tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9991223.post8072046033978132960..comments2023-10-28T08:33:11.568-05:00Comments on The Centered Librarian: Science vs. Religion: 50 Famous Academics on GodDavid Bookerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12996205288255786668noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9991223.post-6789109669758745132011-07-30T07:47:16.202-05:002011-07-30T07:47:16.202-05:00All have it wrong!
The first wholly new interpret...All have it wrong!<br /><br />The first wholly new interpretation for two thousand years of the moral teachings of Christ is spreading on the web. <br /><br />Radically different from anything else known to history, this new 'claim' is predicated upon a precise and predefined experience, a direct individual intervention into the natural world by omnipotent power to confirm divine will. "correcting human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary boundaries." Like it of no, a new religious claim testable by faith, meeting all Enlightenment criteria now exists. A revolution in our conception of God is under way! More info at http://soulgineering.com/2011/05/22/the-final-freedoms/goliahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09484401523720233875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9991223.post-55957819547443593112011-07-27T20:33:20.114-05:002011-07-27T20:33:20.114-05:00What's the point of making a film like this? S...What's the point of making a film like this? So, 50 people with same bias were interviewed. The editor selected quotes she/he liked and then strung them together. Debate would have been interesting to watch. Opposing viewpoints by other emminent scholars. This film is smug. It reveals a sadly closeminded propagandist author. It is thereby it a useless waste of time....<br />-Victor K.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9991223.post-45365367799759592212011-07-27T15:41:28.117-05:002011-07-27T15:41:28.117-05:00A few points -
1. The mere fact that many of the...A few points -<br /><br />1. The mere fact that many of these people says there is "no evidence" for God shows their insincerity. There is plenty of evidence for God - they just reject it. Declaring "no" evidence just shows their ignorance of what the term "evidence" means.<br /><br />2. One of the prime evidences of God just is simply the inability of physicalism to account for the notions of "self" and "will". To insist on physical causes for everything requires that <i>absolutely everything</i> must happen as a result of "random chance" or "necessity". Even things such as the scheduling of future events and abstract thought.<br />As a thought experiment I can tell you that tomorrow at 1 PM, I will rattle off a 500 character sequence of english letters. A simple exploration of the probability space for that event ( including the number of symbols, the time scheduled, and the actual sequence uttered ) gives a great amount of evidence that that event is not the result of randomness or necessity. It is quite simple to show that the observable evidence is <i>against</i> physicalism and not for it.<br /><br />3. I have never met a single scientist who decides that the world is purely physical, and then does not exempt himself from that by claiming that he himself makes rational choices. ( Any thinking of what it means to make a "rational" or "reasoned" choice clearly shows that it is <i>not</i> consistent with a purely physical universe.)<br /><br />4. Many of these people do not consider the full implications of their beliefs.<br /><br />Finally,<br /><br />Any of them that are currently living, I would be more than happy to debate on this subjectAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com