. What happened to your quest for truth?

Thursday, June 9, 2011

In the Meantime

I haven't posted in a while, but I hope to get back in the groove soon. In the meantime enjoy this promo for William Lane Craig's Great Britian tour, and plea for Richard Dawkins to friggin' man up.

HT Unbelievable