John Polkinghorne on God, Time, and Causality (Part 1 of 3)

John Polkinghorne, a leading figure in science-and-religion and the winner of the 2002 Templeton Prize, speaks about "God, Time, and Causality" at the Open Theology and Science conference held at Eastern Nazarene College in the summer of 2007.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• science
• religion
• open
• theology
• wesleyan
• god
• future

[metanosis]

disagree, the lack of rationality lies on the atheist side, not to mention intolerance and closed mindedness and a good dose of impoliteneness and lack of ability to engage in rational discourse,

they seem to think casting vulgarities and name calling is all need be done to carry an argument!

[petehuss]

I like the cut of his jib! Style and class.

[joshmanownz]

@DoesNotExist305 so close minded

[DoesNotExist305]

Penn & Teller - The Bible is Bullshit.

Look it up.

[socratus1]

Physics & Theology Everybody creates his God according to his own image and spirit If triangles made a God they would give him three sides / C. de Montesquieu / If physicists made God they would give him concrete physical parameters Which parameters they can be ? We know that God is something Infinite The conception of  Infinity we can find in Bible & Physics Are they different ? I think they are equal Does Physicists meet God in Infinite ? Nobody knows what Infinity is

[metanosis]

@LogicalFlawDetector

Indeed, guess you could not find a logical flaw. :)

[ivlfounder]

@LogicalFlawDetector

Fail.

[LogicalFlawDetector]

@metanosis

Faggot! 

[1tabligh]

Should the scientist, who is aware of the natural causes and of the factors determining each step of creation towards perfection, of mankind's evolution, of the minute accuracy and exactitude that rules every change in the nature that surrounds us, come to believe that these wondrous laws and amazing interactions have somehow *fortuitously* emerged out of *mindless* matter?

[1tabligh]

@Jatwas How can it be supposed that belief in the existence of God is the acceptance of contradiction, whereas belief in the uncaused nature of an effect such as matter is not contradictory?

How could it be believed that matter should itself be the origin of millions of attributes and characteristics and thus be the equivalent of the purposeful, wise and all-knowing Creator?