Posts Tagged ‘God’

 

The intolerance of religious pluralism…

 

The claim that all paths lead to the same God actually minimizes other religions by asserting a new religious claim. When someone says all paths lead to the same God, they blunt the distinctions between religions, throwing them all in one pot, saying: “See, they all get us to God so the differences don’t really matter.” This isn’t tolerance; it’s a power play. When asserting all religions lead to God, the distinctive and very different views of God and how to reach the divine in Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, and Islam are brushed aside in one powerful swoop. The Eightfold Noble Path, the 5 Pillars of Islam, and the Gospel of Christ are not tolerated but told they must submit to a new religious claim–religious pluralism–despite the fact that this isn’t what those religions teach. When it does this, religious pluralism places itself on top of all other religions.”

 

via What Is Unique About Christianity Among The World Religions? – The Gospel Project.

simul iustus et peccator,

Eric

 

Advertisements
Biological Naturalism states that consciousnes...

Biological Naturalism states that consciousness is a higher level function of the human brain’s physical capabilities. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Naturalism…you can’t get there from here.

“Naturalism doesn’t contain such ingredients as minds, propositions, perceptions and logical relations. It contains elementary particles and attractive forces, chemical reactions, quantum fields, and the like, in a closed and impersonal system of cause and effect. And all of those causes are material and non-rational. Naturalism doesn’t countenance immaterial entities such as persons, with thoughts and beliefs, persons that can infer from the proper ground of a propositional belief to a valid conclusion, which can then guide behavior and so cause things to happen in the world. If naturalism is true, then all these “things” either don’t exist or must have some non-rational physical cause. And we have no reason to think that such causes would provide us with a way of inferring correctly from a ground to a consequent (as Lewis puts it).

But naturalists normally trust the conclusions of natural science and typically believe they have arrived at their naturalist convictions by following evidence and sweet reason to their inevitable conclusion. If Lewis is right, however, then naturalism as a belief refutes itself. Consider any argument for naturalism. If it is sincerely offered, it will presuppose that people have beliefs and rational faculties that can affect their action because they can perceive the validity of the argument, or lack thereof, and act accordingly.”

via C.S. Lewis and the Argument from Reason – Evolution News & Views.

simul iustus et peccator,

Erok

C. S. Lewis

C. S. Lewis (Photo credit: sfjalar)

“The other big reversal which I spoke about is addressed by Lewis in this fashion: “The ancient man approached God or even the gods as the accused person approaches his judge. For the modern man the roles are reversed. He is the judge: God is in the dock. He is quite a kindly judge: if God should have a reasonable defence for being the god who permits war, poverty and disease, he is ready to listen to it. The trial may even end in God’s acquittal. But the important thing is that Man is on the Bench and God in the Dock.”

Yes, instead of God sitting in judgment over mere man, we have thought it fit to make him accountable to us. It is all a part of man’s rebellion against God, but it has become more pronounced of late. Just consider the issue of theodicy as an example. Even the term itself is quite recent.

It has to do with why God allows suffering and evil, and it speaks about justifying the ways of God to man. It seems that the German philosopher Leibniz 1646-1716 first used this term, and it has since come to mean making God answerable to charges of

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (July 1, 1646 – Nove...

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (July 1, 1646 – November 14, 1716) (Photo credit: 1way2rock)

complicity in evil.

But prior to the Enlightenment, suffering was normally viewed as a problem for man, not as a problem for God. That is, God was not put in the dock, forced to give an account of himself. But all that has changed in the past few centuries, and whenever some disaster strikes, we demand of God an immediate and satisfying explanation.”

via God, Man, and the Great Reversal » Bill Muehlenberg’s CultureWatch.

“God is not ‘dead’ in academia; he returned to life in the late 1960’s and is now alive and well in his last academic stronghold, philosophy departments.”

 

“The face of Anglo-American philosophy has been transformed as a result. Theism is on the rise; atheism is on the decline.2 Atheism, though perhaps still the dominant viewpoint at the American university, is a philosophy in retreat. In a recent article in the secularist journal Philo Quentin Smith laments what he calls “the desecularization of academia that evolved in philosophy departments since the late 1960s.” He complains,  “Naturalists passively watched as realist versions of theism. . . began to sweep through the philosophical community, until today perhaps one-quarter or one-third of philosophy professors are theists, with most being orthodox Christians . . . . in philosophy, it became, almost overnight, ‘academically respectable’ to argue for theism, making philosophy a favored field of entry for the most intelligent and talented theists entering academia today.3

Smith concludes, “God is not ‘dead’ in academia; he returned to life in the late 1960’s and is now alive and well in his last academic stronghold, philosophy departments.”4” — William Lane Craig

via Theistic Critiques Of Atheism | Reasonable Faith.

simul iustus et peccator,

Ерік Адамс

“Unless the materialist has some positive arguments of his own to prove that materialism is true, then he can’t justifiably dismiss theistic arguments merely because they imply that an immaterial, fundamental entity exists.”

English: This photo was taken by my wife durin...

English: This photo was taken by my wife during a cruise. It has no copyright concerns. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“If materialism is false, what would be some good ways to attack it? First, demand from the materialist some arguments for the view that the only fundamental entities which exist are material. Don’t let him get away with just asserting his metaphysical worldview or trying to shift the burden of proof to you (demanding that you prove that a fundamental, immaterial entity exists). He’s making the materialist claim; now insist that he support his claim. Second, give arguments for the reality of immaterial, non-supervenient entities. The arguments for God’s existence come to the fore here. If God exists, then materialism is false. I’ve presented cosmological, teleological, axiological, and ontological arguments, all of which, if sound, imply the existence of a transcendent, immaterial being. These are great arguments to use against the materialist because they focus on what the real issue is: theism vs. atheism. Unless the materialist has some positive arguments of his own to prove that materialism is true, then he can’t justifiably dismiss theistic arguments merely because they imply that an immaterial, fundamental entity exists. He needs to show why those theistic arguments are unsound—which is just the discussion you want to have!” — William Lane Craig

 

via Materialism | Reasonable Faith.

simul iustus et peccator,

亚当斯李家祥议员

 

"αθεοι" (atheoi), Greek for "th...

“αθεοι” (atheoi), Greek for “those without god”, as it appears in the Epistle to the Ephesians on the third-century papyrus known as “Papyrus 46” (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“Given that all known things which began to exist have a cause it seems reasonable to assume that the universe itself had a cause.”

“1. What caused the universe to exist?

Astronomers currently estimate the age of the universe to be 13.7 ± 0.13 billion years. This is based both on observation of the oldest stars and by measuring its rate of expansion and extrapolating back to the Big Bang. Whilst this consensus may be challenged in the future virtually all scientists now accept that the universe did have a beginning.

Given that all known things which began to exist have a cause it seems reasonable to assume that the universe itself had a cause. But unless we are to believe that the universe somehow pulled itself up by its own bootstraps, this cause must have been extrinsic to the universe (space-time continuum) itself.

Anything extrinsic to the universe must be both immaterial, beyond space and time and must have unfathomable power and intelligence. Moreover, it must be personal, as it made the decision to bring the universe into existence, and decisions only come from minds.

It is therefore not unreasonable to believe in the existence of a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, powerful, intelligent, personal Creator of the universe.” – Peter Saunders

via Christian Medical Comment: Twenty questions atheists struggle to answer: How theism does better on the first six.

simul iustus et peccator

Erock

20131129-152537.jpg

The answer is in the question…

“Having learned a lesson from my niece, this causes me to ask, “Why?” Why are we constantly asking questions about who, what, or if God exists? Could it be that we’re hardwired to ask questions about God’s existence and character because He does exist? What if our questions themselves are part of the answer, a tangible evidence of God inviting us to discover the answers we seek?”

via Questions About God

simul iustus et peccator,

Eric