Atheist's Nightmare (Ravi Zacharias)

Atheist's Nightmare (Ravi Zacharias) (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins

Message

PromiseLander -> Atheist's Nightmare (Ravi Zacharias) (7/18/2008 1:54:08 PM)
This was written word for word from a talk by renowned Christian aplogetisist Ravi Zacharias. 1)The physical quantity cannot explain itself… However you may section reality, you take the physical universe as you see it, however you slice it down to its minutest form, you end up with a physical entity or quantity that does not have the reason for its existence within itself. Ultimately the physical universe reduced in any form, cannot explain its own origin; it has to expand its explanation outside of itself. This means that the first explanation of the universe as we see it, has to have something that is non-physical as a first cause. So you’ve got kind of a “haunted universe” without knowing what that first cause is… 2)Intelligibility that assumes a prior mind… Example: If you walk onto a planet and see a wrapper of a McDonald’s hamburger and see letters of an alphabet, you immediately know that there is information there. Now, logic tells you that when you see information, prior to that information is a mind. Edited TOS 8

essentialsaltes -> RE: Atheist's Nightmare (Ravi Zacharias) (7/18/2008 2:13:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander This was written word for word from a talk by renowned Christian aplogetisist Ravi Zacharias. Then I think his renown is undeserved. quote: 1)The physical quantity cannot explain itself… However you may section reality, you take the physical universe as you see it, however you slice it down to its minutest form, you end up with a physical entity or quantity that does not have the reason for its existence within itself. Ultimately the physical universe reduced in any form, cannot explain its own origin; it has to expand its explanation outside of itself. This means that the first explanation of the universe as we see it, has to have something that is non-physical as a first cause. So you’ve got kind of a “haunted universe” without knowing what that first cause is… The origin of the universe remains an open problem; it is certainly not clear that it requires a non-physical cause. quote: 2)Intelligibility that assumes a prior mind… Example: If you walk onto a planet and see a wrapper of a McDonald’s hamburger and see letters of an alphabet, you immediately know that there is information there. Now, logic tells you that when you see information, prior to that information is a mind. You don’t just think that the “Halleluiah Chorus” just came together from nothing or that the dictionary developed because of an explosion inside of a printing press… There is sequence to the whole thing. If you take just the composition of the enzyme in the human component – the enzyme is the building block of the gene, and the gene the building block of the cell – the possibility of the human enzyme coming together by random: says Vikram Singye, professor of applied mathematics at Cardiff in Wales, “…is 1x10^40,000” That’s more than the number of atoms in this universe! Logically, chronologically and mathematically, the possibility is ZERO… Mathematically, 1 in 1x10^40,000 is not zero. I do not think the word enzyme means what he thinks it means. The theory of evolution does not require that the human 'enzyme' must come together 'at random'. An enzyme is not a McDonald's wrapper with language on it, or a score with notes in it. It is a molecule, and its interactions are all at the molecular/chemical level. quote: 3)In the history of society, human experience and history itself, you begin to realize that the moral issues, the social issues, and just human intercourse demand the explanation of a moral reality. Maybe you do, but I have not come to any such realization. This argument by assertion is entirely impotent.

drj11 -> RE: Atheist's Nightmare (Ravi Zacharias) (7/18/2008 2:33:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander This was written word for word from a talk by renowned Christian aplogetisist Ravi Zacharias. 1)The physical quantity cannot explain itself… However you may section reality, you take the physical universe as you see it, however you slice it down to its minutest form, you end up with a physical entity or quantity that does not have the reason for its existence within itself. Ultimately the physical universe reduced in any form, cannot explain its own origin; it has to expand its explanation outside of itself. This means that the first explanation of the universe as we see it, has to have something that is non-physical as a first cause. So you’ve got kind of a “haunted universe” without knowing what that first cause is… 2)Intelligibility that assumes a prior mind… Example: If you walk onto a planet and see a wrapper of a McDonald’s hamburger and see letters of an alphabet, you immediately know that there is information there. Now, logic tells you that when you see information, prior to that information is a mind. You don’t just think that the “Halleluiah Chorus” just came together from nothing or that the dictionary developed because of an explosion inside of a printing press… There is sequence to the whole thing. If you take just the composition of the enzyme in the human component – the enzyme is the building block of the gene, and the gene the building block of the cell – the possibility of the human enzyme coming together by random: says Vikram Singye, professor of applied mathematics at Cardiff in Wales, “…is 1x10^40,000” That’s more than the number of atoms in this universe! Logically, chronologically and mathematically, the possibility is ZERO… 3)In the history of society, human experience and history itself, you begin to realize that the moral issues, the social issues, and just human intercourse demand the explanation of a moral reality. So you’ve got a first cause that is spiritual, a first cause that is mind, and a first cause that needs to explain morality. There are 4 fundamental questions in life: origin, meaning, morality, and destiny. You take these 4 questions and these 3 explanations above, and only GOD is big enough to explain this universe. Religion is faced with the same mind bending question, it just makes up an answer and calls it a wrap by using the god hypothesis. Most of the atheists I know have the honesty to admit, we just don't have the 'reason or cause' of the universe understood yet, and that that is OK (although bad for our curiosity). You have made an interesting case, but I would like to see how you go from the logic above, to thinking the world was created in six days (despite the fact that it clearly wasnt) by a perfect god (who is his own father) and that a talking snake caused a dude formed from dust and his wife (created by a rib) to eat a piece of fruit from the wrong tree and that this somehow derailed this perfect god's perfect plan? There are some more steps you need to fill in there.

PromiseLander -> RE: Atheist's Nightmare (Ravi Zacharias) (7/18/2008 2:33:20 PM)
quote: The origin of the universe remains an open problem; it is certainly not clear that it requires a non-physical cause. Sure it does. Do you know of any physical entity that exists due to it's own power? quote: Mathematically, 1 in 1x10^40,000 is not zero. No it isn't, but according to the science of probability it might as well be. quote: I do not think the word enzyme means what he thinks it means. Well, the dictionary defines Enzyme as "Any of numerous proteins produced in living cells that accelerate or catalyze the metabolic processes of an organism. Enzymes are usually very selective in the molecules that they act upon, called substrates, often reacting with only a single substrate. The substrate binds to the enzyme at a location called the active site just before the reaction catalyzed by the enzyme takes place. Enzymes can speed up chemical reactions by up to a millionfold, but only function within a narrow temperature and pH range, outside of which they can lose their structure and become denatured. Enzymes are involved in such processes as the breaking down of the large protein, starch, and fat molecules in food into smaller molecules during digestion, the joining together of nucleotides into strands of DNA, and the addition of a phosphate group to ADP to form ATP. The names of enzymes usually end in the suffix -ase." What definition of Enzyme do you use? quote: The theory of evolution does not require that the human 'enzyme' must come together 'at random'. Sure it does. If it didn't come together at random, then you're saying it was designed - that defeats the purpose of evolution, doesn't it? quote: An enzyme is not a McDonald's wrapper with language on it, or a score with notes in it. It is a molecule, and its interactions are all at the molecular/chemical level. True, enzymes are much more useful than a McDonald's wrapper, but we've already said that it couldn't have originated randomly, therefore the basic building block reveals intelligence, just like a McDonald's wrapper reveals intelligence - this is called an analogy. quote: Maybe you do, but I have not come to any such realization. This argument by assertion is entirely impotent. You have come to the conclusion that there is an absolute moral law even if you didn't realize it... I'll bet you've asked: Why is there so much evil in this world? at some point in time... At least you can admit that Hitler was evil, right? Well, if you're saying that there is evil, or evil deeds anyway, or even if there is ANYTHING good or bad, then you are insisting that there must be an absolute moral law that allows you to tell the difference between good and evil. If there is an absolute moral law, then there must be a law giver... Working backwards, if there is no law giver, then there is no absolute moral law, then there is no good or evil...

PromiseLander -> RE: Atheist's Nightmare (Ravi Zacharias) (7/18/2008 2:50:46 PM)
quote: Religion is faced with the same mind bending question, it just makes up an answer and calls it a wrap by using the god hypothesis. Most of the atheists I know have the honesty to admit, we just don't have the 'reason or cause' of the universe understood yet, and that that is OK (although bad for our curiosity). You have made an interesting case, but I would like to see how you go from the logic above, to thinking the world was created in six days (despite the fact that it clearly wasnt) by a perfect god (who is his own father) and that a talking snake caused a dude formed from dust and his wife (created by a rib) to eat a piece of fruit from the wrong tree and that this somehow derailed this perfect god's perfect plan? There are some more steps you need to fill in there. So you're basically insisting that since something cannot be proven scientifically, then it cannot be understood - Things can only be understood through science - is what you're saying, is that correct? Last time I checked, science couldn't explain why gravity works, but we know it does... The connection between the existence of God and His plan for His creation is a great question to ask - although I don't think it can be covered in a web forum... Just ask yourself this: Is there a God? If there is a God, is He the source of everything? If He is the source of everything, why DID He create everything? Did He intend to tell us anything about His will for us that might give insight into why He created anything at all? If so, who did He give it to? And if he gave it to someone, can it be reliable?

tbull97580 -> RE: Atheist's Nightmare (Ravi Zacharias) (7/18/2008 2:54:45 PM)
Is morality just known or is it learned? Do you think Hitler thought he was evil? Do you think suicide bombers know they are evil? Or could moral code be something that has been taught from the proceeding generation to the next? And has it evolved as the said society moved from the previous generation to the next? Is what we consider immoral something that was considered standard procedure in the distant or even recent past? Edited TOS 5

PromiseLander -> RE: Atheist's Nightmare (Ravi Zacharias) (7/18/2008 3:06:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tbull97580 Is morality just known or is it learned? Do you think Hitler thought he was evil? Do you think suicide bombers know they are evil? Or could moral code be something that has been taught from the proceeding generation to the next? And has it evolved as the said society moved from the previous generation to the next? Is what we consider immoral something that was considered standard procedure in the distant or even recent past? Edited TOS 5 See, the problem of "evil" when you raise it, is that with it you raise the question of "good," and when you raise the question of the nature of "good" you have to wonder how you arrive at the reality of good and evil IF THERE IS NO GOD. You know what Richard Dawkins has now come up with? Dawkins has gone so far as to say "we have to deny the reality of evil if our argument is going to stay." So, if there is no God, then there is no good or evil for now there is no absolute moral law upon which to base right and wrong, good and evil... If "God is dead" (according to Niche) how then do you make any moral pronouncements of ANY kind?

essentialsaltes -> RE: Atheist's Nightmare (Ravi Zacharias) (7/18/2008 3:07:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander quote: The origin of the universe remains an open problem; it is certainly not clear that it requires a non-physical cause. Sure it does. Do you know of any physical entity that exists due to it's own power? I'm not even sure what exactly your question means. 'due to its own power' is unclear to me. An electron exists, and it requires no constant support to continue its existence. If we traced its existence back in time, at some point, it would come into being in some physical process, say neutron decay. That would be a physical cause. Do you know of any physical entity that exists due to a non-physical cause? If you answer 'the universe', you're begging the question. quote: quote: The theory of evolution does not require that the human 'enzyme' must come together 'at random'. Sure it does. If it didn't come together at random, then you're saying it was designed - that defeats the purpose of evolution, doesn't it? The theory of evolution does not require that a human enzyme came into existence through the random bumping together of dissociated amino acids. Natural selection is not a random process. Natural selection does not produce a predetermined design. quote: At least you can admit that Hitler was evil, right? Well, if you're saying that there is evil, or evil deeds anyway, or even if there is ANYTHING good or bad, then you are insisting that there must be an absolute moral law that allows you to tell the difference between good and evil. If I believe that Hitler was wrong, this tells me that I believe Hitler was wrong. It does not necessitate an absolute moral law that requires Hitler to be wrong. I'm glad there is a great deal of consensus on the wrongness of murder and genocide, but this does not point to absolute laws, only a consensus of 'relative' opinions. Other issues have no consensus. Why is this? If we have access to absolute moral law (as you claim), and absolute moral law "allows you to tell the difference between good and evil" (as you claim), then how is it that people come to different conclusions?

essentialsaltes -> RE: Atheist's Nightmare (Ravi Zacharias) (7/18/2008 3:13:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander If "God is dead" (according to Niche) how then do you make any moral pronouncements of ANY kind? Since there is no absolute arbiter of right and wrong, we each just do the best we can to come up with our own ideas of right and wrong. Communities and societies come up with consensus ideas, often backed up with ideas of justice to take care of people who don't obey the cultural standards. Different societies have different standars. After a few thousand years of civilization, we've found a few good rules here and there that apply to most cultures, but there still plenty of variation. And new questions arise as civilization progresses. Former consensus views shift as time goes on.

drj11 -> RE: Atheist's Nightmare (Ravi Zacharias) (7/18/2008 3:14:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander quote: Religion is faced with the same mind bending question, it just makes up an answer and calls it a wrap by using the god hypothesis. Most of the atheists I know have the honesty to admit, we just don't have the 'reason or cause' of the universe understood yet, and that that is OK (although bad for our curiosity). You have made an interesting case, but I would like to see how you go from the logic above, to thinking the world was created in six days (despite the fact that it clearly wasnt) by a perfect god (who is his own father) and that a talking snake caused a dude formed from dust and his wife (created by a rib) to eat a piece of fruit from the wrong tree and that this somehow derailed this perfect god's perfect plan? There are some more steps you need to fill in there. So you're basically insisting that since something cannot be proven scientifically, then it cannot be understood - Things can only be understood through science - is what you're saying, is that correct? Not really. Things can be understood only through observation (direct or indirect). Science is the best framework for making sense of those observations. quote: Last time I checked, science couldn't explain why gravity works, but we know it does... God doesnt tell you how gravity works either. There is a chance science can figure it out. quote: The connection between the existence of God and His plan for His creation is a great question to ask - although I don't think it can be covered in a web forum... Just ask yourself this: Is there a God? If there is a God, is He the source of everything? If He is the source of everything, why DID He create everything? Did He intend to tell us anything about His will for us that might give insight into why He created anything at all? If so, who did He give it to? And if he gave it to someone, can it be reliable? Let me rephrase. If logic and reason are so untrustworthy as to lead us to incalculably wrong conclusions on the evolution of life, then why are reason and logic suddenly unassailable when they lead you to believe god exists?

PromiseLander -> RE: Atheist's Nightmare (Ravi Zacharias) (7/18/2008 3:18:30 PM)
quote: I'm not even sure what exactly your question means. 'due to its own power' is unclear to me. Nothing physically exists in this universe without a cause... Is what is meant by "due to it's own power." It's known as the "power of being." The "power of being" is defined as the ability to "be" without "causation." quote: Natural selection is not a random process. So you're saying there's an intelligence behind observable phenomenon? quote: If I believe that Hitler was wrong, this tells me that I believe Hitler was wrong. It does not necessitate an absolute moral law that requires Hitler to be wrong. I'm glad there is a great deal of consensus on the wrongness of murder and genocide, but this does not point to absolute laws, only a consensus of 'relative' opinions. Other issues have no consensus. Why is this? If we have access to absolute moral law (as you claim), and absolute moral law "allows you to tell the difference between good and evil" (as you claim), then how is it that people come to different conclusions? See post #7...

PromiseLander -> RE: Atheist's Nightmare (Ravi Zacharias) (7/18/2008 3:29:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander If "God is dead" (according to Niche) how then do you make any moral pronouncements of ANY kind? Since there is no absolute arbiter of right and wrong, we each just do the best we can to come up with our own ideas of right and wrong. Communities and societies come up with consensus ideas, often backed up with ideas of justice to take care of people who don't obey the cultural standards. Different societies have different standars. After a few thousand years of civilization, we've found a few good rules here and there that apply to most cultures, but there still plenty of variation. And new questions arise as civilization progresses. Former consensus views shift as time goes on. If that is the case, then how can we justify the prosecution of people like Charles Manson, whom during his trial he screamed "How can you judge me, I did what I though was right!" If laws of good and evil are merely based upon a society's view of right or wrong, then at least in America where ideas of democracy still hold sway, it is conceivable that viscious crimes such as rape and murder could eventually become not only legal, but proper... It is not inconceivable given a human's tendancy to spiral downward in morality if left unchecked.

Method -> RE: Atheist's Nightmare (Ravi Zacharias) (7/18/2008 3:44:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander 1)The physical quantity cannot explain itself… However you may section reality, you take the physical universe as you see it, however you slice it down to its minutest form, you end up with a physical entity or quantity that does not have the reason for its existence within itself. Ultimately the physical universe reduced in any form, cannot explain its own origin; it has to expand its explanation outside of itself. This means that the first explanation of the universe as we see it, has to have something that is non-physical as a first cause. So you’ve got kind of a “haunted universe” without knowing what that first cause is… Where has anyone shown that the universe requires a non-physical cause? 2,000 years ago people claimed that lightning was caused by the supernatural. You are making the same mistake here. quote: 2)Intelligibility that assumes a prior mind… Example: If you walk onto a planet and see a wrapper of a McDonald’s hamburger and see letters of an alphabet, you immediately know that there is information there. Now, logic tells you that when you see information, prior to that information is a mind. You don’t just think that the “Halleluiah Chorus” just came together from nothing or that the dictionary developed because of an explosion inside of a printing press… There is sequence to the whole thing. If you take just the composition of the enzyme in the human component – the enzyme is the building block of the gene, and the gene the building block of the cell – the possibility of the human enzyme coming together by random: says Vikram Singye, professor of applied mathematics at Cardiff in Wales, “…is 1x10^40,000” That’s more than the number of atoms in this universe! Logically, chronologically and mathematically, the possibility is ZERO… RNA enzymes do come together by random processes. Research into abiogenesis has shown this. quote: 3)In the history of society, human experience and history itself, you begin to realize that the moral issues, the social issues, and just human intercourse demand the explanation of a moral reality. Adding God to the mix doesn't give us an explanation. We must be able to judge right from wrong independent of God. "Because God says so" is not an explanation for morality. It is passing the buck.

Method -> RE: Atheist's Nightmare (Ravi Zacharias) (7/18/2008 3:48:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander If that is the case, then how can we justify the prosecution of people like Charles Manson, whom during his trial he screamed "How can you judge me, I did what I though was right!" If laws of good and evil are merely based upon a society's view of right or wrong, then at least in America where ideas of democracy still hold sway, it is conceivable that viscious crimes such as rape and murder could eventually become not only legal, but proper... Rape and murder have been justified by every religion out there. Appealing to divine revelation has only worsened these crimes, not helped them. The basis for morality is empathy, our ability to put ourselves in other peoples' shoes. If you don't want to be raped then guess what, raping others is wrong. It's not that difficult to understand. quote: It is not inconceivable given a human's tendancy to spiral downward in morality if left unchecked. The older generation always thinks the younger generation is immoral. This has been happening for as long as there has been written history.

PromiseLander -> RE: Atheist's Nightmare (Ravi Zacharias) (7/18/2008 3:48:51 PM)
Here's an interesting thought by the way. How do we know that there was a beginning to everything anyway? Why couldn't there be an infinate number of causes so that the universe has always existed? Answer: There could never have been an infinate number of causes or we would never have arrived at this moment in time. Look at it this way, if we have a row of falling dominoes and we're standing at dominoe "X," then if we have an infinate number of dominoes falling prior to "X" then we will never get to our "X" dominoe for there are an infinate number of dominoes that must fall before it gets to us...

Method -> RE: Atheist's Nightmare (Ravi Zacharias) (7/18/2008 3:51:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander Here's an interesting thought by the way. How do we know that there was a beginning to everything anyway? We know our universe had a beginning because of the evidence. This beginning also includes the start of our universe's clock. To ask what happened before our universe began is similar to asking what is North of the North Pole. quote: Why couldn't there be an infinate number of causes so that the universe has always existed? In the same way that you can travel the Earth for an infinite distance without getting to the edge even though the Earth is finite in mass.

gluadys -> RE: Atheist's Nightmare (Ravi Zacharias) (7/18/2008 3:52:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander If that is the case, then how can we justify the prosecution of people like Charles Manson, whom during his trial he screamed "How can you judge me, I did what I though was right!" We justify it because we have a societal consensus that he erred in what he thought was right. In a democracy one person cannot make the rules for everyone or violate rules made by everyone for their own personal reasons. quote: If laws of good and evil are merely based upon a society's view of right or wrong, then at least in America where ideas of democracy still hold sway, it is conceivable that viscious crimes such as rape and murder could eventually become not only legal, but proper... It is not inconceivable given a human's tendancy to spiral downward in morality if left unchecked. Indeed, but this is not a problem peculiar to democracy. In a feudal state, vicious crimes like rape and murder could be legal because one person (the lord of the manor) decides so. The oligarchy in Burma murdered hundreds of Buddhist monks with impunity, because they decide the law and in their eyes it was right. Democracy, in fact, is one of our best bulwarks against a downward spiral into immorality. In a dictatorship you only have to convince one or a few people that rape/murder is ok. In a democracy, you have to convince the majority of the voting population. Also, this can and does happen irrespective of whether there is an absolute moral law or not. For nothing forces a society to make its laws comply with any alleged absolute law. So whether there is or is not an absolute law is really a moot question in actual human societies.

PromiseLander -> RE: Atheist's Nightmare (Ravi Zacharias) (7/18/2008 3:56:21 PM)
quote: We know our universe had a beginning because of the evidence. This beginning also includes the start of our universe's clock. To ask what happened before our universe began is similar to asking what is North of the North Pole. With all due respect, you are mistaken sir for it is the pivotal question... Since we know that there was a beginning to everything to which prior to some event there existed nothing physical, then there MUST have been a God - We know that nothing comes from nothing. If you insist there was no God, then something would have to come from nothing which is impossible.

PromiseLander -> RE: Atheist's Nightmare (Ravi Zacharias) (7/18/2008 4:02:41 PM)
quote: We justify it because we have a societal consensus that he erred in what he thought was right. In a democracy one person cannot make the rules for everyone or violate rules made by everyone for their own personal reasons. But in making this assertion, you are removing the idea that right and wrong are to be determined by the society in which it is valued... Society is a people, ideals come from people and it must start somewhere - therefore it SHOULD be wrong to condemn a dissenter - he could after all be merely asserting an idea that could be embraced if only the majority would vote on it.

Method -> RE: Atheist's Nightmare (Ravi Zacharias) (7/18/2008 4:05:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander With all due respect, you are mistaken sir for it is the pivotal question... Since we know that there was a beginning to everything to which prior to some event there existed nothing physical, How did you determine that there was nothing physical prior to our universe? quote: then there MUST have been a God - We know that nothing comes from nothing. Then there must also be an infinite number of creator gods to create the creator gods. Special pleading is getting you nowhere. quote: If you insist there was no God, then something would have to come from nothing which is impossible. I insist that there is no evidence of God.

Method -> RE: Atheist's Nightmare (Ravi Zacharias) (7/18/2008 4:07:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander But in making this assertion, you are removing the idea that right and wrong are to be determined by the society in which it is valued... No, that is is the very thing that gluadys is arguing. Society decides through consensus what is right and wrong, not through fiat or edict. quote: Society is a people, ideals come from people and it must start somewhere I contend that it starts with empathy, our ability to put ourselves in other people's shoes.

PromiseLander -> RE: Atheist's Nightmare (Ravi Zacharias) (7/18/2008 4:16:25 PM)
quote: How did you determine that there was nothing physical prior to our universe? Because we both agree that there could not have been an infinate number of causes for this physical universe - it must have had a beginning. quote: Then there must also be an infinite number of creator gods to create the creator gods. Special pleading is getting you nowhere. Not so, the existence of everything demands a single cause outside the physical universe. Since the physical universe had a beginning, then it could not have had a physical cause. (nothing physical comes from nothing physical) There could not have been multiple causes outside the physical universe to cause the physical universe. Causality is explained by single events causing single outcomes. Further, this extra-physical cause must have been infinate since time itself as we mark it had a beginning. Therefore a single extra-physical cause that is infinate within itself. quote: I insist that there is no evidence of God. Then the burden of proof lies with you, not me. And since I am explaining the existence of God without using the Bible, by using those same rules, you must explain the non-existence of God by using the Bible.

PromiseLander -> RE: Atheist's Nightmare (Ravi Zacharias) (7/18/2008 4:20:32 PM)
quote: I contend that it starts with empathy, our ability to put ourselves in other people's shoes. But that's circular reasoning... You're saying that morality is based upon our empathy, but empathy is based upon our morality... Huh?

EStan -> RE: Atheist's Nightmare (Ravi Zacharias) (7/18/2008 4:26:07 PM)
I love Ravi Zacharias! He is a fantastic Christian philosopher, speaker, and apologist.

Method -> RE: Atheist's Nightmare (Ravi Zacharias) (7/18/2008 4:27:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander Because we both agree that there could not have been an infinate number of causes for this physical universe - it must have had a beginning. But how do you know that the process that produced our universe is not analogous to the process that produces lightning? Are you also saying that lightning is produced by the supernatural because of an infinite regress? quote: Not so, the existence of everything demands a single cause outside the physical universe. Since the physical universe had a beginning, then it could not have had a physical cause. You have not established that there are no physical causes outside of our universe. quote: There could not have been multiple causes outside the physical universe to cause the physical universe. Why not? quote: Then the burden of proof lies with you, not me. Umm, no it doesn't. If you claim that God exists then you must supply the evidence. I have yet to see this evidence. quote: And since I am explaining the existence of God without using the Bible, by using those same rules, you must explain the non-existence of God by using the Bible. Do I also have to explain the non-existence of Paul Bunyan using books on Paul Bunyan?

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI