Daily Archives: May 19, 2010

Search Fail

I’ve posted a lot of doosies from the comment spam that I get, and one on the searches that get me hits. This one simply defies explanation.

I’m not sure if I actually need to comment on this. I talk about Theology Web a lot, I have posted on the locusts of revelation, and I would certainly hope that searching on  “josiah concept” would lead you right here (otherwise Google needs to re-exaimine its search capabilities and maybe even its business plan). But when have I ever talked about praying to get your ex back? If anything, I’m praying that mine stays far, far away!

Scientists are BAFFLED!

Dan Phillips had a blog post about some recent news and events that have completely baffled scientists. I haven’t read the articles (yet). Dan’s comments are worth a look, however.

But you say, they proceed empirically, by experimentation. Correct — experiments resting on mountains of unproven and unprovable assumptions. The whole notion of “experimentation” assumes a continuity to the universe that they have no right to assume, on their premises. Do a test, and X occurs. What have you proven? That X occurred once. Repeat the test 300 times, and X occurs each time. What have you proven? That X occurred 300 times. Nothing more, nothing less.

Further, you don’t really know what caused X to occur. The whole notion of causation is itself an assumption, unproven and unprovable.

Scientists can only ever have confidence that something will happen a certain way, but they can never really know for certain.

I think that the difference between the scientist and the Christian is that we at least accept that it is not our place to know everything.

Distinguished Help for Update!

I’m proud to announce that for this massive update, I will have some assistance.

I was approached recently by Dr. Joshua Rasmussen, an instructor at the University of Notre Dame specializing in metaphysics, who had been considering doing his own answer to WWGHA/GII when he discovered this project. He will be sifting through all of my existing material and offering additional comments and critiques.

With both of our minds focused on this project, we hope to present the best possible critique of a site that has garnered much undeserved attention.

UPDATE (6/29/2010): I haven’t heard from Dr. Rasmussen since he first approached me via e-mail. Hopefully, he is still interested in this project.

UPDATE (8/22/2010): I have received an e-mail from Dr. Rasmussen expressing regret that he hasn’t been able to do much with the project as of late. He assures me that he is still interested and that he has been doing some research on prayer in order to better answer many of the charges that GII levels against prayer.

Proof #50 is Up!

The first answer, a huge improvement to the original essay from our first site, is up and ready. You may read it here.

The discussion can be found in the forums, right here.

The foundational essays will be tackled next: #1 and #2 (referred to constantly by the author of GII), #7, and #9.