Posted on 10/24/2008 5:33:34 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
I’m sure G— is very glad to hear He exists. Thanks, Richard.
The shepherds knew where to find Him. The wise men needed directions...
So now Dawkins may be essentially an IDer, since that’s the minimum one needs for that position?
Deistic Gods are safer - no accountability. They don’t say anything. They don’t demand anything. They have no moral standards.
But it’s a start for Dawkins. Guess he is now deistically deluded...
He didn't know if dog existed.
Only Man demands a Beginning. Perhaps the Creator to adore is comparible to the cicada, who, leaving its envelope behind, will sing triumphantly anew...
.Dawkins’ waivering probably makes a lot om intellectuals very nervous.
Most atheists recognize God might exist the closer they get to meeting Him.
I doubt it. He’s just pissed off that he found out Mrs. Garrison used to be Mr. Garrison.
There are some very interesting theological questions about God that need to be debated. Importantly *not* to reach a theoretical conclusion, but for the purposes of debate, argument and counter argument.
This is because such questions are deep, far deeper than a simple answer, and need to be considered at many different levels. Failing to do so, by keeping to a simple, unexamined answer, is the only possible error.
For example, “Is God personal, or impersonal?”
Again, the only incorrect arguments are “personal, impersonal, both or neither”, because they miss the complexity of the question.
LOL.
And truely wise men still seek Him.
Yes, he is. The definitions that I have heard for Intelligent Design does not infer who the designer is or focus on that question, but simply that something could have not arisen by chance, and needed an act of intelligence to bring it about. This he accepts in this statement:
"Even more jaw-droppingly, Dawkins told me that, rather than believing in God, he was more receptive to the theory that life on earth had indeed been created by a governing intelligence – but one which had resided on another planet. "
Science proves how much we don’t know more often than it comes to irrefutable conclusions .
Seems we must have certain “faith” in science in order to believe its answers.
Take food/diet. What is good for us today is bad for us tommorrow and vise-versa. Margarine for example. Cigarettes.
Sugar substitutes etc...
Also, I’ve noticed much of what science uses as “proof” are simply computer generated models, not reality.
Dawkins is the symbolic example that natural man, no matter how intelligent, can not, on his own, know and believe the one true God of the universe. It is incredible he can support a ‘deist god’ idea, but that is as far as the human mind, on its own, can get. Intellectual assent to the idea of ‘god’ does not mean he believes in the triune God. There is no faith, just an intellectual thought of ‘well, a deist god could exist.’ That won’t cut it.
But it does show you how man, on his own, fails to miss the mark and not find God.
It's not a faith in science, it is a limited religious philosophy of an expanded Copernican Principle. The basics are that there is nothing unique about our universe or our position in the universe, and physical laws are constant and predictable. This allows for both exploration and discovery. Theories can be extrapolated because they are not dependent on unique times or positions, and repetition can be depended on to yield similar results to the point where two separate tests that produce different results are considered to invalidate the theory.
What makes things worse is that many of them believe that all religions, with the possible exception of deism, violate the Copernican Principle to the point that invalidates the most basic processes of science. The target of this charge today is most commonly Christianity, especially with respect to miracles and creation. As a Christian with a scientific understanding (and an engineering degree), I think it is easily understood that God created a consistent universe and made us capable and desirous of discovery, and does not interfere haphazardly as anti-theists like to paint.
Of course that leads to the question of how much God uses nature to produce miracles. If we pray for healing, does God go back in time and change our DNA at conception? Did He make a volcano erupt to cause the plagues of Exodus? Did He make use of evolution to produce the diversity of life on the planet? Should we assume a superimposed Copernican Principle over Christianity in order to perform the task of science? I think many people do.
bookmark
C.S. Lewis was once an atheist. So was Malcom Muggeridge (sp?). And Flew is mentioned in the article. It takes a great deal of faith to be an atheist and sometimes the Lord uses this to tip a man on to an unforeseen path - much to his amazed joy. The repentance process must be a thing to behold.
And yes, Mr. Hitchens, God is indeed very, very great.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.