Ping!
James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. 20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
Thomas Aquinas arrived at the same conclusion 800 years ago. If we use our senses and look around the only reasonable conclusion is that God exists.
A famous theologian (forget which one) suggested that we simply ask the unbeliever to prove there is no hell. We sees glimpses every day. We all know death and disease and mutations should not be, which is why so many work to eradicate the effects. If it was natural, why bother? Especially for the evolutionist.
A case for God: In the complexity of the universe, what if one piece of the puzzle was missing. What if there was no gravity, what if there was no weak force, what if there was no DNA, what if there was no hydrogen, what if there were no protons, what if there was no fusion to power the stars, what if there were no synapses, what if time didn’t exist? Everything is necessary and in balance. Liberals exist to give a face to subversive evil. (Had to stick that in, just in case someone was wondering)
Things (i.e., science) have always been that way; the atheists simply have ignored the scientific principle that you can't prove a negative. When an atheist says, "God doesn't exist" you simply have to say, "Prove it." When the atheist invariably resorts to crowning himself the intellectual superior in the debate:
Some critics suggested Flew's mental capacity had declined...
play the game in his realm by pointing out that his philosophy (science) requires that a) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and b) You can't prove a negative.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
I think the origins of the laws of nature and of life and the Universe point clearly to an intelligent Source. The burden of proof is on those who argue to the contrary. —Antony FlewIt's interesting to me that an intelligent and accomplished man would take a lifetime to come to such a simple, and (according to scripture) self-evident conclusion.
Also, in that he doesn’t mention it here, the writings of Roy Abraham Varghese and Gerald Schroeder, were also primarily convincing to him.
Why is it, that proof of ones belief is even considered to be necessary?
Yep, this has been my path as well. In trying to understand the physical world and the rules by which it operates, I was lead to the Designer who built it and wrote the operating system.
The last book I read, "Heaven is For Real: A Little Boy's Astounding Story of His Trip to Heaven and Back" and current book I'm reading, "Heaven is Real, But So is Hell" have given me the answers I've been looking for to prove the truth of their titles.
And, both have more than lived up to their titles. After all I've learned through study and experience, I am 100% convinced of the reality of Heaven, Hell and the wonders and the consequences laid out in the Bible.
It's absolutely real. And we are almost out of time.
Flew is lucky to have found the truth before it was too late. I found way more than I wanted to know about what happens to atheists, and everyone else who turns away, by reading "My Descent into Death: A Second Chance at Life'.
Parts of his experience still shake me when I think about it. I think at some level I know his experience was real and awaits me, too. It waits for all of us who take that path.
I strongly commend another of Wikers books....”Moral Darwinism, How We Became Hedonists”. I began about 1 week ago re-reading this work. It is one of the best books on the history of evolution I have ever read.
“It was the evidence itself that led me to this conclusion.”
Exactly.
And I’d like to say something here that might be considered off topic, but it’s a thought I’ve had before and it’s occurring to me again now.
It involves paganism I suppose, rather than religion, but perhaps some will see the relevance (if there is any!)
Isn’t it interesting how pagans would want to get a lock of a person’s hair, or some other small body remnant in order to cast a spell on that person. For how many centuries was this considered just “superstition” by more educated (for want of a better word) people.
And yet, and yet, weren’t those old witch doctors exactly right? Now that we know (by watching CSI if nothing else) that your entire individual physical profile is present even in a lock of hair?
I thought of this a while ago and I still find it pretty mind boggling.