Micah Ministries

In previous discussions I've shown the on naturalism delivers an undercutting defeater for naturalism on evolution is low or inscrutable and that naturalism has a normative force issue .  I seek to describe these issues further, integrating previous studies to justify my claims and to challenge the naturalistic framework conclusively.  The Intractable Problem revised: As noted before, I showed that even given generous assumptions like P (probability a single belief is correct) =0.7 or 70% with 8 auxiliary hypotheses at 100% efficacy only yields P(R|N&E)=22.5% requiring an unreasonable K boost of 333.3% to get above 75%. Meaning, the best case scenario on naturalism and evolution we shouldn't expect our reliable cognition faculties above 23%, which means if any of these auxiliary hypotheses are lower, it will never be above 22.5%.  In fact I show based on reasonable assumptions; "I will maintain H1&H4 are relatively high, and I generously assume a 0.9 probabilit...

  The Big Bang, time and Simultaneity Prior to the evidence of the big bang and the beginning of the universe, it was widely regarded that the universe was eternal and static. Evidence in the last one hundred years or so turned this belief on its head and we are beneficiaries of the standard model, which now shows the universe most definitely had a finite beginning some 13.7 billion years ago. For instance, the BGV (Borde-Guth-Vilenkin) theorem, the evidence shows that any universe that is on average expanding, in its history cannot be indefinitely continued into the past. Vilenkin writes “ The BGV Theorem is sweeping in its generality. It makes no assumptions about gravity or matter. Gravity may be attractive or repulsive, light rays may converge or diverge, and even general relativity may decline into desuetude: the theorem would still hold. ” He continues by elucidating on potential models that try to get away from this conclusion he writes “ We do not find ourselves in such...

Naturalism:  Is the idea that only natural laws and forces operate in the universe, leaving no room for purposeful intervention. Theism:  Is the belief that a purposeful intelligent design created the universe and ordered it, such that at least some complexity is the result of design. Background knowledge : The universe is at least 13.7 billion years old, the Earth around 4.5 billion years old, and the human-chimp divergence occurred ~6–7 million years ago. The Argument Both Naturalism (N) and Theism (T) offer explanatory scope to explain the bio-diversification of life. Prima facie (all things being equal), the standard evolutionary hypothesis (STD), or gradualism, is more expected on N than on T, as gradual, unguided processes align with naturalism’s framework. Prima facie (all things being equal), if STD is true, we should see gradual changes in the fossil record as evidence of unguided processes. As Richard Dawkins stated, “Evolution not only is a gradual process as a matt...

Introduction The existence of objective moral truths, propositions asserting the inherent wrongness of acts like gratuitous cruelty, poses a profound challenge in metaethics: what is their ontological foundation, and what imparts their obligatory force? This question probes not only the reality of moral duties but also the normative authority that compels adherence. This essay argues that classical theism, which posits a maximally great being (God) as the source of moral value, offers the most coherent and comprehensive explanation for both the objectivity and bindingness of moral truths, surpassing naturalism’s confinement to physical processes. Through a deductive argument, I contend that theism uniquely satisfies the demands of moral ontology and deontology, inviting rigorous philosophical examination. The Argument The argument is formalised as follows:  P1. Objective moral truths exist.  P2. Theism and naturalism both propose explanations for moral duties. P3. Naturalism l...

Introduction A common talking point from YouTube atheists, like Matt Dillahunty and the Mindshift channel, takes a peculiar twist on Jesus’s resurrection. Even granting the story, they ask how three days of death can be a sufficient sacrifice if he comes back to life and resumes being God. According to sceptics, God doesn’t really give up anything, and Jesus sacrifices a weekend at most.¹,²,³ This framing, though catchy, betrays a shallow grasp of Judaism and Christianity. It reduces a profound narrative to a flippant caricature. Far from a trivial loss, Jesus’s death carries infinite weight, and here’s why. Clearing Up Misunderstandings Sceptics like the above, often link Jesus’s death to the Old Testament’s blood sacrifices for sin. They cite verses like Exodus 29:18 or Numbers 15:3, where burnt offerings please God, and then leap to equate it with “blood cults” like Baal or Moloch, claiming all such religions are fundamentally the same. This move lacks justification and ignores the ...