The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The Good News! » » Barna Group Research » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3
Steve_Mollett
View Profile
Inner circle
Eh, so I've made
3010 Posts

Profile of Steve_Mollett
Author of: GARROTE ESCAPES
The absurd is the essential concept and the first truth.
- Albert Camus
Steve_Mollett
View Profile
Inner circle
Eh, so I've made
3010 Posts

Profile of Steve_Mollett
Author of: GARROTE ESCAPES
The absurd is the essential concept and the first truth.
- Albert Camus
Payne
View Profile
Inner circle
Seattle
4572 Posts

Profile of Payne
Quote:
On 2007-12-22 17:50, Steven Conner wrote:
I want to wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!


Thank you and the same to you and yours.

Be sure to take a moment of time to remember the real reason for the season, Axil Tilt Smile
"America's Foremost Satirical Magician" -- Jeff McBride.
Terry Holley
View Profile
Inner circle
1767 Posts

Profile of Terry Holley
Better for the discusion to refer to the Flew material from a few years ago when he was first re-examining his position:

http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/

He may be struggling with his memory now, but I talked to Gary Habermas two years ago about the interview and I have no reason to believe Flew could be described as he is in the "geoffarnold" article.

My recollection of reading the "humanist" sites back then was that they just wanted to dismiss Flew now that he was moving toward the "Aristotelian God." In other words, he was OK prior to his rethinking, but once that happened, there was no reason to listen to him. That thinking tipped off yo me that this worldview appears to heve no room for the supernatural no matter how much I hear it does if evidence is presented.

Terry
Co-author with illusionist Andre' Kole of "Astrology and Psychic Phenomena."
Payne
View Profile
Inner circle
Seattle
4572 Posts

Profile of Payne
Quote:
On 2007-12-23 16:29, Terry Holley wrote:

My recollection of reading the "humanist" sites back then was that they just wanted to dismiss Flew now that he was moving toward the "Aristotelian God." In other words, he was OK prior to his rethinking, but once that happened, there was no reason to listen to him. That thinking tipped off yo me that this worldview appears to heve no room for the supernatural no matter how much I hear it does if evidence is presented.



Flew is allowed to come to his own conclusions based upon his interpretation of the data and his personnel experience. If he wants to believe in a Deistic Force that triggered the whole shebang (well Big Bang actually) that is his choice and right and who am I to not allow him to do so? It's not that we can't or won't accept a supernatural force, it's just we are never presented with any evidence for such a thing. Even Flew fails to offer us up any proof whatsoever and just tells us it's his feeling that there is order in the universe that can't be explained by strictly naturalistic means.

Provide us with verifiable evidence to a supernatural entity or realm and we will believe. So far no one has succeeded in this task.

Anyway I really don't understand this fascination with Flew's supposed conversion. Atheists convert and Believers deconvert everyday. Perhaps it's because there are far more of the latter than the former that believers make such a big deal out of it.
There certainly isn't much of a win with Flew. There really is not much of a difference between a Deist and an Atheist as an Atheist believes there is no God while a Deist believes there was only a God for an instant or two to get things rolling.
"America's Foremost Satirical Magician" -- Jeff McBride.
leftytheclown
View Profile
Loyal user
Illinois
255 Posts

Profile of leftytheclown
Again, if we are going to present any magical effects that promote the Gospel, we need to believe in what we are presenting. That is, Christ was all man and all God. Christ came to redeem us from our disobedience to God. We should celebrate Christmas to recognize God’s greatest gift to us. We have to believe in a divine creator. Otherwise we are merely presenting self-esteem and” do-good-to-others” effects. Jesus wasn’t alone in doing this. His radical comments were that He was God.

Atheists are adept at dodging the issues of a creator. They state evolution does not rule out a creator, but this is not true. The philosophical beliefs of evolution are: All there is, is matter and all things were created by natural causes. There can be no supernatural cause, therefore, no creator. A creator would have to be outside of nature, which is not allowed. Therefore, the concept of God is meaningless and irrational.

Creation is a philosophical belief that all things were created by a self-existent spiritual being and the universe and all that is in it was designed for a purpose. And as created beings, we too have a purpose.

These philosophies clash when it comes to education, establishment of laws, values, morals, and how a society functions. Humanists say it is ok to believe in a god, but as this is irrational, you cannot teach any of it’s concepts in school or allow it to shape public policy. How convenient when they make the rules.

Although evolution is a theory in crisis, humanists want it accepted as fact. They have convinced many courts (not the majority of our population) to rule this way. This allows them to shape our culture and values. There are several “button” issues that are being promoted, but the key issue is that mankind is accountable to no one but themselves for their actions. This is in sharp contrast to those who hold there is a God and that we are responsible to a higher power for our behavior.

Now to the dismay of humanists, many scientists who hold we have a creator, are challenging the assumption that all things must come from natural causes. They state that this is bad science. Science needs to be “open minded”, yet atheistic scientists will not allow any notion that there is intended design. They have closed their minds to any theory that is not their own. Sort of the “not invented here” syndrome. That is why they shape the rules of science to state, ‘all must come from natural causes.

This is not fact, but an assumption. In truth there is very little data to support this belief. Such as the fossil record, lack of any evidence of a-biogenesis, how information preceded life such as DNA/RNA, and many other problems with evolution. When confronted, as I mentioned in an earlier post, they can only say, “evolution did It’. Crick in effect says this as does Hawkings. Oh, and to point out: Viruses may mutate, but they are still viruses. They don’t become germs or mice or anything else. Micro-evolution has nothing to do with Macro-evolution.

The controversy continues.

As magicians sharing the Good News, we are not the light. We can only point to it. Merry Christmas to all and God bless.
Lefty (aka) Sterling Dare
Author: Money Menagerie
Book and DVD
Terry Holley
View Profile
Inner circle
1767 Posts

Profile of Terry Holley
I thought I'd bring this thread back up since it included a discussion of Antony Flew.

I just started reading Flew's book "There Is A God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind." It's about his "conversion" to deism. Some of you may want to borrow a copy from your local library.

Terry
Co-author with illusionist Andre' Kole of "Astrology and Psychic Phenomena."
Payne
View Profile
Inner circle
Seattle
4572 Posts

Profile of Payne
Quote:
On 2008-04-29 21:36, Terry Holley wrote:
I thought I'd bring this thread back up since it included a discussion of Antony Flew.

I just started reading Flew's book "There Is A God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind." It's about his "conversion" to deism. Some of you may want to borrow a copy from your local library.

Terry


There is hardly any difference between a Deist and an Atheist. An Atheist believes there is no God where as a Deist believes there was a God for just long enough to trigger the first cause.
Flew does not embrace a personal god, any form of afterlife nor Christianity. He also embraces a deistic for philosophical and not scientific reasons.
He's also very old and probably not thinking clearly as well Smile
"America's Foremost Satirical Magician" -- Jeff McBride.
RevJohn
View Profile
Inner circle
Oregon City Oregon, Oregon
2472 Posts

Profile of RevJohn
Quote:
On 2008-04-30 00:28, Payne wrote:
He also embraces a deistic for philosophical and not scientific reasons.


Serious question, with a bias of course, but do any of us embrace a deity because of scientific reasons? Paul Tillich talks about that gap between faith and reason, that at some point we take a jump.

I have not read the book in question, nor do I plan to, and I agree with Payne on the difference between a believing in a god that turned the handle on the clock, and removed himself to the God incarnate, in the flesh.

But the question of faith is a very interesting question, and what informs our faith. This is also where many denominations come to a parting of the ways. Is faith our choice, or is faith a gift?

Ah, fun conversations!!

RevJohn
Terry Owens
View Profile
Inner circle
Ft. Wayne, Indiana
1707 Posts

Profile of Terry Owens
Scripture says...Everyone is given a measure of faith.
Theodore Lawton
View Profile
Inner circle
1631 Posts

Profile of Theodore Lawton
Please allow me to ramble a bit...

Scripture also says that faith is a gift from God, but we must choose to follow Him. God knew who would choose Him and gave them faith? Paradox.?! Omnipotence of God vs will of man? One reason I love believing in the God of scripture is we can't fully understand Him. To me, personally, that reinforces the fact that the bible is true. Scientifically, geographically, prophetically, the bible has never been proven wrong. Still, if I could grasp all of it then I would know it was an invention of man. It's the amazing, mind blowing parts that help me at times to know that it was written by inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Einstein believed in a deity. He said that at the quantum level things just don't make any sense unless someone is holding it all together. I'm paraphrasing, but it was close to that. He didn't think, unfortunately, that God was personal and concerned with the affairs of man, but he did believe there was an omnipotent force behind the universe. Even Carl Sagan said that when one studies quantum physics, there comes a time when you must decide if you believe in a God or not. So, when it comes to scientific reasons, you can back up your faith with science, I believe, but you ultimately still have to live by faith.

The bible also says that all men know in their hearts that there is a God, they just choose to not believe.

So, to answer your question from a personal perspective RevJohn: No, I don't embrace God because of scientific reasons. I love the fact that man's pathetic, fallible science points to God existence, but I have to stand on the word and say that I ultimately live by faith. When you strip away all the science, archaeology, geology, manuscript evidence, evidence of nature, etc.. that's all I'm left with is my faith. And it's enough.

Be blessed my brothers!
Magic is the bacon in the breakfast of life.

............................................

God bless you and have a magical day
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The Good News! » » Barna Group Research » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2020 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.18 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL