I hope you read this in tone that's not me pointing at you, or judging but rather just with a wonder and curiosity, tis all. But hey speaking with you on occasion, I learn something new haha; you're Mr. Onion.
On an honest side note: Sheesh, it takes a lot to keep up with you Fred if one wants to get to know you; one can feel inadequate when speaking with you.
No, I don't think you've ever looked at me with judging eyes. In fact, I think you're one of the most respectful Christians I've ever talked to, which is why I would like to try to return that respect.
Haha, I have no idea why you would feel inadequate, so I have no response to that comment. It's not like I'm an erudite you know.
I honestly feel, that God and man(people) will gravely upset you, well, I think God has already done that.
I'm not mad at God, because I doubt his existence. But yes, I am mad at how grown men and women oppress others under the name of God and dogma. Countries forcing women to wear veils, people being ostracized because of their faith, holding up God hates fag signs... this has to stop. I don't see anything wrong with being continually mad and I refused to be inured to the situation.
if you want to hear the particular sermon that I was speaking of from Bob Coy here it is http://www.activeword.org/media.cfm?st=4&keyword=God&filter=tv.
Click the next button to the third page, and click on Where's God? He's just one that I listen to, there are many more, however, I know you are open to listening,
Regarding Bob Coy... how should I say this - I'm not a fan. Just the way he starts off had me rolling my eyes - the assumptions that he makes - "we know exactly where he [God] is," - no I don't, "The bigger question is where are you man." Actually, the location of a supreme being, if he exists, is an infinitely bigger question than the location of my meager self (I know that's not what he means). "There will be a pain, a tragedy so great, that you'll think, where's God?" I understand that this makes a lot of sense to Christians as in your father will comfort you when you need it the most, but to many others, it's almost an anathema, saying, 'you might be able to deny God when you're at the apex of your mental and physical strength, but you will come crawling back when you've become too weak.' I almost see this as a challenge and it makes my non-theism more resolute.
In addition, I don't like his ingratiating tone. I don't like the theatrical style - my opinion is that he's a ham actor. And most of all, I feel like his sermons are geared towards people who already believe in God's existence and the validity of the bible. Because our foundations aren't the same, I decided to turn it off after 10 minutes.
The Dawkins vs. Lennox video, on the other hand, was quite interesting, and thank you for finding this. I am aware of Lennox, and whether you're a fan of Lennox or not, one has to admit that he is a master of rhetoric. And I do marvel at his command of the language, although I don't agree with his beliefs.
What do you think about this snippet of this particular debate? And please negate, the title, I'm not looking for a pow wow, based on the title.
I don't mind the title of the video at all, and I don't even mind all the one sided subtitles - I do like a little provocations here and there as long as there's substance. But what I did mind, was the fact that the uploader disabled all the comments and the likes/dislikes. But anyways...
A. On whether evolution "could" be guided: When Dawkins claims that evolution (or any scientific law for that matter) works without guidance, he is essentially re-iterating words of French mathematician, Laplace. While explaining the mechanics of the solar system to the king who asked where God was in this model, Laplace replied, "it works well without that idea, your majesty."
And when Lennox suggests that evolution in fact "could" be guided, I find this argument to be troubling. Because the world "could" be anything really. Perhaps, it is God. Perhaps, it's many gods. Perhaps, you are nothing but a brain in a vat and everything you see is an illusion. Perhaps, the aliens are conducting scientific experiments on us, and the entire physical universe as we know it is just a big laboratory. You can't prove that any of these propositions are not true, just like you can't prove the non-existence of unicorns. But there are no reasons to believe in it either.
B. Going from simple to complex
I actually disagree with Dawkins here. As far as evolutionary biology is concerned, this may be true, but you simply cannot apply this idea to all aspects of life and science.
C. God is an agent, not a mechanism. What Lennox is essentially saying is that Dawkins is merely describing how a car works. You can describe all the mechanics of internal combustion, acceleration, coolants, etc. but all this has nothing to do with who made the car.
This is an age old argument, which is very similar to saying, "Have you seen a chair create itself? Have you seen a watch create itself? There is a cause and effect, and everything that has been created has a creator."
As you can guess, I am adamantly against this idea. By definition, all man-made things have a creator - humans. I can easily ask a paradoxical question too, "Have you seen a star created by a supreme being? Have you seen a mountain created by a supreme being?" Just because a few organisms on earth has power to create things doesn't mean that everything has a creator. This fallacy arises from the fact that humans are looking for patterns everywhere. And even if the theory of cause and effect were true, there needn't be a supreme being that is the cause of everything.
Plus, God's existence cannot be deduced by reasons alone (quote by occam). For centuries, virtually all humans in the world thought that it was perfectly reasonable and logical that the earth was flat, but the evidence was contrary.
D. Irrationality that mind comes from matter
I wish that Sam Harris, a neuroscientist, could've debated Lennox instead of Dawkins. In my opinion, mind does come from matter, called neurons to be exact. We know that when a certain part of the brain is damaged and the neurons can't function in that part, we lose a certain part of the mind (ability to talk, ability to reason, ability to feel, etc). So we do have evidence to believe that mind comes from matter, but when it comes to the spirits and supernatural, there is no evidence of anything. .
E. How was universe created?
As far as this question goes, both answers are quite bizarre and I can't quite comprehend both answers. To say that the universe was just there is quite hard to grasp, and to say that some supreme being created this universe (then who created this supreme being?) is equally bizarre.
From a statistical point of view, the chaos theory, makes the most sense to me - that life on earth was created at random. Because the universe is nearly infinitely big, and chances of creation of life is equally infinitesimal, we would only have very few life in very few places of the universe, which seems to be the case.
F. Is there ultimate justice?
No. I say that it's just a product of wishful thinking because humans yearn for fairness. And in the ancient world, this must've been a handy tool for the rulers to appease the masses.
Plus, how does the fact that there are massive injustices around the world prove the existence of God? I would argue otherwise. Again, all this is just reasoning not based on any real evidence.
Personally, I agree with Hitchen's view, (starting from 5:20)
If God is so powerful, why not stop it in the first place? Why hide under the excuse that God is mysterious?
G. Existence of Jesus
I agree with Lennox here, I think Jesus actually did exist. But I also do believe that there is no evidence to believe that he was God or Son of God.
No comments:
Post a Comment