Peter Hitchens Author Interview--The Rage Against God

Interview with Peter Hitchens about his return to Christianity, his relationship with his brother Christopher, his work as an international journalist and his book, The Rage Against God: How Atheism Led Me to Faith (Zondervan).

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• Peter Hitchens
• Christopher Hitchens
• christianity
• atheism
• Zondervan
• journalism
• marxist
• book trailer
• faith
• memoir
• apologetics
• author interview

[999icefire]

Respond to this video...

[Chess15]

@YetAnotherInfidel If at all possible, I'd thoroughly enjoy having a private conversation with you. For the record, you raised a number of thoughtful points, and although I disagree with your central claims, I hold you in high regard. It was a pleasure to engage you in debate, which I believe is an integral part of a free society.

Until next time,

a Christian theist.

[Chess15]

@YetAnotherInfidel In NO WAY do I intend to sound patronizing, but I'm trying to show you the respect you deserve by actually taking your claim seriously. However, it seems utterly ludicrous to argue that nothing can begin to exist, yet alone that one of the laws of physics supports that something can both BEGIN to exist and NOT BEGIN to exist. I don't want to be trite and list a number of things that began to exist (our convo. for example), so I'm now going to end my argument....

[Chess15]

@YetAnotherInfidel If it is true that the second law of thermodynamics supports the position that the universe BEGAN to exist, it CANNOT also, in the same sense and at the same time, support the position that NOTHING CAN BEGIN to exist. READ ON

[Chess15]

@YetAnotherInfidel For example, the statements "x is true" and "x is false" cannot both be true, assuming that "x" is the SAME EXACT proposition in both statements. You claimed that the second law of thermodynamics BOTH supports "some sort" of beginning AND that there was no beginning whatsoever. This is tantamount to one making the following statement, "I do not know a single word in English." READ ON

[YetAnotherInfidel]

@Chess15

If I am able, I will send you a private message with my responce. This got big and I originally wanted this to either be small scale or PMs.

If I cannot respond in PM form, I will likely not respond at all.

[Chess15]

@YetAnotherInfidel You're statement "...the second law of thermodynamics...[supports] "definite beginnings"...[but] also supports the bigger issue...that nothing can begin to exist," violates the Law of Noncontradiction, which is one of the three primary laws of logic. Essentially, the Law of Noncontradiction asserts that contradictory claims cannot be true in the same sense and the same time. READ ON

[Chess15]

@YetAnotherInfidel To assume, on the basis of observation science, that a universe that began to exist was "probably" caused, is to reasonably interpret the data of operation science (viz. the law of causality).

[Chess15]

@YetAnotherInfidel Once again, you typed, "...it is unreasonable to assume the necessity of a cause given the distinct possibility of creatio ex nihillo." I'd slightly modify your statement to read as followed: "It is unreasonable to DEMAND the necessity of a cause given the distinct possibility of creatio ex nihilo." I wholeheartedly concede to the modified statement. In fact, I have been arguing for the "probability" of a caused finite universe. READ ON

[Chess15]

@YetAnotherInfidel However, there is a significant difference between ASSUMING the necessity of a cause for realities that began to exist, and declaring that ex nihilo NECESSITATES/DEMANDS causality. The former position simply states that observational science demonstrates beyond a REASONABLE doubt, that things that began to exist were caused, whereas the latter makes the astounding claim that observation science demonstrates beyond ALL doubt that things that began to exist were caused. READ ON