Damn .Naturalists humilliated yet again .

This is an argument from incredulity. It’s all very well as an explanation for what moved the speaker, presumably Lewis, but I see no reason why it should be found compelling to anyone else.

@kpgecclesia

11 күн бұрын

@@81caspen why? What is your argument? If you understand more than the clip, but Lewis whole journey he didn’t want to be a Christian even when he starts to believe in God he refused to go with Christianity. He realized the truth because if there is a God and we are made by Him and for Him as the Bible states then my life is not mine we belong to God. He found what the whole world is looking for love, purpose, identity, security, and understanding. Let’s go back to the question why?

@81caspen

11 күн бұрын

@@kpgecclesia , I don’t understand the question. You seem to be supposing that I have a position and an argument for it. I am not advancing a proposition but making an internal critique. If Lewis mentioned casually to someone that Oslo was the capital of Norway and someone who heard him responded, “No, that can’t be! I’d have heard about it before. I can just feel it in my heart that it must not be true!” … then he may or may not have been able to have a pleasant conversation with the hearer, even to find himself by degrees that his interlocutor was right. He might begin to doubt seriously whether Oslo was a city at all, let alone the capital of Norway. But if anyone had suggested to Lewis that simply listening to someone’s breathless insistence that they cannot believe Oslo is the capital of Norway should persuade him to doubt whether it is, he’d have simply stared at that person and wondered why mere incredulity was supposed to be evidence of anything.

@kpgecclesia

11 күн бұрын

@@81caspen ah I see what you are saying now

Its a battle between Flesh and Spirit.

And without Christ flesh and spirit are one.

Interesting argument, but effectively refuted by Atheist philosopher Dr. Graham Oppy: _It is simply inaccurate to say that mental processes are “determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain.” At least roughly, mental states and processes are neural states and processes: states of, and processes in, networks of neurons. While “motions of atoms” have some role to play in the constitution of the states and processes in question, it is simply not true that those states and processes are “determined wholly” by those “motions of atoms”. More carefully-and more accurately-mental states and processes are neural states and processes that have been appropriately shaped by local, social and evolutionary history and that are appropriately causally related to those environments. While “motions of atoms” have some role to play, not only in the constitution of the states and processes, but also in the constitution of the local, social, and evolutionary history, and in the constitution of the causal relation of the states and processes to the current environment, it is simply not true that all of this is “determined wholly” by the “motions of atoms”._ _Grant that objects in the universe exist at different scales (or, equivalently, energy levels). There are different kinds of causal interactions that occur within these different scales and across these different scales. But there is no reduction of these different kinds of causal interactions to a single scale, and there is no emergence of these different kinds of causal interactions from a single scale. Objects that exist at higher scales (or lower energy levels) are constituted, without remainder, by objects that exist at lower scales (or higher energy levels). But it simply does not follow, from this fact about the constitution of objects, that there is determination of events (states, processes) at higher scales by events (states, processes) at lower scales._ _That I suppose that my brain is constituted by cells (molecules, atoms, etc.), and that I suppose further that my mental states and processes are neural states and processes that have been appropriately shaped by local, social and evolutionary history and that are appropriately causally related to those environments, is no barrier at all to my further supposing that some of my beliefs and believings are true. Or, at any rate, there is nothing in the argument that we are attributing to Haldane that says otherwise._ ANTI-NATURALISTIC ARGUMENTS FROM REASON (2022) pg. 17-18

@chase86903

9 ай бұрын

0:30 kinda mentions that here no?

@RealAtheology

8 ай бұрын

@@chase86903 It's briefly mentioned, but notice that Barfield just ignores the potential point about natural selection and repeats the assertation about "atoms in colliding in skulls" completely ignoring that if natural selection is correct, than as Oppy points out, logical reasoning is not just a matter of "atoms colliding" into skulls but is a cognitive process that has adapted towards tracking accurate beliefs. See the paper _Could Evolution Explain Our Reliability about Logic_ by Joshua Schechter for a more in-depth look.

@RonaldTolar-pg8uh

7 ай бұрын

Life , in all its forms, is the proof of Creation. Atheism has NO leg to stand on . Atheism is nothing more than an Emotion attempting to convince itself.

@RealAtheology

7 ай бұрын

@@RonaldTolar-pg8uh You seem confused.

@RonaldTolar-pg8uh

7 ай бұрын

@RealAtheology What to hear some Mythology ????? The atheist has NO empirical science to stand on, so they have to invent the myth that the table of elements got together adding architecture, engineering and massive information, and instantly able to reproduce itself, and also thought capabilities with consciousness.

Lewis, a great Catholic !!

@bigmonkee639

7 ай бұрын

He was Anglican :(

@chucksolutions4579

6 ай бұрын

He was a layman in the Church of England (Anglican) but more than anything an advocate for what he called (and eventually wrote the book by the same name) “Mere Christianity.” He would not be tempted into a discussion that overtly called other Christian brothers possible heretics. He did write extensively on his personal enjoyment of liturgy of the high church tradition but his complaint was about the constant changing of the worshipping practice not a criticism of more informal Protestant denominations, just expressed preference and a desire for constancy, all while laughing at his own “curmudgeonly nature.” But no, NOT a Catholic but a good friend to them as most know, Tolkien one of his closest friends was Catholic. Lewis once wrote that if you must walk past a church to get to church you are going too far. Engage with your local worshipping community and do not allow yourself to become a critic of the church, merely a worshipper of God. My own pastor was found of saying, “don’t join the perfect church, you’ll screw it up! Join your local church and work out its perfecting as God is perfecting you. YOU are the church, we are the church there is but one church and all who call on Christ to greater or lesser degrees are part of it.” Yes there will be many in those last days who will be told, “I never knew ye,” but unless those souls have chosen to submit to you, it is not your place to shepherd them to God. Be a voice crying in the wilderness if you are so called Anyways, hope that helped! God bless