Rest In Peace Dr Polkinghorne, may your soul find its way to the doors of Heaven, your works helped me in many ways. RIP.

John Polkinghorne is an intellectual. I've never heard of before this clip. If the listener was paying much attention to the remarks of John, he'd learn a lot from him. The interviewer was thinking of his prepared questions before John utters answers.

@Autobotmatt428

3 жыл бұрын

Sadly he just past on in March of 2021

Rest in Peace John

It would be nice if you could write the date of your interviews. Thank you for your good work.

@GustAdlph

5 жыл бұрын

I agree. It's frustrating when a video is posted in 2018 and then you find out it's ten years old. I want to watch what's current.

@rnjan9

3 жыл бұрын

Also, it would be helpful to know who the interviewer was. I like that guy, as he asks deep questions yet simply.

Great quote "Science asks one question of process, of how things happen - but brackets out questions of meaning, of value, of purpose"

@dAvrilthebear

2 жыл бұрын

Came to the comments to write this down, but you have already done it! Thank you!

@CesarClouds

Жыл бұрын

That's shows a basic misunderstanding of science since it explains what is observed in nature.

@goodsirknight

Жыл бұрын

@@CesarClouds yes, that it does. But it brackets out questions of meaning, of value, of purpose

@CesarClouds

Жыл бұрын

@goodsirknight That misconstrues the enterprise of science because it makes it seem it's on purpose. Science only deals with the observed physical world not subjective opinions about values.

@goodsirknight

Жыл бұрын

@@CesarClouds that's all fine and well, but unfortunately it is presumed that it is a meta theory about everything, and that anything that does not adhere to the scientific approach is not worthy, so to even ask questions about meaning and purpose is apparently nonsensical because it's not scientific

This channel is the best thing on youtube. Great interview. I hope to see Robert Kuhn become a christian eventually. But even if you do not (would be a bummer), I must applaud you for taking these questions seriously, and in such an objective and honest fashion.

@kennyw4779

5 жыл бұрын

Thanks, man.

@matthewterry6288

5 жыл бұрын

Neil Reinhardt Neil Reinhardt you have to blatantly ignore historical evidence to say that Jesus didn’t exist. Don’t listen to this nonsense. You’re gonna meet the creator and judge someday. I suggest that you spend some time truly studying and not just listening to atheistic rhetoric. Simply put; Jesus absolutely existed. You have to be an intentionally blind moron to think otherwise. Since I know you’re saying that the New Testament is “myth”. I suggest you learn how to read literature properly. It reads nothing like myth whatsoever. It’s obviously eye witness testimony. Multiple authors attesting to a set of historical events.

@matthewterry6288

5 жыл бұрын

Neil Reinhardt I’m an ex atheist who reviewed the evidence myself and obviously came to a different conclusion. Let me ask, do you believe that Julius Caesar, Socrates, Herodotus, Plato, Alexander the Great, and a host of other existed? Obviously you do. Well I’m sorry to break it to you but there is far more historical evidence for Jesus than any of those combined. We have the writings of Josephus, Tacitus, Pleny the Younger, and other who are obviously non-Christian scholars who attested to Jesus existence. These people wrote within a generation of Jesus’ death. Also, we have the Gospel accounts which were written less than 30 years from his death. To say Jesus did not exist is just stupid. You are willingly ignorant because you’re not a genuine seeker of truth.

@matthewterry6288

5 жыл бұрын

Atheists are a truly a joke. They are the ones who are brainwashed and close minded. Instead of worshiping God they worship people like Richard Dawkins.

@matthewterry6288

5 жыл бұрын

Neil Reinhardt what you just stated means absolutely nothing. Those 850 were likely never truly Christians anyway. They didn’t like the God who is, so they try to say that He doesn’t exist.

That’s a player. A jack charlton of the intellectual life.

John Polkinghorne was a superb physicist based in Cambridge, and a true inspiration. He takes a balanced and fair view of how science and religion, along with all other disciplines, help us to discern truth. He was also a dedicated priest, who worked in a poor parish on the outskirts of Cambridge. After his death, he left his vestments for ordinands training at Westcott House, and I count myself so privileged to have received one of his stoles.

Great discussion that is getting closer to the truth

Social science and philosophy deal with morality and meaning. So we don’t need religions for any purpose, except for confusing ourselves.

Conscious entities have basic choices: Help, Neutral, Hurt and to whom to Help, Be Neutral To, or Hurt. (Doesn't matter whether those entities are in a religion or not, or in a government or not, or in a business or not.) Some entities choose to help themselves and either knowingly or unknowingly hurt others. Some entities choose to hurt themselves and even hurt others. Some entities choose to help themselves and help others. Some entities even choose to hurt themselves to help others. (With as many entities that are in existence, we have entities in all of those categories.) Isn't this closer to the real truth?

Rest in peace sir, you will be missed.

This gentleman - unlike the other one - was far more graceful than the other one. Terrific interview.

@michaeltellurian825

6 жыл бұрын

I disagree. I thought the other guy was better than the other one.

@vonastrede1314

6 жыл бұрын

Which other guy?

@michaeltellurian825

6 жыл бұрын

The guy with the glasses.

@vonastrede1314

6 жыл бұрын

Michael Ruse? I completely disagree with you. That person avoided the question to an extent that he started mentioning Trump. A complete lack of seriousness of character.

@michaeltellurian825

6 жыл бұрын

Good point. Maybe we should disregard both of them?

Tradition and religious ideas run deep. This gentleman just asserted that atheism makes assertions and not arguments. Identifying as atheist does nothing in my view. The quest for knowledge doesn’t need atheism. It is obvious that when we hit real unknown questions, saying that god knows what we have yet to learn, is a long held traditional sign of insufficient knowledge. As we learn more and the unknowns become known, the need for a placeholder will decrease.

Did he just say that the new atheists don't address arguments in favor of religion??

Talk to Gerald Schroeder.

Perfect power corrupts perfectly.

Argument doesn’t provide evidence ! Dawkins shows how to demonstrate the scientific method n not just assertions

He knew Wolfgang Pauli??? Omg 😮

There are some ideas that routinely get conflated when this kind of topic comes up. Atheism and science are among the trickiest. Atheism is not the same as science or the philosophy of science. People arguing atheism sometimes go too far in holding that 'science' is somehow their unblemished 'god', or that science will somehow uncover the 'truth' about deity. It can do no such thing. The best science has as its domain the world of physical phenomena, things that can be reliably observed and agreed upon by everyone, regardless of faith/religion. When science tries to break out of that domain, there are problems. It makes sense that we probably can learn more and more about all aspects of the physical world, even if we can never uncover everything about it. This doesn't have much to do with faith/religion. Atheism is simply a position regarding the existence or nonexisence of an all-powerful, all-knowing director behind the scenes. People of faith will not be disuaded or detered by an accumulation of scientific knowledge; they operate in different spheres entirely.

So we need strong argument against the all mighty in the sky!! We need Hitch to straighten out this religious apologist!! This belief and faith has kept us back reaching back to the Bronze Age creators who knew virtually nothing about anything!! And crediting art to religion?? Hey dude religion was the only game in town until the enlightenment!! This dude is weak!!

Robert Lawrence Kuhn seems to be forever asking but never deciding. If Jesus is the Christ, then according to The New Testament "... it appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment". That is, you must decide on this side of the grave; however, no decision is also a decision.

lol. Science does deal with questions of value, meaning, and purpose. Why do people find some things more valuable/meaningful than others? Religion offers no real answers. Only mythology. Religion is based on the irrational feeling that some great power needs to exist to explain everything.

@abigailtjajadi4689

3 жыл бұрын

one should experience the redemption then and only then you can testify that it is real

For starters, "new atheism" or anti-theism doesn't bring up the topic of the history of religious wrongdoing as an argument against the existence of God, or at least it shouldn't. It's more of a counter-apologetic to the idea that religion is ultimately a necessary force of good in the world and a lack of faith is crippling to one's morality. That religious people do both good and bad things does say something about the beliefs themselves. We can't separate religion from the people and say "these are flaws in human nature, not religion." The flaw we are discussing is not being rational and reasonable. Religion is just as much of a product of that than the violence done in its name. When Jeff Sessions quotes Romans 13 to defend what is inarguably an unjust act that will forever be looked upon by future generations as an embarrassing stain on American history, it demonstrates the lack of any reality-based foundation for actions. That's just going to inherently result in poor choices. And trying to argue whether or not Paul's words do or do not conform with Session's interpretation of this passage is kind of a red herring because none of it is demonstrably true one way or the other. So instead of taking stock of the good and bad of religion and trying to do this cost-benefit analysis, let's just look at the good, understand how the good stuff can be achieved independently of religion, and recognize that there is nothing intrinsically valuable about religion or belief in a higher power. The other red herring here is about what science can or cannot explain. I don't think any astute atheist is asserting that science can discover all. Absolute knowledge and certainty is something I doubt we can ever really grasp with regards to basically anything. The mistake here is the assertion that religion is capable of picking up the slack, that it provides us with any true and useful knowledge where science or some other method may not be able to. That's what the "god of the gaps" point is actually referring to. It's not about science eventually discovering that which we do not know now. It's about the logical fallacy of merely asserting divine magic is reasonable to believe or has any real explanatory power just because we don't have other good answers. It's an argument from ignorance. There are things science may never be able to explain, but religion hasn't demonstrated it can explain them either.

The interview failed to press harder and more specifically about its topic. Polkinghome said that The God Delusion doesn't address the theistic arguments for the existence of God, for example, but it does - he should have been pressed to state in what way specifically Dawkins misses the mark on, say, the Cosmological Argument there. Worse, the interviewer mis-represnts the new atheist's critiques. Sam Harris for example doesn't simply argue that religion is harmful, but rather that while in the past the bad things its done were not-that-bad, with future and current technology they could be disastrous. He doesn't argue that only religion does evil or that the answer is simply to stop religion, but rather to stop "faith" i.e. irrational thought. This line of argument, a major one, cannot simply be reduced to a *** measuring contests between Communism, Fascism and Organized Religion.

@secularisrael

6 жыл бұрын

My point is that the interview was too shallow in that it didn't press Polkinghome to give these kinds of detail. One can then discuss things more substantially. When you're restricted to generalities, it's too shallow.

@tr9809

6 жыл бұрын

Dawkins, Harris are not philosophers they are rhetoricians writing for popular audiences. They are an early example of populism. There are few better atheist philosophers upon whom an atheist can drawn upon, such as David Hume, Voltaire, Marx and Feuerbach. My advice is to read them.

Maybe science needs to just do science I hear more about God from scientist then I do from anyone

@bobs182

5 жыл бұрын

Maybe religion needs to just do religion as it gets it wrong when it does geology, evolution, and cosmology. Relgion also gets it wrong with mind/brain dualism. You have the source of the debate wrong as there would be no atheism without theism.

@disfiguringthegoddes

4 жыл бұрын

@chocobonita Science =/= philosophy

New atheism ? or New religion?

Science, The Universe & The God Question I wanna see Dr. John Lennox & Dr. William Lane Craig debate Dr. Peter Atkins & Daniel Dennett at Yale University

@GustAdlph

5 жыл бұрын

Hi Libertarian Prince, Dr. John Lennox did debate Richard Dawkins at Oxford and it's on KZread.

@CesarClouds

Жыл бұрын

Public debates don't bring anything to the table since that is not how scholarly enquiry progresses; it progresses via the peer review where hyperbole and zingers are not aloud; hence, those of Craig's ilk lost long ago.

Religions do good things and bad things. But this is not the main point. Most important for me is: There is no prove whatsoever for the existence of any god(s). For the rest we can use state hospitals, state schools, psychologists, polititians etc. No need for any church, I‘m sorry.

☺️🕉

John Polkinghorne ignores one killer issue he can't answer & no one else in the history of the world can ever answer, but don't take that on faith (why take anything on faith when anything could be?) - See if *you* can answer Q2 here (I guarantee you won't be able to!) Q1. What vile or cruel act could *only* a man of faith justify by pointing to some verse in his holy book which no one can justify in any other way? A1. The list of vile & cruel acts which only a man of faith can justify through scripture is very long & very bloody; Holy wars, crusades, pogroms & jihads, witch hunts, genital mutilation of baby boys as well as girls, the subjugation of women & girls & ‘out-group’ “heathens”. Justification of human beings as personal property you may beat as hard as you like just as long as they can get up to work for you a day or two later. I’ll stop there but I could go on & on & on if I wanted to give additional examples found in scriptures. Now ask yourself the reverse question: Q2. What demonstrably kind or worthwhile act could *only* a man of faith perform which a faithless man couldn’t *also* perform too? A2. Errr… erm… hmmm… Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong but there isn’t _anything_ that’s _demonstrable_ is there? - So in light of that fact which mind set offers excuses for performing those vile & cruel acts & which cannot? Faith or faithlessness? (Clue: Atheists have nothing to die for & everything to live for but the same cannot be said of theists who will gladly die in their holy wars seen throughout history & even today in the so called ‘Holy Lands’)

Sam Harris is a good example of what a "New Atheist" should look like. He doesn't just debunk religious belief and leave us empty-handed; he replaces it with good, secular spirituality. He picks out the true spiritual insights from Christ and the Buddha while ignoring out the mumbo-jumbo from religious dogma.

@leonwillett4645

6 жыл бұрын

Yes. Also, Sam Harris is the only "New Atheist" that at least acknowledges the hard problem of consciousness and takes it seriously. I get the impression that other figures sometimes associated with that "movement" don't really even fully understand what it is. Check out Leo Gura for an even deeper look into that kind of thing. Sam Harris stops a little short of full spirituality as he can't see past some of the basic assumptions of the scientific method, including: "there definitely is a real, physical world, and qualia are proof of this", "there definitely needs to be a separate self in order for perception to happen" etc... The epitome of secular spirituality is the realisation that qualia are all there is :)

@Joshua-dc1bs

6 жыл бұрын

@@leonwillett4645 I would say that Richard Dawkins also understand the problem. I'll link you a video when I get on my computer; I'm moving house today.

@Joshua-dc1bs

6 жыл бұрын

@Trolltician This is one of the saltiest comment yet. I wonder if anyone will be able to outdo this...

@Joshua-dc1bs

6 жыл бұрын

@Trolltician Dude, it's a vegemite sandwich.

@uremove

6 жыл бұрын

Joshua Nicholls Hmmm... Harris may not seem so impressive after you see this critique of “The Moral Landscape” which takes him apart. kzread.info/dash/bejne/qayVztSwgLHRfqw.html

Deists would say God created the Earth, then just let it alone

@aqilshamil9633

2 жыл бұрын

So we may evolve ?? Evolutionary deist is a thing ??

A lovely and clever Man but he is a Medaeval Thinker.. untrained in Ancient History or Philosophy!

@gabepearson6104

3 жыл бұрын

Hello again 😎 why does he need to be trained in ancient history, for the question he was asked in the video

@rationalsceptic7634

3 жыл бұрын

@@gabepearson6104 Most Ancient Historians are Sceptic about the supernatural events historised in the Biible but Theists like Lennox and Theologians,generally,turn a blind eye? Ever wondered when you study modern Religions that have formed in the last 150 years,they are more scientific than supernatural! Maybe all Religions offer hope of the hereafter so deal with the supernatural at some point and level? If God merely acted through physical law,how do we distinguish Him from the natural fabric of reality?? So,I meant Lennox is bias and disingenuous! Be safe tgc

It doesn't matter how good or bad religion is. Are their claims true or are they just wish thinking? If you can't prove it, don't claim you have the right to be right.

Polkinhorne believes because he wants to believe. Like all the others who refuse to think rationally based on evidence. It is people like Polkinghorne who will hold humanity back to a Bronze Age version of reality that not only isn’t true, but actually does damage to human progress by it’s simple existence. THAT is what the new atheism is.

@jeffrourke2322

6 жыл бұрын

Brian Cook Just like you believe because you want to believe. Yeah, the man refuses to think based on evidence. He spent three decades studying quarks and he refuses to think rationally based on evidence. What an absolute waste of a reply. This, ladies and gentlemen is the discourse born of people who grew up reading Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.

@reason2463

6 жыл бұрын

Jeff Rourke Good, Jeff. When you can’t refute the argument, call it a “waste”. Polkinghorne refuses to think rationally on this subject. I’ll let the “ladies and gentlemen” come to their own conclusion about whose arguments are wasteful.

@adampetten5349

5 жыл бұрын

Christian socialism and quantum mechanics are hardly Bronze Age.

Polkinghorne is absolutely right about Dawkins, of course. Some of the harshest critiques of The God Delusion came from atheist and agnostic philosophers who were embarrassed that such a philosophically, theologically, historically, and culturally illiterate book was being held up as an example of atheist reasoning. One agnostic philosopher (I'll try to find the citation) said that watching Dawkins try to reason philosophically was like watching a dolphin try to tap dance. The age of sophisticated atheism began with Schopenhauer and Nietzsche and ended with the likes of Russell and Ayer. Modern atheists, as Polkinghorne rightly observes, are relentlessly polemical, unsophisticated, and altogether ignorant of what they seek to criticize.

@rationalsceptic7634

4 жыл бұрын

Steven Hunter Philosophy doesn't give us scientific knowledge.. Religion is made made Myth! Theists use circular arguments not facts Russell unsophisticated..what Planet are you on..he won a Nobel Prize

@lysanderofsparta3708

2 жыл бұрын

@@rationalsceptic7634 Alas, your reading comprehension skills are sorely lacking.

@CesarClouds

Жыл бұрын

It doesn't take much to reason philosophically and Dawkins' ridicule of the ontological argument was no better than professional philosophers. The age of sophisticated atheism did not start with Schopenhauer or Nietzsche (not sophisticated in my mind) but it did continue with Oppy, Neilson, Grunbaum and others. The most sophisticated of them all is Dr. Jaco Gericke who does not urge philosophically but anthropologically for the most part. Even Lane Craig dodged a debate with him.

An almighty benevolent god is simply inconsistent with the iniquity observed in the history of nature and society

@TheGreaser9273

6 жыл бұрын

Don't you think that your statement is warranted because of your limited scope of the evidence.

@juantkastellar2655

6 жыл бұрын

There is tangible evidence of inquiry. On the other hand, free will is a failed attempt to argue in favor of a kind-hearted god.

@TheGreaser9273

6 жыл бұрын

I meant "unwarranted"

@juantkastellar2655

6 жыл бұрын

I wouldn't recommend to try to cover the sun with a finger

“There is something that has gone wrong with human nature...” yup and it led to creating religions.

@tbayley6

6 жыл бұрын

And animosity and intolerance in general. That's the thing people don't see in themselves - they much more readily see it in others.

@lukewalker1162

6 жыл бұрын

Religions of Communism?

@JAYDUBYAH29

6 жыл бұрын

Luke Walker sure, communism is as much an irrational religious ideal as more traditional religion. Totalitarianism, and the cult of personality around leaders like Castro, Kim king un, Stalin, etc is as irrational and unrealistic as the worship,of popes, kings, ayatollahs, and Brahmins. I am in principle opposed to all of that....

@JAYDUBYAH29

6 жыл бұрын

Tom Bayley tolerance is a red herring here. Honestly the real,issue is around epistemology and the special category that religious claims are granted before we learn better.... all philosophers should know better, which is why there should be s special type of disdain for those who don’t. What religious folks today call tolerance is actually the product of hard won enlightenment freedoms FROM religious tyranny that persecuted the impious..

@everett8610

6 жыл бұрын

Julian Walker The "special category" is the better answer than atheism. God answers the "special category" we find ourselves in with meaning of life and value. We already have this category atheism simply denies it exists.

Evolution explains Morality!

The New Atheists are wrong about the wars caused by religion. The true cause is the desire for power of a minority over a majority for personal advantage. Any person in a role of authority can do harm or convince others to do harm. The purely scientific pursuit of knowledge and mastery over nature has no inherent ethics. 'Sin' is a meaningless term scientifically. It is the sinful use of personal power which does all the damage, not religions per se.

If I have to read “Bronze Age” one more time in a Closer to Truth thread... You people should have been reading Shakespeare in high school instead of Richard Dawkins.

@vilicus77

5 жыл бұрын

Jeff Rourke Shakespeare was probably gay and merely used Christian themes and tropes for ironic effect. His work reflects the intellectual, rather than the doctrinal, period in which he wrote.

@jeffrourke2322

5 жыл бұрын

R. Miller Yes, I totally agree. I just used Shakespeare as an example because he was such a good writer. I was not making any references towards religion.

@eyebee-sea4444

4 жыл бұрын

Shakespeare and Richard Dawkins are not in an exclusive-or relationship. I can imagine a inquisitive intellect like Shakespeare would had great interest in reading Richard Dawkins literature instead of burying his head in the sand.

“The new atheism” is just what non belief in god looks like in societies that have a had a few hundred years of this not being an executable crime.

@tcl5853

6 жыл бұрын

Julian Walker : and the new atheism looks exactly like the know defunct Soviet Union . Or Nazism of the same era. Know those examples show us what it looks like to squeeze all religious value out of the a society. Marxism has been responsible for more heartbreak and death then is even imaginable. Which of course doesn’t excuse religion being used to terrify and terrorize people either. But to say that atheism is the antidote to humanities problems is sophomoric and not well thought out.

@charlesbrightman4237

6 жыл бұрын

The Dread Pirate Clancy Okay Dread, let's discuss this. Consider the following: a. The 6th mass extinction event is most probably going to start this century due to natural reasons. Now, do people put their faith and beliefs in possibly an imaginary God who will come and save them, and if they still die, they believe they will receive everlasting life in the hereafter with their loved ones? Or, do people try to save themselves by trying to counter act the forces of nature by doing whatever they can to try to save themselves? b. Science tells us that this Earth and it's Sun will not last literally forever. Now, do people put their faith and beliefs in possibly an imaginary God who will come and save them, and if they still die, they believe they will receive everlasting life in the hereafter with their loved ones? Or, do people try to save themselves by trying to counter act the forces of nature by doing whatever they can to try to save themselves?

@JAYDUBYAH29

6 жыл бұрын

The Dread Pirate Clancy nope it looks more like the Scandinavia.countries of today. Hitler was a Christian, and all totalitarian states are quasi religious in their worship of their messianic leader and grand revolutionary narrative. No society actually ever suffered from too much reason and too little superstitious emotionalism. It is a false dichotomy to set up the choice between soviet or fascist societies that may or may not have eschewed traditional religion or some idealized notion of enlightened religious democracy. In fact the most prevalent and widespread form of fascist totalitarian oppression on the planet today is Islamist theocracy. The associating of atheism with Stalin and hitler and pol pot is cynical and intellectually dishonest Christian apologetics. No modern atheist in free western societies have an6 truck with totalitarian ideology, in fact the the humanist ethos of modern atheism would always be skeptical of the actual quasi religious style of that kind of authoritarian system and its figureheads.

@charlesbrightman4237

6 жыл бұрын

There was a saying, I think from Einstein, that basically to better understand something one has to put whatever it is into a larger context. With that in mind, I offer the following: What exactly matters throughout all of future eternity and to whom does it eternally matter to? God alone? and/or Me too? and/or Some other entity or entities? OR To no eternally consciously existent entity at all? Short answer, it appears the later answer is really true. Longer answer: a. While God might actually exist, there is no actual evidence of God's actual existence. Sure, circumstantial type arguments could be had to 'prove' God's existence, but also, circumstantial type arguments could be had to 'prove' God does not exist. b. While 'I' might have an actual immortal existence throughout all of future eternity, the current analysis seems to indicate that I don't. When my brain dies for it's final time, 'I' die, for all of future eternity. c. While some other immortal entity or entities might actually exist, there is currently no such actual evidence of their actual existence. d. So, by default, we are left with the later answer as being the real truth at this time in the analysis. There are no actual immortal entities that actually exist, at least not that can be proven to exist in actual reality. Of which then raises another question: What then is being done to try to save any species from eternal conscious extinction, if it's even possible to do? Basically, we are left to try to save ourselves and/or any other species by any means possible. Otherwise, one day, there probably won't be any life left from this Earth, and all of life itself from this Earth would all be ultimately meaningless in the grand scheme of things as there wouldn't be a conscious entity left to care. It wouldn't matter that life itself even ever existed upon this Earth, much less however that life might have existed. But then, tying this back into my previous comment: a. Do we all believe in a fairy tale because it might be true (although there is no actual evidence to support that actual truth) and because it makes us all 'feel better' while we exist, or b. Do we deal with actual reality as we perceive that reality to be (even though our perception of reality is not fully accurate or complete)? And then to add to that: While religions do 'good' in this world at times, they also do 'evil' in this world at times. ('Evil' at times because they believe that God actually exists and that by some means, they and they alone are chosen or have God's favor that allows them to justify to themselves their 'evil' actions). But then again, does it all ultimately matter anyway in a future eternal context?

@charlesbrightman4237

6 жыл бұрын

Trolltician Does it all ultimately matter as far as future eternity is concerned? If so, who to?

And someone clue this clown in that we’re in the very infancy of science and it’s inexorable advance will answer most if not all questions in the future!!

@jeffrourke2322

6 жыл бұрын

Paul Nu This “clown” helped discover the quark, advancing science more than you could ever dream to in ten lifetimes.

When you give your last breath back to God you will know the truth, knowing God in this life is the truth

@goerge1742

4 жыл бұрын

Stefano Portoghesi Jesus is quoting Psalm 22, which he quoted other parts of as he knew it was about him. Of course God had to abandon him as flesh to save us of our sins, he as not saying it because he was afraid of his earthly death. Christ is God everything that was created was created through him he is eternal. You would do well to study these properly before you dismiss a life in Christ. God Bless you

@goerge1742

4 жыл бұрын

Stefano Portoghesi you’ve been duped

@goerge1742

4 жыл бұрын

If there is no afterlife how would I ever realise that I had been duped as I would know nothing. You say it will be too late, for what as I am having a wonderful life in Christ now not because of an afterlife.

@goerge1742

4 жыл бұрын

Stefano Portoghesi Once again you have no understanding of the scriptures, of course the bodies of loved ones that have died have turned to dust, you have obviously not read what happens when you are raised. You can believe it’s a fairytale that’s your choice but the one thing you cannot know are my experiences of Christ. I have no fear at all about this life or what happens at the end of it.

@goerge1742

4 жыл бұрын

Stefano Portoghesi How arrogant of you to tell me how I feel, having nearly died I can tell you I have no fear of death. Read the scriptures, Paul and the Apostles didn’t follow Christ because they had a fear of death, Christ brings joy to this life. You have been so mislead it’s laughable

Clearly, neither of these two men have the faintest clue about the strongest modern arguments (i) against the existence of God and (ii) for the morality superiority of secular humanism. First, from an epistemological perspective, without exception, every single religious argument for the existence of God eventually falls completely flat in the face of rational and logical questioning, and inevitably falls back on the "faith" position, which is not a valid or reliable path to truth. Moreover, from a moral perspective, we now have plenty of empirical data (not just assumptions) demonstrating that the more atheistic a society or culture is, the better it fares on all sorts of health and quality of life indicators. This John Polkinghorne fellow is either uneducated about these facts or is willfully ignorant and living with his head in the sand. His arguments are intellectually dishonest, riddled with straw men, and offer nothing to bring us closer to what is actually true. Dawkins's arguments don't represent the best atheistic arguments out there by a long shot. If you want to see the absolute destruction of epistemological arguments for the existence of God, look up Matt Dillahunty and "The Atheist Experience" KZread channel. If you want to see the absolute destruction of all arguments defending religion as a superior moral framework, read Christopher Hitchens's "God is not Great" or watch his debates on KZread.

@tcl5853

6 жыл бұрын

psychclone : so tell me, why is there something rather than nothing? Oops just as I thought- no credible answer. As things stand, the religious and secular arguments are equally absurd. Because science always needs at least one miracle to get the whole thing kicked off with respect to the beginning of the known universe. They need one uncaused cause and religion’s answer to that is to say that they have a being that is an uncaused cause but isn’t available for empirical scrutiny.

@tcl5853

6 жыл бұрын

psychclone : I will play the game. It is no more absurd to say Santa claus started it all as it to say that something beyond even the concept of existance, and most certainly beyond nothingness as defined by science started it all.

@tcl5853

6 жыл бұрын

psychclone : and so is asserting that what is, originated from less than nothing. The absurdity of such a position is as irrational it gets.

@tcl5853

6 жыл бұрын

psychclone : that's what I thought, you gave up the ghost. Ran out material.

@everett8610

6 жыл бұрын

psychclone The natural Uber Man. Thanks but no thanks...

So the new atheists are not "engaging with the issues." Thats idiotic and patronizing. Religion survives by pious sounding, pseudo-intellectual rhetoric. I used to respect Polkinghorne.

Time to grow up, old man.

@stevenhunter3345

5 жыл бұрын

In his capacity as both a theoretical physicist and an Anglican priest, John Polkinghorne has contributed more to humanity than you will ever even aspire to do. Piss off with your idiocy and condescension.

Anyone can be superstitious. Very sad.

When John et al wins a Nobel Prize for finding God..we will take them seriously!!