The Christian Vanguard

Collin’s argument goes as follows. The Existence of the fine-tuning in question is not improbable given theism. The existence of the fine-tuning is very improbable under the atheistic single-universe hypothesis. So the fine-tuning provides strong evidence to favor the theists design hypothesis over the atheistic single-universe hypothesis. Underlying this argument is the Prime Principle of Confirmation, which states that whenever we consider two competing hypotheses, an observation counts as evidence in favor of the hypothesis under consideration if the observation has the higher probability. So Collins thinks fine tuning is evidence of there being a God rather than there not being a God. Fine tuning is the idea that the basic structure of the universe such as the fundamental laws of nature, distribution of matter, the initial conditions of the big bang, etc. is balanced on a razors edge for life to occur. The atheistic single universe hypothesis states that there is only one universe...

Probably the most well known objection to St. Anselm's Ontological argument, usually attributed to Kant, says that existence is not a predicate. When we inquire into the nature of things, we say that it is this shape and that color, and these statements have some meaningful content to them because we are able to predicate something to them. They tell us something about the object. However, saying that X exists tells us nothing about the nature of the object. So being is not a predicate.  This is not the view of the scholastics, and definitely not the view of St. Thomas Aquinas, who does say being (or existence) is a predicate. So how then do we deal with the above objection? Let's look at the mode of inquiry. When we ask what something is, we answer by giving a more common term to which we add a specific difference. So when we ask what a cat is, we say it is a mammal that has this or that distinguishing feature. We may ask what this more common thing is as well, and we ...

This was an essay I turned in for class. Locke’s Argument for God Locke’s argument comes in two stages. In the first stage, he argues for a first cause, and in the second stage, he argues for identifying that cause as God. It can be summarized thusly: 1. There are beings that have a beginning 2. All beings that have a beginning have been produced by something eternal 3. Therefore, something eternal exists In support of the first premise, Locke points to our own existence as a thing that exists. His reasoning here is that if one truly does not exist, then one is nothing. Yet at some point, Locke is confident, that the one claiming he is non-being will eventually be hungry or have pain, which is only possible to being, not to non-being. This may sound like a practical argument, and practical arguments are not always the strongest arguments, but Locke also says that non-being cannot produce being. Non-being cannot have properties, sensations, passions, or anything whatsoever, predicated...

My sister, Emma, is an atheist, and can debate the issue. It's kind of sad and kind of cute at the same time, because she's only 7 and has been professing her Atheism since she was 4. She get's it from my mom, whom is also an atheist. I remember when she was 4, when I talking about God, she quoted Nietzsche, "God is dead." When she debates her twin brother, I usually have to step in. But she said something to me the other day that gave me a lot of hope. 

I was at PetSmart and wondered what life would be like as a fish. Goldie: Say, Pampano, do you think Man exists?  Pampano: No, not at all. I've never seen a Man. Have you?  G: No, I have not. But I think I might have some idea that He does exist.  P: Is that so? All I experience is our body of water, which I have swam eve ry inch of, and I've never seen any Man. Clearly, Goldie, you are delusional.  G: I'm not sure only experience is what we fish should base our knowledge on.