This past week has been nothing but a constant blast,Ã‚Â but as a result I have been too busy and too tired to make posts. I’m now preoccupied with applying for college and getting all the financial aid necessary to double major in computer information systems and philosophy so I’m going to make this post short, which is probably all that needs to be said anyway. First I want to thank Rinku and Alfredo for making this trip possible. Rinku provided the transportation and was kind enough to pay for my food expenses because I am low in money right now. Alfredo helped work out the details and his aunt allowed me to stay at her home. I really owe them one!Ã‚Â
I’ll be attending a Biola Conference this Friday through Saturday with ex bloggers Alfredo and David like I had before. The discussion will be on “Neuroscience and the Soul“, it should prove to be quite interesting given that there are some well known philosophers coming to speak on this issue (e.g, JP Moreland, Richard Swinburne, and William Hasker). Not everyone is in agreement, however, as it seems Timothy O’Conner is a property dualist. I’ll be updating you guys with photos (possibly videos) and thoughts. Stay tuned!
The only issue of difficulty here is evolution, but this is only a part of the ‘findings’ of modern science. I’m not sure what qualifies as “denying the findings of modern science” here, but it seems as if they took a more moderate interpretation of Genesis in order to hold this view. Not that this is necessarily bad, even St Augustine held similar views long before evolution’s debut, but it just shows that this is a little more complicated. However, I think the main point can be sustained since science is not just evolution but is a collective methodology that incorporates various discoveries. Nothing about that is strictlyÃ‚Â incompatible with theology as a discipline that studies truths about God. And it is not at all immediatelyÃ‚Â obviousÃ‚Â that there is one definitive interpretation of Genesis at this moment as there are some formidable scholars that take a different approach.
Clearly proof of Lincoln’s non-existence, anyone who doesn’t see this is deluded. Belief in Lincoln is the product of faith, tradition, and authority, which do not substantiate his existence but shows it to be a mere invention of man. As Ditchard Rawkins brilliantly points out, there is no such thing as a lincolnist child: only a child of lincolnist parents. Many supporters of Lincoln point to his signature as proof that he existed, but this is obviously just a Lincoln of the Gaps argument. You’re appealing to some gap in history to suggest that it is best explained by Lincoln’s existence, but such reasoning has been thoroughly refuted by science. Even if we cannot find an explanation for it now, there will come a more plausible explanation in the future.Ã‚Â