R
Rogo
Guest
What did he need the caves for? And why did he have to fly them in?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
G
GAssisi
Guest
What is fascinating is that materialist, rationalist atheists are so willing to believe as dogma their un-proveable scientific theories. And they call theists irrational? Hahahahaha!
A
atheos_sum
Guest
Why are Christians so excited over Antony Flew?
He became a deist. He didn’t “cave in,” whatever this expression is supposed to convey. He isn’t remotely open to faith in Christianity, like so many of you seem to think.
Are you just as excited about Paine, Franklin, Jefferson, Voltaire, or Kant?
He became a deist. He didn’t “cave in,” whatever this expression is supposed to convey. He isn’t remotely open to faith in Christianity, like so many of you seem to think.
Are you just as excited about Paine, Franklin, Jefferson, Voltaire, or Kant?
P
PhilVaz
Guest
<< Why are Christians so excited over Antony Flew? >>
Well he’s on the right track anyway. We’ll see how he describes his present views in his new edition of God and Philosophy, with a new introduction due out this year. Looks like the new edition is available.
Resurrecting old threads I see…
Phil P
Well he’s on the right track anyway. We’ll see how he describes his present views in his new edition of God and Philosophy, with a new introduction due out this year. Looks like the new edition is available.
Resurrecting old threads I see…
Phil P
A
atheos_sum
Guest
yes yes. resurrecting old threads.
are you going to read Flew’s new edition?
are you going to read Flew’s new edition?
P
PhilVaz
Guest
<< are you going to read Flew’s new edition? >>
Maybe if I see it in the bookstore. I have his debate book with William Lane Craig, Does God Exist: The Craig-Flew debate, with responses from some top people. A little beyond me, I’m not a philosopher, Apolonio Latar does the writing for my site on that.
Phil P
Maybe if I see it in the bookstore. I have his debate book with William Lane Craig, Does God Exist: The Craig-Flew debate, with responses from some top people. A little beyond me, I’m not a philosopher, Apolonio Latar does the writing for my site on that.
Phil P
A
atheos_sum
Guest
ah, that one is still $18.00 used. eeee. i just bought some textbooks and now i’m too poor.
P
Philthy
Guest
Led Zeppelin75:
I have heard this “proof” before and have the followings thought:
When you, as a scientist, make the claim that some thing appears from “nothing”, how do you distinguish the potential inability of science to detect the actual cause of the thing which appeared, from your conclusion that it was caused by nothing? In other words, aren’t you actually left with two conclusions - either it appeared from “nothing”, or we are unable to observe/detect that which caused it to appear? Please choose your words carefully to make your position perfectly clear. I have never received a satisfactory answer to this question.
I don’t believe science is in a position to say “this thing was caused by nothing”. Science is in a position to say we don’t know where this came from based on all we know. This seems like a very high tech version of “spontaneous generation” from centuries long past…the inability to explain the appearance of something(a mouse!) and the rush to conclude that it appeared spontaneously.
Phil
Despite your claim that (1) can be proven on a number of fronts, presumably this is your strongest proof, correct?Theists basically point to:
(1) Whatever begins has a cause.
(2) The universe began to exist.
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
You might interpet that cause as the creation.
So since God has no beginning you do not believe he had to have a cause. So I will show you how it is possible how the universe need not have had a beginning and indeed could also very well be partially outside of time. Lets take a look, shall we?
While (1) can be challenged on a number of fronts, let me just mention one rebuttal that has been made from physics. Quantum electrodynamics is a fifty-year-old theory of the interactions of electrons and photons that has made successful predictions to accuracies as great as twelve significant figures. Fundamental to that theory is the spontaneous appearance of electron-positron (anti-electron) pairs for brief periods of time, literally out of “nothing.” Thus we have a counter example to statement (1), something that begins without cause.
I have heard this “proof” before and have the followings thought:
When you, as a scientist, make the claim that some thing appears from “nothing”, how do you distinguish the potential inability of science to detect the actual cause of the thing which appeared, from your conclusion that it was caused by nothing? In other words, aren’t you actually left with two conclusions - either it appeared from “nothing”, or we are unable to observe/detect that which caused it to appear? Please choose your words carefully to make your position perfectly clear. I have never received a satisfactory answer to this question.
I don’t believe science is in a position to say “this thing was caused by nothing”. Science is in a position to say we don’t know where this came from based on all we know. This seems like a very high tech version of “spontaneous generation” from centuries long past…the inability to explain the appearance of something(a mouse!) and the rush to conclude that it appeared spontaneously.
Phil
- Status
- Not open for further replies.