New Video on Apologetics

[Angrboda]

Just to be clear, I fully believe that you move shit with your mind. I don't know how you would be able to type if you didn't. I move shit with my mind all the time — I move my arms, my legs, my mouth — all with the power of my mind! (There's an interesting point about causal sufficiency here. For some reason the fact that we are able to make our bodies move by sheer force of our will strikes us as unremarkable, yet it's really quite magical if you think about it. Why we find it so incredible that someone might move someone or something besides themselves just by thinking it, yet not even question the source of my ability to move my body by simply thinking about it, is not readily apparent.)

As long as I'm making observations about past and present denizens of the animal world, I can't help but point out that most species of catfish are benthic, or in plain speech, "bottom feeders."

The theistic arguments examined in this chapter clearly are the products of brilliant minds. This is to the credit of the authors of these arguments, but to the discredit of theism. Theistic belief obviously exerts great attraction; few doctrines in the history of ideas can boast such a stellar set of intellectual defenders, from Augustine and Aquinas to Plantinga and Swinburne. Yet the end product of all that brilliance is a set of arguments that, at least from the atheist's perspective, achieve very little. Is theistic belief warranted? Plantinga has given me no reason to think so. Is the theistic hypothesis confirmed by evidence? Swinburne's promise of a quasi-scientific theism fails to deliver. Is this the best that theism can offer in support of itself? I am forced to conclude that it is.

— The Cambridge Companion To Atheism, Keith Parsons, "Some Contemporary Theistic Arguments"