Around and about!

Dave black makes an interesting observation about the Lord’s Supper; Saying its a load of hogwash when the church says it will diminish its value if we had it every week… we don’t take that attitude with the weekly sermon and prayer.

Tanya Riches writes an interesting post on Christopher Wright’s absolutely epic “The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative.

Bobby announces his forthcoming book on Evangelicial Calvinism; a topic for which his passion is renown within the blogosphere.

Michael Jensen announces that Sydney Anglicans are hosting a Urban Missionary conference – cost $40 and cheekily says elsewhere that it will be $360 cheaper then the upcoming Sydney John Piper conference – Come Up For Air 

Joel shares about a million year old sharks jaw found in a Kentucky’s coal mine.

Thought for the week – One man’s orthodoxy is another’s heresy.

About Craig Benno

I'm an average aussie guy who has lived perhaps a not so average life.
This entry was posted in around and about and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Around and about!

  1. tildeb says:

    One man’s orthodoxy is another’s heresy.

    Yup, and absolutely no way to tell which one is true by faith alone. For that, you need science!

  2. Craig Benno says:

    I would also argue that there is no contrary evidence against God.

    • tildeb says:

      There is much contrary evidence about god and his supposed characteristics. I’ll mention just two.

      Once upon a time – and lacking a better explanation – we thought god was the creative agency. Now we know better and can replace our ignorance (you’ll note how often and easily we assign god to what we don’t know) to evolution and cosmology.

      We also know that suffering denies the possibility that god is both benevolent and powerful.

      These two arguments put the god notion into proper perspective: a psychological fairytale to soothe us when we hear a bump in the night.

      • Craig Benno says:

        You are making an assumption – without supporting evidence that proves there is no God.

        Come on…you know better then that!

      • tildeb says:

        Two things: the first is that I am reaching a conclusion – not an assumption – based on a default of non belief for extraordinary claims for which there is no evidence. (If there is no good reason to believe something is true, then we don’t because we have no reason to do so!) The probability of something being true is affected by evidence both for and against it. In the case of there being a god, there is no good evidence in its support. The probability of it being true is therefore reduced. Also, the absence of evidence is also an excellent indicator that the proposition of the god hypothesis has a very high probability of being false – as do all the resulting claims made in its name – in that there is an absence of evidence that should be there if it were true. We can then safely conclude – not assume – that the hypothesis is false to high degree of probability.

        The second point is this trope you continue to trot out again and again about proving a negative. Craig, my man, you need to understand why this repeated use of this fallacy – this broken way of thinking – makes you seem to be, to put it politely, either extraordinarily dense or completely gullible. Neither is true unless you honestly think that failure to disprove allows evidence for proof. I mean, take this to any ridiculous example you can imagine:

        You cannot disprove Santa does not exist.
        You cannot disprove unicorns do not exist.
        You cannot disprove mushrooms are intergalactic spies.
        You cannot disprove fairies.
        You cannot disprove invisible elephants live in your ear.

        There are an infinite number of imaginary notions that cannot be disproved without negating every other possibility first, but this ‘failure’ does not grant any absurd hypothesis any more validity than when we started… unless you are honestly willing to believe anything and everything that cannot be disproved. I don’t think you are willing… except in the matter of god. For this belief you are willing to provide an exception.

        When someone makes a positive claim – like god is real – and then switches to insisting that the negative be proved – you cannot prove it doesn’t – is brutalizing reason because the same can done for any and all claims. If a person honestly means what he says and will believe anything if its negation cannot be proven, then such a person is gullible because all things will be believed. But if determining the truth of a positive claim is the goal, then capitulating from supporting the positive claim by the use of proving its negation is simply an avoidance technique from achieving this goal. If someone thinks this is a legitimate defense of an absurd claim, then that makes the person exceptionally dense. Because demanding that others bear the task of proving a claims negation when it adds nothing to the claim itself, means that proving the negative reveals the claimant to be intellectually dishonest.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s