Archive for May 23rd, 2012

May 23rd, 2012

A Simple Example of Intelligent Design as Science

by Max Andrews

A scientific case for intelligent design may be modeled as:

  1. Observation:  ID begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce high levels of CSI (complex specified information).
  2. Hypothesis:  Design predictions.
  3. Experiment:  Do they contain CSI?
    • Irreducible complexity, knock out a part, does it still function?
    • Mutational sensitivity tests to determine how finely-tuned protein sequences and enzymes must be in order to perform their cellular functions.  (Doug Axe found that sequences yield functional protein folds may be as rare as 1 in 1077).
  4. Conclusion:  Because X exhibits high levels of CSI, a quality is known to be a product of intelligence.  Life was designed.

There are a number of other testable scientific evidences that can be substituted into this method of reasoning:

Posted in Intelligent Design | 1 Comment »

Tags: ,
May 23rd, 2012

Critiquing an Objection to the Cosmological Argument

by Max Andrews

Neill Shenton recently did a review/response to one of Doug Beaumont’s arguments for the existence of God.  Doug’s argument is the ususal Thomastic cosmological argument from contingency.  At this point I’ll assume that you’ve read the two posts so you’ve got a greater context for what follows.

Here’s Shenton:

This is an argument that keeps coming up & folk tweet responses but my thoughts don’t fit in a tweet so here’s my ramblings on the topic. 

I see this as a rather futile attempt to “prove” there is a god by a logic that depends upon definitions of the terms.  The key words here are ‘being’ and, not surprisingly, ‘god’.  If we substitute these words the futility is exposed.

  1. A widget exists
  2. Widgets cannot spontaneously come into existence, they have to be “made” by something that came beforehand.
3. If our widget was made by or evolved from another, and so on, where did the first widget come from?
4. Some none-widget-like-process made the first widget
5. I’m calling that “f’narg”
6. What do we know about F’narg? Nothing except it isn’t a widget by definition.  Is it god?  You could call it that, I’ll stick to f’narg; it has NO connotations.  So, we now know exactly what we already did, all this widgety universe started with something and now it has a name, f’narg

What Shenton is doing here is that he’s completely ignoring the modal status of the terms ‘contingent’ and ‘necessary’ in the original Thomistic argument.  This isn’t that big of a deal but for him to completely dismiss it isn’t critiquing the argument on its own grounds.  He’s changing the argument (straw man).  P3 is obviously a misunderstanding of the argument. 

read more »

Posted in Apologetics, Existence of God, Philosophy | 6 Comments »

Tags: , , , , ,
May 23rd, 2012

Word of the Week Wednesday: Plantingan Modal Realism

by Max Andrews

Word of the Week: Plantingan Modal Realism

Defininition:  The modal metaphyiscs of Alvin Plantinga.

More about the word:  Contra to mere theisitic modal realism  and their doctrines Alvin Plantinga includes a commitment to a very large modal reality. Any object that has an accidental property in any world w–say, property of being the world’s tallest man–also has the modal property of being possibly the world’s fastest human and the modal property of being necessarily the world’s fastest human in w.  For every concredete object x there is some property P and some world w wuch that w includes x’s having P.  For Plantinga’s modal realism, abstract worlds are abstract objects. In theistic modal realism each possible world is the mereological sum of its parts.  These parts are themseves concrete individuals with spatiotemporal properties.  Plantinga’s modal realism does not necessarily entail multiverse scenarios. (For more see Michale Almaeida’s, Metaphysics of Perfect Beings, 140-50.)

Posted in Philosophy | 1 Comment »

Tags: , , , ,
May 23rd, 2012

What You Should Know About Indonesian beads

by Max Andrews

Indonesian beads are considered by many to have the most variety and beauty of any beads in the world. The reasoning behind this opinion has to do with the ornate designs and patterns that adorn the beads and their composition from resilient and strong metals. This durability means that the beads can weather wear and tear, no matter how often they are worn or for how long. Indonesian beads come in solid colors that reflect the variety of the rainbow. These colors are vibrant and eye-catching to reflect whatever jewelry creation you aspire to.

Indonesian beads have many features that make them highly recommended but none more so than their ability to take color. As a matter of fact, many of the Indonesian beads are colored to be bright and shining. Even Indonesian beads that are not meant to be bright, such as white and black, can be infused with gold or silver to accent the beads, creating startling, elegant looks. It is this versatility that makes these a popular choice among appreciators of jewelry and sought after by those who create it.

Indonesian beads are also known for their wide range of features that make the beads unique from one to the other. This variety in appearance and textures can make for unique creations when they are mixed and matched together. An innovative jeweler can let their imagination run away when creating with these beads. Custom made for individuals who want to grab attention when wearing their jewelry, Indonesian beads are lively and hip. Jewelry creators will find that there are limitless possibilities with these one-of-a-kind beads. Given their unique nature, vibrancy and style, Indonesian beads can be used in necklaces, earrings and bracelets. No matter what you elect to create and/or wear with these beads, they are sure to accentuate your personal style choices.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Tags: