I say it is the truth and I believe in Ghosts Vampires Werewolves Zombies Aliens and all except of goblins. I say that it is true for I think that is someone for example sees a Werewolf he won't stay alive enough to bring proof to others who don't believe!
Even Einstein, one of the greatest Scientists of the 20th Century believed in God as the Creator of the Universe!!! You have to be blind to not believe in a God!!! Its totally obvious there is a God!!!!
@joraynas Einstein : The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this... one more for ya :I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it..... but i suppose wat he said now doesn't matter.
@normank27 we all die and you will die someday as well, the difference is whether you'll come to the conclusion of what lays after death. Life is short and the ultimate conclusion is - without God, there is no need for life and humankind is bound to an ultimate destruction of itself in the universe. So based on that, God exists. The fine tuning of the universe supports that fact.
What a load of bullsh!t. So if a retarded atheist turns into believers because of a load of baloney, then the supernatural exists. Sitll no evidence of the supernatural, only a load of crappy talk.
@TemplarX2 He never said atheists becoming believers proves the supernatural. He's just pointing out that the evidence that he LISTS which you refuse to listen to is so overwhelming that even the most stubborn of atheists has opened up their mind to the possibility of a supernatural realm. Who's closed minded now?
@SlamDunkerDonkey What evidence? Bangs come bangers? Nature's 50 constants and DNA as a mean to convey genetic information? These are the evidence for the supernatural? This guy is full of sophistry and shit! Just big empty, bombastic words!
@TemplarX2 They're actually very serious claims that he would definitely tease out if he had the time. It would be unwise to simply dismiss them because they don't fit your close minded view of evidence. Maybe you should try to stop being angry and actually consider the claims like true believers and atheists alike do without short angry statements.
"Retarded atheist?" It's funny when these guys are outspoken atheists they are the forrunners of atheistic philosophy and when they turn around they're dubbed "retarded."
well if bangs have bangers where did the bangers come from? that's another fucking issue. and how do you know that the banger was supernatural? it could've been another natural law ? I mean nature is just taking its course well and doesn't need a supernatural explanation, it's all natural explanation, Idk why the origin of the universe needs a supernatural explanation. to me i think that's an idiotic claim
@Atheist603 "the banger" exists outside of space, time, matter, etc so it is immaterial & eternal. "how do you know that the banger was supernatural? it could've been another natural law ?" Hello before the big bang there was no nature which equals no natural laws. Supernatural is beyond natural so why is that an idiotic claim?
These are the same arguments that Hindus, Muslims and Jews use. Why is one religion any more likely than the other, as all these believers all say they can prove it.
Only a slave would want any of these religions to be true.
well it depends on how u see it. I see religion as morale. U can argue that its filled with violence & its hypocritical; but friggin atheists aren't exactly "alternatives" either. In fact, atheists help put together the atom bomb. Seriously, the only religious people that are morons are extremists and ignorant southerners, period. i realize that they make half the christian population, but not all christians are ignoramouses. Same goes for atheists, jews, muslims, etc.
@narutobuu321 I see anything that makes a supernatural l claim as religious and anything that doesn't as not, its quite simple.There were tens of thousands of people who workerd on the atom bomb, atheists Christians, Jews, your point is what? The thing is, no athesist has ever committed a crime in the name of atheism. When was the last time a war was waged, or a terrorist act comitted in the name of atheism, never...
While it is naive to think that you can describe the realites beyond the tangible with any detail, it is also naive to have an assumption of materialism. In essence both supernaturalism and materialism are unwarrented assumptions.
While it is naive to think that you can describe the realites beyond the tangible with any detail, it is also naive to have an assumption of materialism. In essence both supernaturalism and materialism are unwarrented assumptions.
Another apologist who lies. Flew is a deist, so he DOESN'T believe in the supernatural. But even if he did that isn't an argument for the supernatural.
As for the big bang, I don't know from whher he stuck out this bullshit. "The natural was created."
Ugh....NO!!! That just talking non-sense.
Funny how scientists don't agree with this, when it's "scientific" proof.
And for the fine-tuning: fact check!!! In 99.99999 % of the universe life can't exist.
I love how many atheists watch videos like this.... You all can criticism professors like JP Moreland all you want but you still watch because deep in your heart you wonder if its really true. Christ said every knee will bow and that includes the skeptics!
I won't speak for others, but the reason I watch these videos is because I want to hear the arguments. I want to see if they are plausible and rational. I don't wonder if it's true, I wonder what the arguments for its truth are. There is a difference.
Okay, just because an atheist comes to believe in the supernatural, that does not mean he or she will automatically jump to the position that the God of the Bible is the ultimate creator.
Furthermore, methodological naturalism is enough to explain how the universe works without having to invoke some kind of supernatural agent. The purpose of science is to explain how and why a mechanism or process in nature works, nothing more.
Atheism simply is assertion of one who doesn't believe "God" DOES exist. It's not part of Atheism to believe God DOESN'T. Many Atheists, of course, go the additional step, but it's not integral to Atheism.
I wish more people would get this, because Christians get off easy responding to a false definition of Atheism. My atheism is purely the standpoint of saying, "That God of yours, that YOU say is the ACTUAL one?? I don't believe HE exists. Can a creator or higher power exist? Sure.
it always amazes me how theist say; "ALL OF THE EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMINGLY IN SUPPORT OF THE SUPERNATURAL". Of course this gentleman has totally made his argument from ignorance. Something exists... therefore there must be a supernatural person who has feelings and thoughts, that created it. If those 3 "proofs" are the OVERWHELMING evidence he's talking about, consider me not convinced.
Your calling ME an idiot? I'm aware he doesnt yet see the full picture, and that he is a deist only(at least he's moving in the right direction-away from atheism). But He believes in a Creator God that made the universe whcih would therefore have to be a supernatural event. The supernatural and magic are 2 seperate things, which anyone with any intellect should know(I guess that leaves you out). Grow up; at least act 19 not 6.
It depends how you interpret supernatural. In deism God doesn't interact with humanity in a personal way, but creation itself is supernatural. If God, a supernatural being is the source of the universe, then the creation was a supernatural event. Therefore from my understanding, the initial creation act of a deistic God would be supernatural.
The answer would be that he was one of the more intelligent hard core atheist and well schooled in science(thats his foundation of understanding) yet thru scientific discoveries, he took the evidence honestly and is no longer a atheist and believes in a supernatural Creator. He was a strong defender of the atheistic view and well respected, but its funny now how is ex-atheist are turning against him for his change. Looks like Flew is just being a bit more honest with evidence than his ex-'peeps'
Well if God actually does exist, the laws of physics can be suspended due the Maker. So, IF God exists, they are entirely plausible. A God, not even the Christian God.
toddyszka is a raving lunatic who if he had his way would kill any man, woman or child that dared to dispute he and his prick of a god. He lives for the day stoning is brought back so he may be the first in line to hurl them. He downloads the videos of the Muslims stoning woman and jacks off over them. He is a parasite on society.
Everytime I hear this kinda talk it just reaffirms my theistic view. I think atheists are very intellectually dishonest. They can be VERY well informed and intellegent (MANY are) but still I find them to be intellectually dishonest.
The guy just pwned the whole evolution theory. I LOVE IT!! hehehe.Atheist can't stand this because it's right in front of them but, but they keep their eyes and ears covered humming Goerge of the Jungle! ..hehehe
His whole statement can be summed up as an argument from ignorance. He basically said, "I don't know how the universe came to be, therefore god did it."
you over simplify. many theists don't merely resign themselves to ignorance but rather see the immense unfolding of scientific information as synonymous with the glory of God. the exceedingly intelligent and logical atheist philosopher anthony flew shifted to a deistic philosophy. he must have a logical reason to change his mind. otherwise he is just giving up his lifes work in philosophy to take up a stance of ignorance.
It's interesting how theists claim to see god in science when science is agnostic about the existence of god. Also, science is an evidence-based endeavor and religion is based on faith, which is belief in the absence of evidence.
It is a logical fallacy to say that god-belief must have truth value because an atheist philosopher became a believer. My response: so what!
i never said his belief in God makes God true. i am just saying that theistic belief is not always illogical or irrational (just most of the time). and the fact that intelligent logical ppl can hold rational beliefs like mr. flew shows that belief can be rational.i am an agnostic.i have belief in God but i can't prove God's existence. just because there is no physical evidence of something doesn't make it impossible to know (or logically believe) something. just impossible to prove .
Again, stating that a smart guy believed something dumb does nothing to bolster your point that god-belief "can be rational" (huh). Either it is rational or it's not. Even though god's existence can't be proved (or disproved), what reason do you have to believe god exists in first place? Similarly, I can't prove the existence or non-existence of the tooth fairy, but what reason would I have to believe in it's existence?
So... basically what you are saying is that energy, and information came from nothing, and it is just a roll of the dice chance for the universe. Why is it so hard to believe that there is something beyond or natural world? Beyond our demension? Who would have affects on this universe. Sure, it goes against SCIENCE, but science is stuff that we can test repeat and observe inside our nature world where laws apply. Einstein sure thought that there were alternate dimensions.
I am basically saying that none of us know where the universe came from and religious faith does not close those gaps in our knowledge. I am not saying that nothing exists beyond the physical world, but what reason do you have to believe such a proposition in the first place? What makes you believe that the question is "who" as opposed to "what"? Claims about the supernatural and a Creator god are scientific claims since they are statements about the nature of the universe and its origin.
The more and more science is proving that it is actually very probably for there to have been divine intervention. Such as arguments in this video. I tend to believe in the God of the Bible for many reason. Both because of faith I have, and many accuracies proven, eye witness accounts, prophocies... The fact that it was written by many different people in many different places at many different times, and how the make perfect references to each other........ (continued)
The arguments in this vid were nothing new: the universe is so complex that it must've been created by the supernatural. This is what is called "an argument from ignorance" which is to say "I don't know how it all happened, therefore god did it". Stating faith as a reason for belief in the god is circular logic. The Bible has plenty of contradictions and scientific errors, but even if it were inerrant that still wouldn't be evidence for the existence of a god or any of the Biblical claims.
the death and resurrection of Jesus, the death of Judas, the visitors at Jesus tomb, the time they arrived, the order of creation in Genesis, just to name a few...
videos for biblical contradictions:
watch?v=JXvnz-p6Lm8
watch?v=15y7ybbb2FQ
The question is not what is POSSIBLE, because there are endless possibilities, but the question is what is PROBABLE.
You can't put probablity into something that can't be measured by science, since God is the oppisite of science. (I'm not saying that he contradict science, he is just completely unaffected by it)
First of all, your statement assumes god exists which hasn't been demonstrated. However, if your god intervenes in human affairs or has any description then those claims can be scrutinized. It is possible that the universe was created by Zeus, The Mighty Thor, or Superman, but what is the probability? Obviously, the probability is quite low. In reality, there is no difference between Zeus and the Biblical god since neither have any evidence to support their existence.
And another example, if you ask five people (That's being very nice to atheists, considering the much larger amount for the bible) to make up their own idea of God.... what are the odds that they wouldn't contradiction each other at all...................... Same goes for the books of the Bible. (People of different social class, background, time periods, no contact, different locations).
I hope people don't misconstrue what Antony Flew's actual views are from this clip. He's come to believe in a supernatural, DEISTIC "first cause", which is a far cry from JP Moreland's theistic Christian god.
Those things are used as metaphors now days, but in the past people actually believed they were true. It's only because of a naturalist perspectives that people dismiss them as metaphors now days. When you think with your heart, it is not an emotion in the head, it is an intuitive awareness that causes you to empathicly identify with somebody else's suffering or happiness.
And now that research really does show that the brain is not merely for cooling, and that the heart can be replaced by a plastic gizmo to pump blood, in what sense could you possibly mean it today OTHER than metaphorically?
How can you sit there with a straight face and claim to believe this and not spend even 5 seconds looking up natural facts from the last 100 or even 50 years?
You are a lump of dna. It is true about mice, cats, dogs, elephants and people.
You ask where the mind is and so forth, I think that's not relevent because the mind isn't material like matter. Also, I believe consciousness is not isolated to the brain, it involves other centers of the body, such as the heart. Maybe it is similar to the Indian chakra idea, but not necessarily with Hindu religious connotations.
So, the mind, according to what you seem to be saying, is immaterial. So wouldn't be easier to say it just doesn't exist?
There are plenty of reasons to include parts of the body as contributing to overall mental ability or "balance", but it seems a little bit of a cop out (not to mention a giant step backward) to imagine that you actually think with you heart or pancreas etc.
You say "People ARE consciousnesses". What do you mean? What implications do you see from this?
I know from experience you can think with your heart. Implications of consciousness being immaterial are too numerous to mention, but the most significant thing is that humans are not just blobs of mass walking around- we are "spiritual beings having human experiences" as Father Teillhard de Chardin said. I honestly don't think it can be proven with hard science, but it is not necessarily non-scientific.
It is just something I know is true for myself. Of course since it is a subjective experience, it is not necessarily true for everybody. I'd invite you to look up something like HeartMath, though. The heartrate variability can be altered by emotions or breathing patterns, and this affects a persons feelings of empathy and wellbeing, whereas negative emotions lower HRV. This may be related to heart consciousness.
Look, I get that you believe it. But saying "it's true for me" does not make it more worth believing. I am fully aware that people have differing opinions, and that they believe different things. But no one is entitled to say "this true, but only for me" when it comes to how the things work. You can say it about personal taste, or on matters of your past, but a plane flies because of real truths about the world. You die when you get decapitated because its always true about this world.
Homer, I've been looking back over my posts to you and I do want to sincerely apologize for my tone with you. I admit that I was harsh. It doesn't really change what I said but I could have said it in a better way. Do you forgive me? (This is no joke.)
No. But NOT because I am angry or holding a grudge.
I refuse to be put into a position of superiority over you.
You seem to have an inferiority complex, where you see others as more powerful than yourself, and I will not allow anyone to demean themselves in that way.
I am not anything like a jury. I cannot pass sentence or pardon. I am opposing council and my job is to cross examine the CLAIMS you present.
No, I will not. You have rejected what I've said and stated your opinions as though fact. (And by the way, I forgive you for your insolence against me.) Perhaps another atheist (ex-atheist now) can help you; perhaps not.
His name is John C. Wright and he wrote an article in his journal entitled "Why I am not a Deist". Google his name and the title. You could even message him and ask questions. Warning: he does not put up with irrational nonsense or insults. So be nice.
Another perspective comes from a former atheist who is a writer. He compares the search for evidence of God as Hamlet searching for evidence of Shakespeare. Shakespeare is not a character in his own play, therefore Hamlet will never find him, unless the author endues him with this ability. It is at this point that the analogy fails - as analogies always do, none are perfect. Because in the Christian view, God Himself became a character in His own play.
When I look at your comments it is difficult to see how exactly you claim to believe in anything but the here and now.
Perhaps it would be better if you just slowed down and presented one claim and one proof at a time. The jet engine is just another design argument. And it seems to open up the possibility that the designer could be different from the guy who eventually builds it...how many gods did you say you believed in?
"When I look at your comments...how many gods did you say you believed in?"
You're still being hyper-literal and changing the subject to avoid adddressing the real issue.
Before judging any evidence in support of a god, you must ask yourself this question: do you have a conscience that does not permit you to lie, ever?
That's not fear; that's the justice system's approach, and it's very practical, rational. Why present evidence before those who may not return an honest verdict?
OK: The Jet Engine was invented by Sir Frank Whittle (another guy -Dr. Hans von Ohain- was working separately and also gets some credit...). My point is: It is one thing to design a thing, it is another thing to actually build it. Why is it that we do not entertain the possibility that there is more than one god at work. You want me to be open minded and non-dogmatic. So I ask you: Why do you only claim to believe in only one god? Why not multiple god?
This is what I get for assuming that everyone is capable of being reasonably sane. Thank you for showing the world how little hope there is of ever coming out of the bronze age.
The last shred of hope comes from the fact that the record of our conversation is available for everyone to read. They will see what I have endured in your personal attacks, and how you have ducked and covered and finally ran away.
I am sorry for you, for now. Perhaps you will re-read it all and reflect.
Hi, Homer - did you miss me? Yep, I just had to see what I deleted from my mailbox.
Cut and paste for me those 'personal attacks', okay? And by the way, did you just imply I was insane? And how is not not a personal attack? Just by disagreeing with you or can you name something specific? "...and how you have ducked and covered and finally ran away...blah blah blah..."
As I expected, a dishonest claim of victory on your part.
Pt 3. "The search is vain; it is the whole engine which owes its being to Whittle's creativity, rather than any individual part bearing his signature.
"Furthermore, to expect the existence of God to be open to scientific tests is like trying to treat the existence of Frank Whittle as an engineering question!"
This is why atheists cannot (or will not) ever find God in science. God is not a part of the engine, He is the creator of it.
Pt 2. 'if He made the universe to look exactly as it would be expected to look if He did not exist'.
"But Christian theology does not envisage the universe as being different from what it might have been if God did not exist, rather that there would be no universe. It is the whole universe that is 'the traces', not some little piece tacked on by way of a signature.
"To think otherwise bears certain similarities to searching the components of a jet engine for traces of Frank Whittle."
Here's a better approach to the question: is there a God or not? Here's Michael Poole's answer.
Part 1. "...there is the idea that the universe should contain 'traces - evidence of His involvment'. Dawkins questions whether the apparent 'fine-tuning' of the universe for life is one of those 'traces'. He also asks what it would be like 'if God did indeed set things up so that life would evolve, but covered His tracks so brilliantly that no clues remain;...' (continued next)
Homer, you have already adequately demonstrated that you have a bias that keeps you from honestly considering both sides of this question. That's why you are a bad choice for a juror. If this were a criminal case, both the prosecuting attorney and the DA would excuse you from the jury.
Homer, the jury is always questioned by the DA and the prosecuting attorney prior to the trial, are they not? Why? To see if they will return an honest verdict, correct?
In the process of questioning, some jurors are let go by either side, while other jurors remain.
You know this already. I did not have to explain it, but you insisted.
Yes jury members get crossed and tossed pre-trial. But that has something to do with the power of juries to pronounce judgements that will have bodily effects on the accused.
You might might feel you are persecuted, but clearly I have no such power.
And each side can only toss a few, and each side looks for someone not too obviously biased -- realizing that everyone has a bias.
"Yes jury members get crossed and tossed pre-trial. But that has something to do with the power of juries to pronounce judgements...."
Thank you for agreeing with me! I would quote the rest of what you said, but to save time I'll say this: You are now guilty of being too hyperliteral. I suspect you are doing this in order to pronouce that the analogy makes no sense. Building up the strawman and burning it down. No analogy is perfect. You still are not addressing the point being made.
Who doesn't have bias? The question is: can you put aside your bias long enough to thoughfully consider the opposite view?
Fearful sunshine? Sounds like a rock group. Nice try at changing the subject to avoid addressing the issue at hand. See? This is what I meant about bias skewing your ability to consider someone else's point of view. But it's not your fault. Dogmatism is one of the most dearly held tenets of atheism.
as much as I like to toy with these ideas, I wouldn't go so far as to be sure that consciousness comes first. It truly is a mystery, the most fascinating one I can think of. However, plenty of things go on in the world without any consciousness I'm aware of working on it. Once consciousness is on the scene, things do start changing, but the latest developments in pure math and quantum physics suggest reason is only a small part of the universe. Most of it is just Murphy's law.
That probably sounds ridiculous to some, but consciousness precedes thought. Also, if consciousness were not in some sense a precedent, you shouldn't be able to manipulate a biofeedback device just by changing your thoughts or feelings. If anything, the thoughts are more real than the exterior world. Consciousness constructs reality in some way.
I'd like to see you think without your brain. Ever have a loved one degenerate or get brain damaged? Ever see someone have a severe personality change because his brain was damaged?
Brain first, then thinking, then reflecting on thinking. It is the last step that we call self-awareness. And it is where we get all tangled up with issues of "consciousness" and religion etc.
If you are going to delve into these things there are plenty of sources outside the bible.
Homer, you've misunderstood me again. Go back and re-read my statement. We actually agree here. I said "the thinker (brain) is the cause and the thought is the effect." See? Either you are jumping to conclusions too fast to even listen to what I am saying or you have a reading comprehension problem.
Have you even considered Flew's un-senile remarks regarding his "conversion" to deism? Or did you misunderstand him too?
Actually, I didn't get that from the Bible at all. It came from meditation. One time I was meditating and I had no thoughts at all, and yet I didn't cease to exist, I was still aware, but I wasn't think of anything at all. I've even had times I had no thoughts and I have willed things to happen, such as biofeedback devices. Consciousness constructs thoughts. The brain is just a physical interface of consciousness.
People don't have consciousness, they are consciousness. Mind with a body. Consciousness itself could be the fundamental building block of all phenomena. Maybe like Bishop Berkeley's Subjective Idealism.
Has my mind always existed? And if not when did it come into existence?
There are more questions, but I think these are a good start. I offer them in the spirit of inquiry, and with the idea that you have given this enough thought that you will not see them as threats but as a simple response to your claims.
I don't have all those answers, unfortunately. I think the existence of the mind after death is not improbable, though. Likewise, I wouldn't completely dismiss the possibility that people have some kind of pre-existence before conception/birth. Just from a philosophical standpoint. However, most of these questions are answered more by religion. I just think from a philosophical standpoint, and my own experience, the mind is independent of the body, the body doesn't cause the mind
I believe in the supernatural. I've been a buddhist for a while, but I came to the awareness through meditation that nothing material is ultimately real, there isa part of reality that is immaterial where concepts like time have no meaning. I am not my body, my thoughts, or my feeling. I'm some kind of consciouness existing with other consciousnesses. So, I'm now open to exploring a Chrisitan worldview too. Who was Jesus, for instance? People don't die for myths.
There is plenty of recorded phenomona that proves that empiricist philosophy and pure naturalism are incredibly doubtful. Look up research on stigmata wounds, levitation, even ghosts/possession.
But more to the point, he does not believe in a concurrently existing supernatural realm, only in some kind of deistic first cause. He does not subscribe to any sect or the bible or some grey-haired man in the sky that you pray to.
It is a gross over-simplification of Flew's view to assume that he has aligned himself with christian scientists, or whatever they call themselves.
Flew is one step from non-belief in that he only claims "god" as a first cause
I do not merely claim that Flew is a senile 87 year old man, it is a fact of his condition.
It is always sad to see "believers" try so hard to find tiny shreds of "evidence" that will justify their beliefs.
If you want to believe go ahead. But when you go looking for things to prop up that belief you must expect criticism.
And if you did a little homework you would find that Flew does not subscribe to any magical supernatural realm. He is a Deist, like Jefferson, and nearly as old.
"I do not merely claim that Flew is a senile 87 year old man, it is a FACT of his condition."
Then send me his doctor's full report with the diagnosis and treatment plan, please. Short of this is pure speculation and wishful thinking on your part.
It's always sad to see "unbelievers" try so hard to find tiny shreds of "evidence" (in evolution) that will justify their unbeliefs (in God).
BTW, I never said Tony Flew is a Christian. You presumed I did. I know he is a Deist.
"If you want to believe go ahead. But when you go looking for things to prop up that belief you must expect criticism."
Science and rational thought are on the side of intelligent design. If you would do a little homework you'd find Flew simply "followed where the evidence led". He did not want to believe. But he is humble enough to admit that the evidence is there to support the existence of a god.
When you go looking for things to prop up your unbelief you must expect criticism.
Citing one old dude who can't understand that all formal systems are forever inadequate to describe the totality of existence, is no reason to think that there is anything special going on here.
We are part of the world and we use formal systems to describe it from inside of it. There is nothing else but all that there is. One cannot explain things better by pointing to magical daddy things and saying HE is "Everywhere" or whatever.
Alright, then prove you have a conscience that won't permit you to lie, first. If you can't do that, why should I bother? "Why present evidence to a dishonest jury?"
mmK... I guess I have to ask: What does my ability to lie (or yours) have to do with whatever argument or evidence you want to propose that proves there is an invisible daddy in the sky? No one history has ever cross examined a jury for honesty. The jury is not on trial. Your claim is on trial. If you want you can withdraw your claim, but you certainly cannot re-direct cross-examinations to the jury. And you always must present evidence to non-believers of any claim, believers dont need it
I've never heard of Tony whoever before, and who gives a crap anyway!? That isn't evidence of the supernatural. It is an impossibility! Physical evidence of the non-physical? I don't think so. This is silly. Moreland is an ass. There is NOT ONE SHRED OF PROOF of any supernatural. It is bullshit but most the world is too scared to admit that the myths of religions are in fact just that... MYTHS!
And James Randi will give him a million dollars instantly if he can prove just ONE supernatural "phenomenon"..doesn't he know this? Haha, of course he does..but he also knows he can't prove anything! Want to know why? It's bacause nothing supernatural can exists with the forces of nature and laws of physics we have. The senile old fucktard he mentioned has Altzheimer's disease, by the way..for sure! I'm not kidding, so what a "witness" to have, eh? Haha..
None of those points holds any weight in modern science. The second point is the easiest to disprove -- it is simply the anthropic principle. How do you know that human life is possible? Because if it weren't we wouldn't be here to contemplate it.
It is possible that the supernatural does exist. To say it does not is making an absolute statement. One would have to have cosmological, supreme knowledge in order to emphatically assert such a statement.
@1:51 "Information has an information informer" - is the fallacy of assuming that because there is intelligence an intelligent creator must have created it? Paul Davies ASSUMES there must be causality for the universe. Just because the math can be made to imply that the existence of the universe seems highly improbable only means that an ASSUMPTION of improbability is made and is NOT equivalent to real measurable improbability. "There are 3 kinds of lies - lies, damn lies and statistics" - BD.
lol...information comes from an informer...assuming this has any basis in reality (lol) why does this informer give us oh so many genetic maladies? Is it a malicious informer?...why give life then cause a mutation so someone develops cancer...ohh benevolent deity, i mean informer, thanks for killing millions!
The ratio between the functionality of a human, against the problems that we have is like 1,000,000,000,000 to 1. Although yes, we do have a problem....Christian theology does give a good example for this. In a world where death exists, there must be something that causes death, thus disease.
ya...where did you pull that statistic from? NEJM or your ass? Christian theology makes up reasons without any evidence for diseases- as where science finds the real reasons- and attempts to cure them- prolonging life.
It's not to be taken literally man! You should know that. I said it is LIKE.. etc. I'm not arguing against science here, calm down dude. All I am saying, is that life is more coherent and functional than nonfunctional. And by a huge margin. But dude, totally, I think we should look for cures and everything and help as many people as we can.
Like??? how do you know it is anything at all like that number at all? If life was not functional at some level it would not be life...and it has huge freaking problems as well...
We do work together- thats why we have things like ACE-inhibitors, HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, antibiotics, etc...mankind causes these problems? Sure sometimes our lifestyle doesn't help, but many many things you just get because of your genetic makeup- or factors that happen to you in your environment out of your control- T1 DM, Malaria, HIV, Crohns, CF, ect ect...
Moreland's stance seems to be the tired old one that says the mere existence of the physical universe and all it's complexity is PROOF of a conscious intelligent creator. In other words it's a question of how you want to interpret what you see. He doesn't answer who made the maker or how the invisible maker removed from physical experience is somehow able to manipulate physical experience.
The question of 'Who made. . .GOD' doesn't make sense. Think about that word 'God' for a minute. Secondly, that which created our universe must necessarily be outside of it. Doesn't mean that which created cannot interact with our own universe (he created it, remember?)
Oh shut up. Show us the evidence. Your God has the same amount of evidence as invisible goats on mars playing kickball. BTW, this debate is propaganda. It is all scripted.
There's plenty of evidence, what's your problem? Have you done any research? You need to humble yourself, ask God to reveal Himself to you, look at the world around you and ask yourself if you really believe this incredible order and life could come from chaos... With your attitude, you won't get anywhere but hell...
I used to be devoutly religious. You clearly don't know anything about entropy, closed systems, biology, gravity, thermodynamics... You'd rather believe in magic. I can't help but notice you didn't provide any evidence for God. Ask yourself why you don't believe in Zeus and you'll know why I don't believe in YOUR imaginary friend.
For most it is not an attempt to disprove god but an attempt to show the research and evidence which just happens to NOT include evidence of a supernatural being. Example, Stephen Hawking quotes in reference to a god are a mockery to Hawking and GROSSLY twisted. When Hawking speaks - he is NOT speaking of a christian god but Spinoza's god. As in god IS physically the real world and inseparable from all mankind. Also, Spinoza - an ostracized Jew, did NOT have a notion of heaven, hell or creation.
Moreland has just proven the existence of Zeus, and disproven the existence of the bible's god. Also, Flew had become a DEIST not a christian. Deism is intellectual agnosticism, and is far preferable to the evil bookgod religions that have polluted the earth with mindless superstition.
My point is this - When one peruses that infamous book of mythology, the bible. One can't help but notice that the god created therein, kills or curses his creation (instantly) for the slightest of "sins" or even honest mistakes. The bible's god can be mocked contrary to Galatians 6:7 and endlessly insulted, ridiculed, or blasphemed without any consequences. The bible's god is simply a mindless superstition with all the judging power of the "Wizard of Oz"...Let the tyrant of the bible judge now.
I say it is the truth and I believe in Ghosts Vampires Werewolves Zombies Aliens and all except of goblins. I say that it is true for I think that is someone for example sees a Werewolf he won't stay alive enough to bring proof to others who don't believe!
AgiusMal 10 months ago
God exist!!!
FuckTheNWO1000 1 year ago
Even Einstein, one of the greatest Scientists of the 20th Century believed in God as the Creator of the Universe!!! You have to be blind to not believe in a God!!! Its totally obvious there is a God!!!!
joraynas 1 year ago
@joraynas Einstein : The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this... one more for ya :I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it..... but i suppose wat he said now doesn't matter.
gangstanton69 10 months ago
"Evidence" for the "supernatural" ... yeah, uh huh.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
Ugh, flew never said he believed in a supernatural Christian god.
Way to spread propaganda. The guy is like 65 years old also.
Fine tuning argument is about the model not the universe btw.physics/statistics fail.
DarkKnightBob1o1 1 year ago
Becuase some famous atheit chages their mind that is some sort of evidence? i think not.
normank27 1 year ago
@normank27 its actually pretty remarkable, since he devoted his whole life to atheism, and was a convinced atheist.
lightbrownpoop 1 year ago
@lightbrownpoop he was old and VERY close to death and filled his own basic human need by believing in god.
normank27 1 year ago 14
@normank27 why would god bring him any kind of solace when he didn't believe in an afterlife?
thepickletrain 1 year ago
@normank27 we all die and you will die someday as well, the difference is whether you'll come to the conclusion of what lays after death. Life is short and the ultimate conclusion is - without God, there is no need for life and humankind is bound to an ultimate destruction of itself in the universe. So based on that, God exists. The fine tuning of the universe supports that fact.
Immortalsouls 1 year ago
anyone ever think the athiest MR flew changed his mind becuase he was near death?
normank27 1 year ago
What a load of bullsh!t. So if a retarded atheist turns into believers because of a load of baloney, then the supernatural exists. Sitll no evidence of the supernatural, only a load of crappy talk.
TemplarX2 1 year ago
@TemplarX2 He never said atheists becoming believers proves the supernatural. He's just pointing out that the evidence that he LISTS which you refuse to listen to is so overwhelming that even the most stubborn of atheists has opened up their mind to the possibility of a supernatural realm. Who's closed minded now?
SlamDunkerDonkey 1 year ago
@SlamDunkerDonkey What evidence? Bangs come bangers? Nature's 50 constants and DNA as a mean to convey genetic information? These are the evidence for the supernatural? This guy is full of sophistry and shit! Just big empty, bombastic words!
TemplarX2 1 year ago
@TemplarX2 They're actually very serious claims that he would definitely tease out if he had the time. It would be unwise to simply dismiss them because they don't fit your close minded view of evidence. Maybe you should try to stop being angry and actually consider the claims like true believers and atheists alike do without short angry statements.
SlamDunkerDonkey 1 year ago
@TemplarX2
"Retarded atheist?" It's funny when these guys are outspoken atheists they are the forrunners of atheistic philosophy and when they turn around they're dubbed "retarded."
regelemihai 1 year ago
well if bangs have bangers where did the bangers come from? that's another fucking issue. and how do you know that the banger was supernatural? it could've been another natural law ? I mean nature is just taking its course well and doesn't need a supernatural explanation, it's all natural explanation, Idk why the origin of the universe needs a supernatural explanation. to me i think that's an idiotic claim
Atheist603 1 year ago
@Atheist603 "the banger" exists outside of space, time, matter, etc so it is immaterial & eternal. "how do you know that the banger was supernatural? it could've been another natural law ?" Hello before the big bang there was no nature which equals no natural laws. Supernatural is beyond natural so why is that an idiotic claim?
mvayne80 1 year ago
@Atheist603 If the banger was supernatural, the existence of a banger isn't a problem.
Supernatural means, you know. Not natural. If supernatural banger wasn't natural He doesn't need a creator.
..Oh. And what other natural law? I thought the BANG was the first natural thing to to come along..?
bankruptzero 1 year ago
These are the same arguments that Hindus, Muslims and Jews use. Why is one religion any more likely than the other, as all these believers all say they can prove it.
Only a slave would want any of these religions to be true.
LouisPlume 1 year ago
@LouisPlume
well it depends on how u see it. I see religion as morale. U can argue that its filled with violence & its hypocritical; but friggin atheists aren't exactly "alternatives" either. In fact, atheists help put together the atom bomb. Seriously, the only religious people that are morons are extremists and ignorant southerners, period. i realize that they make half the christian population, but not all christians are ignoramouses. Same goes for atheists, jews, muslims, etc.
narutobuu321 1 year ago
@narutobuu321 I see anything that makes a supernatural l claim as religious and anything that doesn't as not, its quite simple.There were tens of thousands of people who workerd on the atom bomb, atheists Christians, Jews, your point is what? The thing is, no athesist has ever committed a crime in the name of atheism. When was the last time a war was waged, or a terrorist act comitted in the name of atheism, never...
LouisPlume 1 year ago
Dr. of what from where? His DNA argument is complete rubish, the physics case is weak.
bfgray 1 year ago
While it is naive to think that you can describe the realites beyond the tangible with any detail, it is also naive to have an assumption of materialism. In essence both supernaturalism and materialism are unwarrented assumptions.
Keysteeze 1 year ago
While it is naive to think that you can describe the realites beyond the tangible with any detail, it is also naive to have an assumption of materialism. In essence both supernaturalism and materialism are unwarrented assumptions.
Keysteeze 1 year ago
Idiots have an idiotor!
rubberbaby00 1 year ago
assuming that the original banger of all bangs is subject to the same natural rules of all the other bangers ;)
chriswnorris7 2 years ago
If bangs have bangers, then bangers have pre-bangers ...
If dices are rigged the riggers has pre-riggers ...
If information comes from informers then informers are informed by pre-informers ...
curiosityversusfaith 2 years ago
Another apologist who lies. Flew is a deist, so he DOESN'T believe in the supernatural. But even if he did that isn't an argument for the supernatural.
As for the big bang, I don't know from whher he stuck out this bullshit. "The natural was created."
Ugh....NO!!! That just talking non-sense.
Funny how scientists don't agree with this, when it's "scientific" proof.
And for the fine-tuning: fact check!!! In 99.99999 % of the universe life can't exist.
Superb design my ass.
raoskaos 2 years ago
I love how many atheists watch videos like this.... You all can criticism professors like JP Moreland all you want but you still watch because deep in your heart you wonder if its really true. Christ said every knee will bow and that includes the skeptics!
ssllaaddee 2 years ago
I won't speak for others, but the reason I watch these videos is because I want to hear the arguments. I want to see if they are plausible and rational. I don't wonder if it's true, I wonder what the arguments for its truth are. There is a difference.
Awesomesome 2 years ago
I guess we have to assume that you wrote this post because deep down in your heart you wonder if Christianity is really false?
I watch this clip, I must think it's really true,
You write to atheists, you think it's really false.
That's how the argument works, right?
And you wonder why we despair of the Christian intellect.
Next time, ask yourself: "Does the structure and basis of my argument necessitate that the opposite is also true?"
(It'll change the way you look at your own dumb-ass notions)
Stefatropolis 2 years ago
Really? and so where did the "banger" come from?
So where did the "Informer' come from?
You have an infinite regression, Banger after Banger, going back forever. Not a very useful explanation
DISHONEST!! Tony Flew wrote a paper say he was considering the DEIST point of view (where god started the universe, then disappeared)
NO WAY did he endorse the Christian view that god intervenes in human affairs (if god does, then he SUCKS at it)
ManchuDan22 2 years ago
Okay, just because an atheist comes to believe in the supernatural, that does not mean he or she will automatically jump to the position that the God of the Bible is the ultimate creator.
Furthermore, methodological naturalism is enough to explain how the universe works without having to invoke some kind of supernatural agent. The purpose of science is to explain how and why a mechanism or process in nature works, nothing more.
mathgeek37 2 years ago
Absolutely,
Atheism simply is assertion of one who doesn't believe "God" DOES exist. It's not part of Atheism to believe God DOESN'T. Many Atheists, of course, go the additional step, but it's not integral to Atheism.
I wish more people would get this, because Christians get off easy responding to a false definition of Atheism. My atheism is purely the standpoint of saying, "That God of yours, that YOU say is the ACTUAL one?? I don't believe HE exists. Can a creator or higher power exist? Sure.
Stefatropolis 2 years ago
it always amazes me how theist say; "ALL OF THE EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMINGLY IN SUPPORT OF THE SUPERNATURAL". Of course this gentleman has totally made his argument from ignorance. Something exists... therefore there must be a supernatural person who has feelings and thoughts, that created it. If those 3 "proofs" are the OVERWHELMING evidence he's talking about, consider me not convinced.
mleonsmith 2 years ago
ITS REAL DO YOUR HOMEWORK PEOPLE
seawitch949 2 years ago
Your calling ME an idiot? I'm aware he doesnt yet see the full picture, and that he is a deist only(at least he's moving in the right direction-away from atheism). But He believes in a Creator God that made the universe whcih would therefore have to be a supernatural event. The supernatural and magic are 2 seperate things, which anyone with any intellect should know(I guess that leaves you out). Grow up; at least act 19 not 6.
miked518 2 years ago
He doesn't believe in the supernatural, that's my point. In deism there's no supernatural.
raoskaos 2 years ago
It depends how you interpret supernatural. In deism God doesn't interact with humanity in a personal way, but creation itself is supernatural. If God, a supernatural being is the source of the universe, then the creation was a supernatural event. Therefore from my understanding, the initial creation act of a deistic God would be supernatural.
Limbsy 2 years ago
But the question remains.
Who IS Tony Flew?
Strandgrim 2 years ago
The answer would be that he was one of the more intelligent hard core atheist and well schooled in science(thats his foundation of understanding) yet thru scientific discoveries, he took the evidence honestly and is no longer a atheist and believes in a supernatural Creator. He was a strong defender of the atheistic view and well respected, but its funny now how is ex-atheist are turning against him for his change. Looks like Flew is just being a bit more honest with evidence than his ex-'peeps'
miked518 2 years ago
He is an deist you fucking ignorant lying idiot.
Magic doesn't exist, you live in a delusion.
raoskaos 2 years ago
Yes, he is a deist, he believes in a Creator.
"Magic doesn't exist, you live in a delusion. "
Who is claiming magic?
TheIrrationalAtheist 2 years ago
Theists are claiming magic.
raoskaos 2 years ago
How so?
TheIrrationalAtheist 2 years ago
Virgin birth, resurrection os Jesus, walking on water...
A miracle is a metaphore for magic.
In religion it's all about the magic.
And magic doesn't exist, but logic and reason does.
raoskaos 2 years ago
Well if God actually does exist, the laws of physics can be suspended due the Maker. So, IF God exists, they are entirely plausible. A God, not even the Christian God.
TheIrrationalAtheist 2 years ago
toddyszka is a raving lunatic who if he had his way would kill any man, woman or child that dared to dispute he and his prick of a god. He lives for the day stoning is brought back so he may be the first in line to hurl them. He downloads the videos of the Muslims stoning woman and jacks off over them. He is a parasite on society.
Zenthor2112 3 years ago
friendlydiplomat Your position sir is uuterly insane. You believe without a shred of evidence.
My poisition is "give me evidence and I shall believe"
Philos2006 3 years ago
Everytime I hear this kinda talk it just reaffirms my theistic view. I think atheists are very intellectually dishonest. They can be VERY well informed and intellegent (MANY are) but still I find them to be intellectually dishonest.
friendlydiplomat 3 years ago
riendlydiplomat:but still I find them to be intellectually dishonest Would you mind proving your biased opinion ?
Philos2006 3 years ago
How can one prove their opinion? I just find the belief that there is no God to be utterly insane.
friendlydiplomat 3 years ago
friendlydiplomat I just find the belief that there is no God to be utterly insane. It is insane to believe without evidence.
Philos2006 3 years ago 5
The guy just pwned the whole evolution theory. I LOVE IT!! hehehe.Atheist can't stand this because it's right in front of them but, but they keep their eyes and ears covered humming Goerge of the Jungle! ..hehehe
Rondopolumbo 3 years ago
His whole statement can be summed up as an argument from ignorance. He basically said, "I don't know how the universe came to be, therefore god did it."
DIRTYDUNNZ 3 years ago
word
peenishead 3 years ago
you over simplify. many theists don't merely resign themselves to ignorance but rather see the immense unfolding of scientific information as synonymous with the glory of God. the exceedingly intelligent and logical atheist philosopher anthony flew shifted to a deistic philosophy. he must have a logical reason to change his mind. otherwise he is just giving up his lifes work in philosophy to take up a stance of ignorance.
kindkayne 3 years ago
It's interesting how theists claim to see god in science when science is agnostic about the existence of god. Also, science is an evidence-based endeavor and religion is based on faith, which is belief in the absence of evidence.
It is a logical fallacy to say that god-belief must have truth value because an atheist philosopher became a believer. My response: so what!
DIRTYDUNNZ 3 years ago
i never said his belief in God makes God true. i am just saying that theistic belief is not always illogical or irrational (just most of the time). and the fact that intelligent logical ppl can hold rational beliefs like mr. flew shows that belief can be rational.i am an agnostic.i have belief in God but i can't prove God's existence. just because there is no physical evidence of something doesn't make it impossible to know (or logically believe) something. just impossible to prove .
kindkayne 3 years ago
Again, stating that a smart guy believed something dumb does nothing to bolster your point that god-belief "can be rational" (huh). Either it is rational or it's not. Even though god's existence can't be proved (or disproved), what reason do you have to believe god exists in first place? Similarly, I can't prove the existence or non-existence of the tooth fairy, but what reason would I have to believe in it's existence?
DIRTYDUNNZ 3 years ago
So... basically what you are saying is that energy, and information came from nothing, and it is just a roll of the dice chance for the universe. Why is it so hard to believe that there is something beyond or natural world? Beyond our demension? Who would have affects on this universe. Sure, it goes against SCIENCE, but science is stuff that we can test repeat and observe inside our nature world where laws apply. Einstein sure thought that there were alternate dimensions.
Sonix202 3 years ago
I am basically saying that none of us know where the universe came from and religious faith does not close those gaps in our knowledge. I am not saying that nothing exists beyond the physical world, but what reason do you have to believe such a proposition in the first place? What makes you believe that the question is "who" as opposed to "what"? Claims about the supernatural and a Creator god are scientific claims since they are statements about the nature of the universe and its origin.
DIRTYDUNNZ 3 years ago
The more and more science is proving that it is actually very probably for there to have been divine intervention. Such as arguments in this video. I tend to believe in the God of the Bible for many reason. Both because of faith I have, and many accuracies proven, eye witness accounts, prophocies... The fact that it was written by many different people in many different places at many different times, and how the make perfect references to each other........ (continued)
Sonix202 3 years ago
The arguments in this vid were nothing new: the universe is so complex that it must've been created by the supernatural. This is what is called "an argument from ignorance" which is to say "I don't know how it all happened, therefore god did it". Stating faith as a reason for belief in the god is circular logic. The Bible has plenty of contradictions and scientific errors, but even if it were inerrant that still wouldn't be evidence for the existence of a god or any of the Biblical claims.
DIRTYDUNNZ 3 years ago
Could you please share some with me....? I'm curious. And, it isn't trying to prove that God did it, it's trying to prove the natural impossibleties.
Sonix202 3 years ago
the death and resurrection of Jesus, the death of Judas, the visitors at Jesus tomb, the time they arrived, the order of creation in Genesis, just to name a few...
videos for biblical contradictions:
watch?v=JXvnz-p6Lm8
watch?v=15y7ybbb2FQ
The question is not what is POSSIBLE, because there are endless possibilities, but the question is what is PROBABLE.
DIRTYDUNNZ 3 years ago
You can't put probablity into something that can't be measured by science, since God is the oppisite of science. (I'm not saying that he contradict science, he is just completely unaffected by it)
Sonix202 3 years ago
First of all, your statement assumes god exists which hasn't been demonstrated. However, if your god intervenes in human affairs or has any description then those claims can be scrutinized. It is possible that the universe was created by Zeus, The Mighty Thor, or Superman, but what is the probability? Obviously, the probability is quite low. In reality, there is no difference between Zeus and the Biblical god since neither have any evidence to support their existence.
DIRTYDUNNZ 3 years ago
And another example, if you ask five people (That's being very nice to atheists, considering the much larger amount for the bible) to make up their own idea of God.... what are the odds that they wouldn't contradiction each other at all...................... Same goes for the books of the Bible. (People of different social class, background, time periods, no contact, different locations).
Sonix202 3 years ago
I hope people don't misconstrue what Antony Flew's actual views are from this clip. He's come to believe in a supernatural, DEISTIC "first cause", which is a far cry from JP Moreland's theistic Christian god.
ErikWithBrain 3 years ago
And gods have godmakers?
Eldelacuchuca 3 years ago
Those things are used as metaphors now days, but in the past people actually believed they were true. It's only because of a naturalist perspectives that people dismiss them as metaphors now days. When you think with your heart, it is not an emotion in the head, it is an intuitive awareness that causes you to empathicly identify with somebody else's suffering or happiness.
Magnulus76 3 years ago
And now that research really does show that the brain is not merely for cooling, and that the heart can be replaced by a plastic gizmo to pump blood, in what sense could you possibly mean it today OTHER than metaphorically?
How can you sit there with a straight face and claim to believe this and not spend even 5 seconds looking up natural facts from the last 100 or even 50 years?
You are a lump of dna. It is true about mice, cats, dogs, elephants and people.
homerthompsonman 3 years ago
You ask where the mind is and so forth, I think that's not relevent because the mind isn't material like matter. Also, I believe consciousness is not isolated to the brain, it involves other centers of the body, such as the heart. Maybe it is similar to the Indian chakra idea, but not necessarily with Hindu religious connotations.
Magnulus76 3 years ago
So, the mind, according to what you seem to be saying, is immaterial. So wouldn't be easier to say it just doesn't exist?
There are plenty of reasons to include parts of the body as contributing to overall mental ability or "balance", but it seems a little bit of a cop out (not to mention a giant step backward) to imagine that you actually think with you heart or pancreas etc.
You say "People ARE consciousnesses". What do you mean? What implications do you see from this?
homerthompsonman 3 years ago
I know from experience you can think with your heart. Implications of consciousness being immaterial are too numerous to mention, but the most significant thing is that humans are not just blobs of mass walking around- we are "spiritual beings having human experiences" as Father Teillhard de Chardin said. I honestly don't think it can be proven with hard science, but it is not necessarily non-scientific.
Magnulus76 3 years ago
So, have you seen a person without a functioning brain actually do some sort of thinking with his heart organ?
Are you willing to stand trial and claim that "think with your heart" actually means "use your heart muscle like a brain"?
I don't know if you know this, but phrases like "look into your heart" or "follow your heart's desire" are used as metaphors, you know, like poetry?
And if you are literally claiming to "think with your heart", how do you know its true? How does it work?
homerthompsonman 3 years ago
It is just something I know is true for myself. Of course since it is a subjective experience, it is not necessarily true for everybody. I'd invite you to look up something like HeartMath, though. The heartrate variability can be altered by emotions or breathing patterns, and this affects a persons feelings of empathy and wellbeing, whereas negative emotions lower HRV. This may be related to heart consciousness.
Magnulus76 3 years ago
Look, I get that you believe it. But saying "it's true for me" does not make it more worth believing. I am fully aware that people have differing opinions, and that they believe different things. But no one is entitled to say "this true, but only for me" when it comes to how the things work. You can say it about personal taste, or on matters of your past, but a plane flies because of real truths about the world. You die when you get decapitated because its always true about this world.
homerthompsonman 3 years ago
Homer, I've been looking back over my posts to you and I do want to sincerely apologize for my tone with you. I admit that I was harsh. It doesn't really change what I said but I could have said it in a better way. Do you forgive me? (This is no joke.)
sunshinegirl1967 3 years ago
No. But NOT because I am angry or holding a grudge.
I refuse to be put into a position of superiority over you.
You seem to have an inferiority complex, where you see others as more powerful than yourself, and I will not allow anyone to demean themselves in that way.
I am not anything like a jury. I cannot pass sentence or pardon. I am opposing council and my job is to cross examine the CLAIMS you present.
All you have to do is present your argument.
I critique it, and you do the same. Can You?
homerthompsonman 3 years ago
No, I will not. You have rejected what I've said and stated your opinions as though fact. (And by the way, I forgive you for your insolence against me.) Perhaps another atheist (ex-atheist now) can help you; perhaps not.
His name is John C. Wright and he wrote an article in his journal entitled "Why I am not a Deist". Google his name and the title. You could even message him and ask questions. Warning: he does not put up with irrational nonsense or insults. So be nice.
Peace.
sunshinegirl1967 3 years ago
Clearly, you feel you are not up to the challenge of presenting your arguments in an open debate of equals.
So be it. John Wright will be an entertaining opponent.
You have some issues to resolve.
I will not respond to any more from you.
homerthompsonman 3 years ago
And for the record, I too am glad that these posts are here for all the world to see.
You have lied and sputtered and spewed and it's all here in black and white!
sunshinegirl1967 3 years ago
Another perspective comes from a former atheist who is a writer. He compares the search for evidence of God as Hamlet searching for evidence of Shakespeare. Shakespeare is not a character in his own play, therefore Hamlet will never find him, unless the author endues him with this ability. It is at this point that the analogy fails - as analogies always do, none are perfect. Because in the Christian view, God Himself became a character in His own play.
sunshinegirl1967 3 years ago
When I look at your comments it is difficult to see how exactly you claim to believe in anything but the here and now.
Perhaps it would be better if you just slowed down and presented one claim and one proof at a time. The jet engine is just another design argument. And it seems to open up the possibility that the designer could be different from the guy who eventually builds it...how many gods did you say you believed in?
homerthompsonman 3 years ago
"When I look at your comments...how many gods did you say you believed in?"
You're still being hyper-literal and changing the subject to avoid adddressing the real issue.
Before judging any evidence in support of a god, you must ask yourself this question: do you have a conscience that does not permit you to lie, ever?
That's not fear; that's the justice system's approach, and it's very practical, rational. Why present evidence before those who may not return an honest verdict?
sunshinegirl1967 3 years ago
OK: The Jet Engine was invented by Sir Frank Whittle (another guy -Dr. Hans von Ohain- was working separately and also gets some credit...). My point is: It is one thing to design a thing, it is another thing to actually build it. Why is it that we do not entertain the possibility that there is more than one god at work. You want me to be open minded and non-dogmatic. So I ask you: Why do you only claim to believe in only one god? Why not multiple god?
homerthompsonman 3 years ago
Once again, Homer, you have dodged the question.
In the spirit of the juror analogy, you have been dismissed.
sunshinegirl1967 3 years ago
This is what I get for assuming that everyone is capable of being reasonably sane. Thank you for showing the world how little hope there is of ever coming out of the bronze age.
The last shred of hope comes from the fact that the record of our conversation is available for everyone to read. They will see what I have endured in your personal attacks, and how you have ducked and covered and finally ran away.
I am sorry for you, for now. Perhaps you will re-read it all and reflect.
homerthompsonman 3 years ago
Hi, Homer - did you miss me? Yep, I just had to see what I deleted from my mailbox.
Cut and paste for me those 'personal attacks', okay? And by the way, did you just imply I was insane? And how is not not a personal attack? Just by disagreeing with you or can you name something specific? "...and how you have ducked and covered and finally ran away...blah blah blah..."
As I expected, a dishonest claim of victory on your part.
sunshinegirl1967 3 years ago
Pt 3. "The search is vain; it is the whole engine which owes its being to Whittle's creativity, rather than any individual part bearing his signature.
"Furthermore, to expect the existence of God to be open to scientific tests is like trying to treat the existence of Frank Whittle as an engineering question!"
This is why atheists cannot (or will not) ever find God in science. God is not a part of the engine, He is the creator of it.
sunshinegirl1967 3 years ago
Pt 2. 'if He made the universe to look exactly as it would be expected to look if He did not exist'.
"But Christian theology does not envisage the universe as being different from what it might have been if God did not exist, rather that there would be no universe. It is the whole universe that is 'the traces', not some little piece tacked on by way of a signature.
"To think otherwise bears certain similarities to searching the components of a jet engine for traces of Frank Whittle."
sunshinegirl1967 3 years ago
Here's a better approach to the question: is there a God or not? Here's Michael Poole's answer.
Part 1. "...there is the idea that the universe should contain 'traces - evidence of His involvment'. Dawkins questions whether the apparent 'fine-tuning' of the universe for life is one of those 'traces'. He also asks what it would be like 'if God did indeed set things up so that life would evolve, but covered His tracks so brilliantly that no clues remain;...' (continued next)
sunshinegirl1967 3 years ago
Homer, you have already adequately demonstrated that you have a bias that keeps you from honestly considering both sides of this question. That's why you are a bad choice for a juror. If this were a criminal case, both the prosecuting attorney and the DA would excuse you from the jury.
sunshinegirl1967 3 years ago
Homer, the jury is always questioned by the DA and the prosecuting attorney prior to the trial, are they not? Why? To see if they will return an honest verdict, correct?
In the process of questioning, some jurors are let go by either side, while other jurors remain.
You know this already. I did not have to explain it, but you insisted.
sunshinegirl1967 3 years ago
Yes jury members get crossed and tossed pre-trial. But that has something to do with the power of juries to pronounce judgements that will have bodily effects on the accused.
You might might feel you are persecuted, but clearly I have no such power.
And each side can only toss a few, and each side looks for someone not too obviously biased -- realizing that everyone has a bias.
Yes, fearful sunshine, even you have bias.
homerthompsonman 3 years ago
"Yes jury members get crossed and tossed pre-trial. But that has something to do with the power of juries to pronounce judgements...."
Thank you for agreeing with me! I would quote the rest of what you said, but to save time I'll say this: You are now guilty of being too hyperliteral. I suspect you are doing this in order to pronouce that the analogy makes no sense. Building up the strawman and burning it down. No analogy is perfect. You still are not addressing the point being made.
sunshinegirl1967 3 years ago
OK, enough bluster already. What is your point.
Just say what it is and allow me to respond.
homerthompsonman 3 years ago
By the way this makes the second time I've put this to you and you continue to bluster your way out of answering.
sunshinegirl1967 3 years ago
"Yes fearful sunshine, even you have bias."
Who doesn't have bias? The question is: can you put aside your bias long enough to thoughfully consider the opposite view?
Fearful sunshine? Sounds like a rock group. Nice try at changing the subject to avoid addressing the issue at hand. See? This is what I meant about bias skewing your ability to consider someone else's point of view. But it's not your fault. Dogmatism is one of the most dearly held tenets of atheism.
sunshinegirl1967 3 years ago
BTW, I like your talking cat video.
sunshinegirl1967 3 years ago
as much as I like to toy with these ideas, I wouldn't go so far as to be sure that consciousness comes first. It truly is a mystery, the most fascinating one I can think of. However, plenty of things go on in the world without any consciousness I'm aware of working on it. Once consciousness is on the scene, things do start changing, but the latest developments in pure math and quantum physics suggest reason is only a small part of the universe. Most of it is just Murphy's law.
theseanze 3 years ago
That probably sounds ridiculous to some, but consciousness precedes thought. Also, if consciousness were not in some sense a precedent, you shouldn't be able to manipulate a biofeedback device just by changing your thoughts or feelings. If anything, the thoughts are more real than the exterior world. Consciousness constructs reality in some way.
Magnulus76 3 years ago
I agree with you. How can the thought come before the thinker of the thought? It can't! The thinker is the cause and thought the effect.
sunshinegirl1967 3 years ago
I'd like to see you think without your brain. Ever have a loved one degenerate or get brain damaged? Ever see someone have a severe personality change because his brain was damaged?
Brain first, then thinking, then reflecting on thinking. It is the last step that we call self-awareness. And it is where we get all tangled up with issues of "consciousness" and religion etc.
If you are going to delve into these things there are plenty of sources outside the bible.
homerthompsonman 3 years ago
"I'd like to see you think without your brain."
Homer, you've misunderstood me again. Go back and re-read my statement. We actually agree here. I said "the thinker (brain) is the cause and the thought is the effect." See? Either you are jumping to conclusions too fast to even listen to what I am saying or you have a reading comprehension problem.
Have you even considered Flew's un-senile remarks regarding his "conversion" to deism? Or did you misunderstand him too?
sunshinegirl1967 3 years ago
Actually, I didn't get that from the Bible at all. It came from meditation. One time I was meditating and I had no thoughts at all, and yet I didn't cease to exist, I was still aware, but I wasn't think of anything at all. I've even had times I had no thoughts and I have willed things to happen, such as biofeedback devices. Consciousness constructs thoughts. The brain is just a physical interface of consciousness.
Magnulus76 3 years ago
So then your "consciousness" is somewhere "out there" and your brain "picks it up" and...then what?
homerthompsonman 3 years ago
People don't have consciousness, they are consciousness. Mind with a body. Consciousness itself could be the fundamental building block of all phenomena. Maybe like Bishop Berkeley's Subjective Idealism.
Magnulus76 3 years ago
OK, so how does this work then?
Is my consciousness somewhere else?
Does my mind float near my body?
Does my mind continue to exist after I die?
Has my mind always existed? And if not when did it come into existence?
There are more questions, but I think these are a good start. I offer them in the spirit of inquiry, and with the idea that you have given this enough thought that you will not see them as threats but as a simple response to your claims.
homerthompsonman 3 years ago
I don't have all those answers, unfortunately. I think the existence of the mind after death is not improbable, though. Likewise, I wouldn't completely dismiss the possibility that people have some kind of pre-existence before conception/birth. Just from a philosophical standpoint. However, most of these questions are answered more by religion. I just think from a philosophical standpoint, and my own experience, the mind is independent of the body, the body doesn't cause the mind
Magnulus76 3 years ago
I believe in the supernatural. I've been a buddhist for a while, but I came to the awareness through meditation that nothing material is ultimately real, there isa part of reality that is immaterial where concepts like time have no meaning. I am not my body, my thoughts, or my feeling. I'm some kind of consciouness existing with other consciousnesses. So, I'm now open to exploring a Chrisitan worldview too. Who was Jesus, for instance? People don't die for myths.
Magnulus76 3 years ago
Nobody disputes natural intelligence. But intelligence in nature is not proof of the supernatural.
bondurango 3 years ago
Take a look at the picture 'Pale Blue Dot' and then tell me we're of great importance.
silvercade 3 years ago
We're of great importance. Next marching order.
dingorex 3 years ago
There is plenty of recorded phenomona that proves that empiricist philosophy and pure naturalism are incredibly doubtful. Look up research on stigmata wounds, levitation, even ghosts/possession.
braino2000 3 years ago
Tony Flew is a senile 87 year old man.
But more to the point, he does not believe in a concurrently existing supernatural realm, only in some kind of deistic first cause. He does not subscribe to any sect or the bible or some grey-haired man in the sky that you pray to.
It is a gross over-simplification of Flew's view to assume that he has aligned himself with christian scientists, or whatever they call themselves.
Flew is one step from non-belief in that he only claims "god" as a first cause
homerthompsonman 3 years ago
"Tony Flew is a senile 87 year old man."
How so? Because he disagrees with you?
You kick him to the curb with a scathing judgment, but then totally contradict yourself with your very next sentence!
sunshinegirl1967 3 years ago
I do not merely claim that Flew is a senile 87 year old man, it is a fact of his condition.
It is always sad to see "believers" try so hard to find tiny shreds of "evidence" that will justify their beliefs.
If you want to believe go ahead. But when you go looking for things to prop up that belief you must expect criticism.
And if you did a little homework you would find that Flew does not subscribe to any magical supernatural realm. He is a Deist, like Jefferson, and nearly as old.
homerthompsonman 3 years ago
"I do not merely claim that Flew is a senile 87 year old man, it is a FACT of his condition."
Then send me his doctor's full report with the diagnosis and treatment plan, please. Short of this is pure speculation and wishful thinking on your part.
It's always sad to see "unbelievers" try so hard to find tiny shreds of "evidence" (in evolution) that will justify their unbeliefs (in God).
BTW, I never said Tony Flew is a Christian. You presumed I did. I know he is a Deist.
sunshinegirl1967 3 years ago
So then tell me, what do you think is the real distinction between deist and atheist?
homerthompsonman 3 years ago
"If you want to believe go ahead. But when you go looking for things to prop up that belief you must expect criticism."
Science and rational thought are on the side of intelligent design. If you would do a little homework you'd find Flew simply "followed where the evidence led". He did not want to believe. But he is humble enough to admit that the evidence is there to support the existence of a god.
When you go looking for things to prop up your unbelief you must expect criticism.
sunshinegirl1967 3 years ago
Unbelief does not require defense.
Believers must defend.
Citing one old dude who can't understand that all formal systems are forever inadequate to describe the totality of existence, is no reason to think that there is anything special going on here.
We are part of the world and we use formal systems to describe it from inside of it. There is nothing else but all that there is. One cannot explain things better by pointing to magical daddy things and saying HE is "Everywhere" or whatever.
homerthompsonman 3 years ago
"Believers must defend."
Alright, then prove you have a conscience that won't permit you to lie, first. If you can't do that, why should I bother? "Why present evidence to a dishonest jury?"
sunshinegirl1967 3 years ago
mmK... I guess I have to ask: What does my ability to lie (or yours) have to do with whatever argument or evidence you want to propose that proves there is an invisible daddy in the sky? No one history has ever cross examined a jury for honesty. The jury is not on trial. Your claim is on trial. If you want you can withdraw your claim, but you certainly cannot re-direct cross-examinations to the jury. And you always must present evidence to non-believers of any claim, believers dont need it
homerthompsonman 3 years ago
I've never heard of Tony whoever before, and who gives a crap anyway!? That isn't evidence of the supernatural. It is an impossibility! Physical evidence of the non-physical? I don't think so. This is silly. Moreland is an ass. There is NOT ONE SHRED OF PROOF of any supernatural. It is bullshit but most the world is too scared to admit that the myths of religions are in fact just that... MYTHS!
xenotion1 3 years ago
You need to calm down before your venom and hatred become the end of you. Go comment where your hate will be appreciated.
braino2000 3 years ago
Untill real evidence is provided one must consider " the spiritual " as pure presumption.
Philos2006 3 years ago
And James Randi will give him a million dollars instantly if he can prove just ONE supernatural "phenomenon"..doesn't he know this? Haha, of course he does..but he also knows he can't prove anything! Want to know why? It's bacause nothing supernatural can exists with the forces of nature and laws of physics we have. The senile old fucktard he mentioned has Altzheimer's disease, by the way..for sure! I'm not kidding, so what a "witness" to have, eh? Haha..
winterstellar 3 years ago
Dr.melvin Morse: NDE researcher.(pediatrician)
Studied countless childrens' near death experiences.
once a atheist. untill his research convinced him otherwise.
JAMRAND 3 years ago
For goodness' sake, when will these people do their research? It would save a lot of time in rebuttals.
leonardski89 3 years ago
is there a whole clip to this or what>? I mean, I would like to hear what Eddie Tabash had for a response.
babystinky 3 years ago
wow
None of those points holds any weight in modern science. The second point is the easiest to disprove -- it is simply the anthropic principle. How do you know that human life is possible? Because if it weren't we wouldn't be here to contemplate it.
muerteverde 3 years ago
It is possible that the supernatural does exist. To say it does not is making an absolute statement. One would have to have cosmological, supreme knowledge in order to emphatically assert such a statement.
crisscherub 3 years ago
it is not only possible, but confirmed.
jbbremerton 3 years ago
@1:51 "Information has an information informer" - is the fallacy of assuming that because there is intelligence an intelligent creator must have created it? Paul Davies ASSUMES there must be causality for the universe. Just because the math can be made to imply that the existence of the universe seems highly improbable only means that an ASSUMPTION of improbability is made and is NOT equivalent to real measurable improbability. "There are 3 kinds of lies - lies, damn lies and statistics" - BD.
generationalist 3 years ago
lol...information comes from an informer...assuming this has any basis in reality (lol) why does this informer give us oh so many genetic maladies? Is it a malicious informer?...why give life then cause a mutation so someone develops cancer...ohh benevolent deity, i mean informer, thanks for killing millions!
jpttech 3 years ago
The ratio between the functionality of a human, against the problems that we have is like 1,000,000,000,000 to 1. Although yes, we do have a problem....Christian theology does give a good example for this. In a world where death exists, there must be something that causes death, thus disease.
Limbsy 2 years ago
ya...where did you pull that statistic from? NEJM or your ass? Christian theology makes up reasons without any evidence for diseases- as where science finds the real reasons- and attempts to cure them- prolonging life.
jpttech 2 years ago
It's not to be taken literally man! You should know that. I said it is LIKE.. etc. I'm not arguing against science here, calm down dude. All I am saying, is that life is more coherent and functional than nonfunctional. And by a huge margin. But dude, totally, I think we should look for cures and everything and help as many people as we can.
Limbsy 2 years ago
Like??? how do you know it is anything at all like that number at all? If life was not functional at some level it would not be life...and it has huge freaking problems as well...
jpttech 2 years ago
Well humankind causes most of these problems. And if we worked together, life wouldn't be as bad.
Limbsy 2 years ago
We do work together- thats why we have things like ACE-inhibitors, HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, antibiotics, etc...mankind causes these problems? Sure sometimes our lifestyle doesn't help, but many many things you just get because of your genetic makeup- or factors that happen to you in your environment out of your control- T1 DM, Malaria, HIV, Crohns, CF, ect ect...
jpttech 2 years ago
He gave absolutly no evidence at all...
only assumptions...
swyft187 3 years ago
Assumptions? Then how do you explain DNA and stuff?
CyberchurchofChrist 3 years ago
if you've listened to moreland's other lectures (and debates), you'd know that he gives plenty more evidence and "proofs" for the existence of God.
given your comment, it'd be safe to assume you haven't heard other stuff.
darkominem 3 years ago 2
Moreland's stance seems to be the tired old one that says the mere existence of the physical universe and all it's complexity is PROOF of a conscious intelligent creator. In other words it's a question of how you want to interpret what you see. He doesn't answer who made the maker or how the invisible maker removed from physical experience is somehow able to manipulate physical experience.
thisisitornot 4 years ago 2
He doesn't need to because they're both really easy questions to answer!
1] No-one! What you've just asked is who made the unmade. A being without a beginning does not require a cause.
2] Because he is omnipotent.
dooyeweerd 4 years ago
The question of 'Who made. . .GOD' doesn't make sense. Think about that word 'God' for a minute. Secondly, that which created our universe must necessarily be outside of it. Doesn't mean that which created cannot interact with our own universe (he created it, remember?)
Satchriani15 3 years ago
yes indeed
muddobber73 4 years ago 2
Athiests, face it, God is REAL and he loves you despite the fact you try and disprove him with weak arguments.
christopherduke 4 years ago
I agree :D
peppermint1285 4 years ago
Oh shut up. Show us the evidence. Your God has the same amount of evidence as invisible goats on mars playing kickball. BTW, this debate is propaganda. It is all scripted.
torin006 3 years ago
There's plenty of evidence, what's your problem? Have you done any research? You need to humble yourself, ask God to reveal Himself to you, look at the world around you and ask yourself if you really believe this incredible order and life could come from chaos... With your attitude, you won't get anywhere but hell...
toddtyszka 3 years ago
I used to be devoutly religious. You clearly don't know anything about entropy, closed systems, biology, gravity, thermodynamics... You'd rather believe in magic. I can't help but notice you didn't provide any evidence for God. Ask yourself why you don't believe in Zeus and you'll know why I don't believe in YOUR imaginary friend.
torin006 3 years ago
For most it is not an attempt to disprove god but an attempt to show the research and evidence which just happens to NOT include evidence of a supernatural being. Example, Stephen Hawking quotes in reference to a god are a mockery to Hawking and GROSSLY twisted. When Hawking speaks - he is NOT speaking of a christian god but Spinoza's god. As in god IS physically the real world and inseparable from all mankind. Also, Spinoza - an ostracized Jew, did NOT have a notion of heaven, hell or creation.
generationalist 3 years ago
Moreland has just proven the existence of Zeus, and disproven the existence of the bible's god. Also, Flew had become a DEIST not a christian. Deism is intellectual agnosticism, and is far preferable to the evil bookgod religions that have polluted the earth with mindless superstition.
DukeNukem4 4 years ago
Not! Nice try though.
christopherduke 4 years ago
My point is this - When one peruses that infamous book of mythology, the bible. One can't help but notice that the god created therein, kills or curses his creation (instantly) for the slightest of "sins" or even honest mistakes. The bible's god can be mocked contrary to Galatians 6:7 and endlessly insulted, ridiculed, or blasphemed without any consequences. The bible's god is simply a mindless superstition with all the judging power of the "Wizard of Oz"...Let the tyrant of the bible judge now.
DukeNukem4 4 years ago
5 stars! I'm putting this in favorites.
animalfan27 4 years ago
It is so sad that those who claim to be "free thinkers" ignore so much evidence about creation.
ele12957 4 years ago
Excellent. 5 stars.
ThatChristian 4 years ago 3