A REASONABLE CASE
A discussion about religion, reality and reason
This is a voluntary opt-in advertisement. Any profit generated goes to
Comic 1 - INTRODUCTION, Page 1
13th Oct 2013, 1:00 PM
Rate this comic
INTRODUCTION, Page 1
INTRODUCTION (GROUND RULES) Page 2
INTRODUCTION (EVOLUTION) Page 3
COINCIDENCE ONE--Page 1
COINCIDENCE ONE, Page 2
COINCIDENCE ONE, Page 3 (The Briefness of Beryllium)
COINCIDENCE ONE, Page 4 (Remarkable Resonances)
COINCIDENCE ONE, Page 5 (GOLDILOCKS AND THE JUST-RIGHT RESONANCES)
COINCIDENCE ONE, Page 6 (Eliminating Aliens)
COINCIDENCE ONE, Page Seven (Qualifications and Updates)
COINCIDENCE TWO (The Setup)
COINCIDENCE TWO, Page 2 (The Ghostly particles)
COINCIDENCE TWO, Page 3 (Cooking a Supernova)
COINCIDENCE TWO, Page Four (Made Perfect in Weakness)
COINCIDENCE THREE (A Weak Grasp of Timing)
A WEAK CASE FOR A WEAKLESS UNIVERSE
COINCIDENCE FOUR: HOW STRONG A CASE?
COINCIDENCE FIVE, Page One: Two-Dimensional Characters
COINCIDENCE FIVE, Page 2: HIGHER DIMENSION DILEMMA
PAUSE FOR REFLECTION: WAP, SAP, FAP, PAP And CRAP
SETUP FOR COINCIDENCE SIX AND SEVEN
COINCIDENCE SIX: 1/1836 IS YOUR LUCKY NUMBER.
COINCIDENCE SEVEN--You'll Get a Charge Out of This.
OBJECTION ONE: The Size of the Universe
COINCIDENCE EIGHT: Neutron-Proton Mass Difference, or Sometimes it doesn't pay to be Neutral
COINCIDENCE NINE: ANTIMATTER ANGST AND ANOMALIES
OBJECTION TWO: THE PUDDLE IN THE DESERT
COINCIDENCE TEN: A FINE LINE, or THE ALPHA FAIL
COINCIDENCE ELEVEN: EXPANDING CONSTANTLY, PART ONE
COINCIDENCE ELEVEN: EXPANDING CONSTANTLY, PART TWO
COINCIDENCE TWELVE: QUANTUM OF SCIENCE or SOMETIMES BOHR-ING IS GOOD
THE PHILOSOPHER'S FIRING SQUAD
SIX COINCIDENCE CAUSES
EXPLANATION ONE: TAKE A CHANCE
EXPLANATION TWO: HIGH PROBABILITY---POSSIBLY
EXPLANATION THREE: NECESSITY IS THE MOTHER OF...CREATION?
EXPLANATION FOUR: UNIVERSES ENSEMBLE! (Or--Multiple Choice!)
EXPLANATION FOUR: UNIVERSALITY IN SPACE: BEYOND THE FIELDS WE KNOW
EXPLANATION FOUR: UNIVERSALITY IN TIME: DEJA VIEW
EXPLANATION FOUR: UNIVERSALITY IN MANY-WORLDS: PROLOGUE (IMPOSSIBLE BUT TRUE)
EXPLANATION FOUR: UNIVERSALITY IN MANY-WORLDS: INTERPRETING THEIMPOSSIBLE
EXPLANATION FOUR: UNIVERSALITY IN MANY-WORLDS: HAVING YOUR CAKE AND EATING IT TOO.
EXPLANATION FOUR: UNIVERSALITY IN MODAL REALISM: DOES EVERYTHING POSSIBLE EXIST...SOMEWHERE?
EXPLANATION FOUR: ENSEMBLES: AN OVERVIEW
EXPLANATION FIVE: SMOLIN'S SELECTION
EXPLANATION SIX: THINKING CREATIVELY OR REWINDING THE WATCHMAKER
EXPLANATION SIX: THINKING CREATIVELY: APPROACHES AND LIMITS
EXPLANATION SIX: SOMEONE ELSE'S LAB EXPERIMENT
EXPLANATION SIX: SOME IMPLICATIONS
CHOOSING AMONG THE EXPLANATIONS
TORNADO IN JUNK SCIENCE
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL (PROLOGUE)
THE PROBLEM OF VALUES
EXISTENTIAL CRISIS IN EXISTENCE
SOCIOBIOLOGY'S SHORTCOMINGS, PART ONE
SOCIOBIOLOGY'S SHORTCOMINGS, PART TWO
SOCIAL RELATIVISM ISN'T RELEVANT, PART ONE
SOCIAL RELATIVISM ISN'T RELEVANT, PART TWO
IMPLICATIONS AND SUGGESTIVE CLUES
ARROGANCE AND FAITH
DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO
SPECIAL CLAIMS, SPECIFIC EVIDENCE
VOICES AND PRESENCES
(A) PURPOSE FOR THE UNIVERSE
AN ORDERED UNIVERSE--MADE TO ORDER?
FREE MINDS AND FREE WILL
THE PROVIDENT REALITY AND THE EQUALITY OF RAIN
THE HIDDEN NATURE OF THE CREATOR
THE POSSIBILITY OF REVELATION
Save My Place
Load My Place
13th Oct 2013, 1:00 PM
This will be a weekly monologue, every Sunday.
Many of you may know the arguments I am about to present, the evidence I am going to cite—many will not. (I don't know if it's ever been presented in comic form, save for a passing reference in Alan Moore's PROMETHEA.) I do NOT claim this is original, and when I know the source I will attribute them–sometimes.
This will take a while. It'll be a few weeks before I get into the meat of the argument, and it will probably be a year or so, at weekly updates, before I get to the closing arguments. Maybe more than that.
Some things take some time to explain. Sorry.
This will be apologetics without apologizing. If you are offended by religious discussions, this is not for you. If you are bored by science–this is not for you, either.
I'm hoping to make this the anti-Jack Chick tract. I am going for–in graphic form–a reasonable case for a Creator, not threats of damnation or the inerrancy of a religious tradition. ANY religious tradition.
I know this will be mocked mercilessly. And hey, this is the Internet, I'm okay with that (like I can stop it?) but I do ask you link back to this.
Post a Comment
13th Oct 2013, 1:11 PM
Reading this I was reminded of an essay by Mark Twain (unfortunately the name of the essay escapes me), but in it he compared the Bible to a pharmacy with lots of poisons (fire & brimstone, etc.) but also the strongest medicine of all... love, and he wondered why more people don't use that instead of the poisons.
1st Dec 2013, 2:23 PM
Please tell me this is a conversation on the existence of a non-biblical God. Because there is no amount of science that can logically explain the biblical God to me.
Note: I think you should change your title: to scientific proof of God, or something like that, because I almost skipped over this post.
2nd Dec 2013, 2:29 PM
This case I'm making here is JUST for a Creator. Period. It could be Jehovah, Ptah, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Whether I make a further case narrowing it down (Mortimer Adler, in his TRUTH IN RELIGION, made some inroads on this on purely logical grounds, narrowing it down to some religions more likely than others) would be a further project.
And....vis-a-vis the title: I'll take it under advisement, but sometimes the soft sell works best, and there's a difference between a reasonable case and conclusive evidence without anything to dispute.
13th Jan 2014, 2:10 PM
I do not believe in a god. Wich does not means none exists.
But I highly doubt that any of the gods as writen in Religious Texts exist. The core books of any religion are written by people. And not even the people who had those experiences or witnessed those stories, but people who lived a century or more later and decided "that goes in, that is wrong and never get's in".
Then those books have been translated multiple times (propably faulty; just look here: http://www.rense.com/general45/islamafter.htm). And partially rewritten (like the late addition of Suicide as a Sin to the bible, to prevent serfs from escaping a miserable existence).
I find it absolute possible that god really was there, he told the people then how the universe actually is (Atoms, Suns, Planets, Galaxies, Elemental Forces) but the people didn't get it. And then those responsible for Editing the Bible 1.0 never wrote it down.
Indeed I think that scenario is more likely then half the stuff being written in any religious text to be true.
And equally likely that he just didn't care about that one species at all.
4th Aug 2014, 7:56 PM
1) You don't break your teeth on theodicy
2) You avoid all the usual logical pitfalls such as argument from incredulity, special pleading, moving the goalposts, pathetic fallacy, appeal to consequences, begging the question and so on
3) You seriously entertain the possibility of more than one god, gods who aren't some variation of an Abrahamic Invisible Sky Wizard
4) You treat Pascal's Wager as the sucker bet it is
5) You consider the possibility of gods in a Creatorless cosmos
6) You don't privilege the Christian Bible
That's just for starters. But best of British Luck to you.
4th Aug 2014, 7:58 PM
By the Pope's own estimate about one in fifty Catholic clergy is a pedophile. That is not a "relatively small number". That is huge.
Post a Comment
© 2013 - 2015 Comic author