- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Here is an interesting (to me) interview with Eric Metaxas from (Socrates in the City). He discusses with an interview book Is Atheism Dead.
He stresses recent scientific and archeological findings.
The Big Bang.
Fine Tuning of universal constants.
He discusses discovery of Sodom.
Is faith at odds with science and logic?
Resistance to evidence of God in science.
Is Atheism Dead? Eric Metaxas Interview - The Becket Cook Show Ep. 46
@sonship saidI rather go with what the bible says.- Faith without works is DEAD.
Here is an interesting (to me) interview with Eric Metaxas from (Socrates in the City). He discusses with an interview book Is Atheism Dead.
He stresses recent scientific and archeological findings.
The Big Bang.
Fine Tuning of universal constants.
He discusses discovery of Sodom.
Is faith at odds with science and logic?
Resistance to evid ...[text shortened]... Metaxas Interview - The Becket Cook Show Ep. 46
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSY1_WIqoqA
You promote faith without works so your doctrine is DEAD and you are also DEAD if you practice faith with works. I suggest you examine your own false doctrines and correct them instead of looking at atheists, some of whom can very well reach the Kingdom of God before Christian hypocrites.
@sonship saidHahaha keep whistling sonship, keep whistling.
Here is an interesting (to me) interview with Eric Metaxas from (Socrates in the City). He discusses with an interview book Is Atheism Dead.
He stresses recent scientific and archeological findings.
The Big Bang.
Fine Tuning of universal constants.
He discusses discovery of Sodom.
Is faith at odds with science and logic?
Resistance to evid ...[text shortened]... Metaxas Interview - The Becket Cook Show Ep. 46
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSY1_WIqoqA
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
@kevcvs57
After your hollow little trollish giggle, you have a job to do over on thread "Does a Christian embrace his humanity?"
So when you stop rolling across the floor with laughter, see if you can drop by over there and reply to my questions. I'd like to see what you would explain about how an enduring continuous self exists seamlessly through successive merely physical states.
Otherwise I might imagine you're the one whistling with your ears plugged up.
@sonship saidWhy have you given me some more gems from your favourite fiction to ponder.
@kevcvs57
After your hollow little trollish giggle, you have a job to do over on thread "Does a Christian embrace his humanity?"
So when you stop rolling across the floor with laughter, see if you can drop by over there and reply to my questions. I'd like to see what you would explain about how an enduring continuous self exists seamlessly through success ...[text shortened]... y physical states.
Otherwise I might imagine you're the one whistling with your ears plugged up.
If you don’t want to make me laugh don’t start a debate with inane thread titles, were you expecting your premise to be taken even remotely seriously.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Why have you given me some more gems from your favourite fiction to ponder.
If you don’t want to make me laugh don’t start a debate with inane thread titles, were you expecting your premise to be taken even remotely seriously.
I understand.
You bank on posturing here like its all beneath you.
If you have any articulate atheist friends who are not afraid to reply to legitimate questions send them over. Tell them some Christian guy over here wants to hear about how a rock evolved into a conscious self.
Since your elementary school yard giggles couldn't stop questions too tough for you, maybe someone else has an intelligent reply.
@sonship
You don't have to look far to find out that there are something like a billion atheists in the world today, so I'd say rumours of it's demise are maybe a little previous.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
@avalanchethecat
It was a question.
And I would agree that the answer is no it is not altogether dead.
Of course an ad populum fallacy would not mean a billion atheists are right.
Look, if Time Magazine can ask "Is God Dead?" others can ask the same of Atheism
@sonship saidWhat's the purpose of the question, if you don't mind me asking? Looking for agreement from other theists? Looking for disagreement from atheists? Not, I imagine, to pursue open-minded debate, since that is obviously not something that somebody professing 'faith' in the religious sense of the word could reasonably expect to take part in. What's your intended outcome here?
@avalanchethecat
It was a question.
And I would agree that the answer is no it is not altogether dead.
Of course an ad populum fallacy would not mean a billion atheists are right.
Look, if Time Magazine can ask "Is God Dead?" others can ask the same of Atheism
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
What's the purpose of the question, if you don't mind me asking?
Don't mind at all.
The question on the OP is the title to a book by Eric Metexes which I wanted some
people to watch. And I gave a little summary of some of the topics he discusses in
the interview.
Looking for agreement from other theists?
Always.
Agreement from others is ok too.
Disagreement is the norm here on this Forum.
So I surely look for that too.
Like you are a case in point.
Looking for disagreement from atheists? Not, I imagine, to pursue open-minded debate, since that is obviously not something that somebody professing 'faith' in the religious sense of the word could reasonably expect to take part in. What's your intended outcome here?
Since you have started a dialogue, I would respond that I seriously wonder how SOME atheistic concepts will survive the 21rst century.
One of the atheistic concepts I see having great difficulty surviving into the next few decades is the ignoring of the finely calibrated and tuning of the constants of the universe to facilitate life to exist, particularly human life.
IF you can bring yourself to watch the video you'll see how the Wall Street Journal of all publications broke record number of observers of an article they ran by Metexes on this phenomenon of the finely tuned universe.
I think it is evidence for God's intentionality and intelligent design of the whole universe with humanity in mind.
Do you think fine tuning is just an accident in a Godless creation?
@sonship saidThe 'fine-tuning of the universe' concept is a non-starter. We exist. If the universe wasn't 'fine-tuned' as you put it to allow our existence, we wouldn't. That's not evidence of a creator, that's just evidence that we exist. Which we do, and we already knew that. So not really a surprise. I know that some theists find this difficult to accept (the 'weak anthropic principle' ), but it's cast iron. I've heard people object that it's 'untestable'. That's just silly. It doesn't need testing, it's not a theory, it's a methodological priniciple. You couldn't pose the question if we didn't exist.
@avalanchethecat
What's the purpose of the question, if you don't mind me asking?
Don't mind at all.
The question on the OP is the title to a book by Eric Metexes which I wanted some
people to watch. And I gave a little summary of some of the topics he discusses in
the interview.
[quote]
Looking for agreement from other theists? [/quo ...[text shortened]... e with humanity in mind.
Do you think fine tuning is just an accident in a Godless creation?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
The 'fine-tuning of the universe' concept is a non-starter.
I totally disagree. Why should I regard it as a "non-starter" when agnostics have sat up and taken notice, if you not? The implications of a universe fine tuned for life is by no means a "non-starter" for theological implications uncomfortable to you.
Theoretical physicist Paul Davies said -
"It is hard to resist the impression that the present structure of the universe, apparently so sensitive to minor alterations in numbers, has been rather carefully thought out . . . the seemingly miraculous concurrence of [these] numerical values must remain the most compelling evidence for cosmic design." [The New Physics, Paul Davies, pg. 189]
We exist.
It seems mightily apparent that the universe saw us coming.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
If the universe wasn't 'fine-tuned' as you put it to allow our existence, we wouldn't.
We also wouldn't be able to say "Atheism is true."
So I don't know what that fact does for you.
And how come not many great thinkers of science didn't simply yawn and say "We exist. Brute fact. What else do we need to know?"
The argument "We exist. Get over it" seems selectively apathetic only when God's existence and authority enter into the musings. "We're here. So what?" Seems to be selectively employed only hen a Creator God is part of the conversation.
That's not evidence of a creator, that's just evidence that we exist.
I disagree. SETI is waiting for signals from outer space that evidence intelligence.
If a list of prime numbers somehow is broadcast to earth from some other solar system, I don't think you would just say "That's not evidence of extra terrestrial intelligence. Its a non-starter for thinking other minds plan things."
Nor would I think the DNA molecule or mitosis or sexual reproduction are not strong evidences for planning, purposeful design, and the mind with goal directed intentionality implied.
If instructions on how to replicate and reproduce a cell came from a distant solar system that would taken as strong evidence other minds were out there. Some of us don't discount our amazement simply because we don't know how such instructions came about.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
I think that is selective apathy to assume intelligent planning is illusory only when
we don't know where in the universe to point our instruments to detect the physical origin of such possible intelligence.
Ruling out Mind because of predilection to avoid God is too biased.
As for "If we didn't exist we wouldn't be curious" - The analogy has been made -
This is like a man being dragged before a firing squad of 100 well trained marksmen with rifles. The man to be executed is blindfolded and set against a wall. He hears someone shout "Ready! Aim! Fire!" Guns roar. But he's still alive after three minutes.
So he concludes "Well, I really should not be surprised at the improbability that 100 trained marksmen missed me. If they hadn't missed me I wouldn't be alive to wonder about it. Since I am here, there's nothing to explain."
Its correct that he shouldn't be surprised that he doesn't observe that he is dead.
If we didn't exist we couldn't observe that we didn't exist.
But that doesn't mean he should not be surprised that he is alive and a very improbable event took place - 100 trained marksmen all missing to put him out of existence. It follows quite logically that the man WOULD be surprised that he is alive and so improbably so.
@sonship saidLol, it doesn't make me uncomfortable, it's simply an obvious given. If the universe were not how it is, we wouldn't be here to ask the questions; the universe MUST be 'fine tuned' to permit the evolution of us, because we're here. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be, and then there'd be nobody to say "wow, the universe must have been designed because if it any of the basic constants were a tiny bit different we wouldn't be here". It's a nonsense argument.
@avalanchethecat
The 'fine-tuning of the universe' concept is a non-starter.
I totally disagree. Why should I regard it as a "non-starter" when agnostics have sat up and taken notice, if you not? The implications of a universe fine tuned for life is by no means a "non-starter" for theological implications uncomfortable to you.
Theoretical physicis ...[text shortened]... 9]
We exist.
It seems mightily apparent that the universe saw us coming.