C S Lewis on atheism

@val70 He disappointed me when he supported the Iraq War. I suspect that had a lot to do with Saddam's gratuitous embracing of radical Islam. But just because I disagreed with Hitch didn't mean I couldn't enjoy his wit and insights.

@Mathers

@LeopoldBloom I enjoyed Hitch too, but I wasn't found of him. The man was way too intelligent to not know what his utterances were going to peceived as. He won't have liked me, nor many of the people that I know. For example, he wrote that in the week straight after Princess Diana was killed in the Paris car crash that Britain became a "one-party state". Obviously I didn't nor should he have said it because it isn't constructive nor visionary. We all know that we lack those last ones now. We're in a mess that people like Hitch helped create

For goodness sake, Ring another bell or shutup@Sharon

@Mathers You're getting frustrated now you've even run out of childish insults. Go and crawl back under your rock.

And the same old tune goes on@Sharon

@PrincessOfHell your problem is you don't understand the 10 commandments, the first four are about our relationship with God, the other six are about our relationships with people, get the first four right and the others will fall into place, just imagine a world without murder, adultery and greed!!

@Mathers Just imagine if it wasn't "Christians" behind the murder, adultery and greed. That's a better question, don't you think? You missed her point. Which isn't surprising. She's clearly sharp. That's what tends to happen.

Disciples of the Messiah obey the commands of Jesus. I don’t believe you will find murder, adultery and greed among them. @Ynotisay

@Mathers
You give us a quite good description of yours, it´s commendable

Thanks@ElRengo

@Mathers You are welcome

Do you always invade everybody’s postings with hateful comments?@Sharon

@Mathers Not at all, I'm not a christian. I leave that to them.

Well I wish you gods blessing@Sharon

@Honko Sounds more like the you’re the one who hasn’t been having sex.

You realise what you’ve just said doesn’t make sense like the rest of what you say@Ynotisay

@Mathers It does make sense, you just can't understand it.

Thankfully! @Sharon

@Mathers hell nah *laughs*
i am not responsible for the fuck up known as the human race.

You are responsible for your actions. As is everyone. You believe it would have been better if God had not allowed free will? @Alison

@Mathers Again, many atrocities were carried out by people in the name of God and Jesus. Even today homophobia and bigottry is fostered by people who follow God and Jesus.
It doesn't matter whatever good intention lies within Jesus teachings since apparently way too many people got it wrong.

As Jesus said, ‘many shall come in my name…’ @PrincessOfHell

@Mathers That's the old "No true Scotsman" fallacy.

Just a point out of course that Lewis was the most reluctant convert in England. You can watch his film about it@MalteseFalconPunch

Except it is not archaic. But even if it is, being old doesn’t mean it is wrong. Mankind has believed in breathing for a long time and that doesn’t make it wrong. You are a true disciple of the illogical Hitchens @TrashCat

@Mathers Stay foucused. there is not one shred of evidence of a God(s).
Because we do not have answers, the default is not "God(s). It means they undiscovered.

Who is "Hitchens", old man? 😂

Because you have your eyes closed and cannot see doesn’t mean to say the evidence is not there. It is perfectly obvious when you open your eyes. It is a matter of worldview. We do not believe in the God of the gaps to cover things we haven’t discovered we believe in the God who made everything and designed everything we can see where they discovered or not discovered. You are in great error here in your lack of perception @TrashCat

@Mathers So you have a scientific explanation for the Big Bang?

Do you even know what the God of the Gaps is? Apparently not.

Yes I stopped believing in the God of the gaps as a child. In fact I never did believe in him. I believe in the Lord of all creation who created everything about him all things have their being. Do you believe in cosmic accidents by which everything is totally unreasonable therefore your very reason is open to question@LeopoldBloom

@Mathers I don't believe in cosmic accidents since nothing is truly random. Everything follows natural laws. However, I don't believe in an invisible, all-powerful deity either as there are several problems with that. Such as, how does it affect material reality if it's not material itself? What was it doing before it created the universe? Why does everyone who says they believe in it have a different conception of its attributes? etc.

@Mathers
Ok
Show us some serious documented historical sources of contributions of those pre scientific philosophers to theories that have the explanatory strength of (let´s say) the Quantum theory of Fields, Relativity, the ones of Genetics and much more others of the kind.
Of course, reffer only to serious sources like indexed scientific / academic publications,

You could try reading
‘The Language of God’ by Francis Collins
‘Cosmic Chemistry’ by John Lennox
‘Belief in God in an age of Science’ by John Polkinghorne
A theory of everything by Alistair McGrath

That do for starters?
@ElRengo

@Mathers
Sorry for my delay in answering.

Thanks for the list, true not a bad one for a starter about Science what hopely you´ll become in in some future.

By my side I know well other books by John Polkinghorne whom I respect a lot besides not always agreeing with him. Not the suggested book anyhow.

Had some idea about the rest of the authors and their standings but will get those and other of their books to have a 1´st hand knowledge of them.

BUT......

If you wish to re read our posts, the ones that leaded to said list you will see that is unrelated to the specifics of the stuff more recently debated,
Let me recapitulate it as a summary.

You:
"Your statement that science was born then it’s completely ridiculous as science was practised by the Greeks. It is you who is ignorant of history my friend"

Me:
"History.....Well, Greeks and their predecesors made some advances on the tought "tech".
Like Aristotelian Logic and still was a resource that needed to be developed to reach the math one.
But considering the whole picture of human history and for the millenia since we have something documented, nothing at all in the old philosophic tradictions contributed (besides the almost anecdotic) with a consistent causal description of the universe.
Nothing like einstenian spacetime, quantum, molecular biology to begin with."

You:
"You simply don’t understand science@ElRengo"
"Both history and science proves you wrong"

Me:
"Ok. Show us some serious documented historical sources of contributions of those pre scientific philosophers to theories that have the explanatory strength of (let´s say) the Quantum theory of Fields, Relativity, the ones of Genetics and much more others of the kind."

You:
...your list of books.

And me, now:
Your list (besides other merits it may have) is from contemporary authors...not from pre scientific philosophers, the classical ones.
You are not answering at all to my question / request.

So again.
You´ve said that Science was developed earlier, by means of bare mind thinking.
And I´ve invited you to tell when and where those early philosophers gave us something near or in the roots of what Science did, with potential refference to Relativity and Quantum Physics and such.

So again.
Would you be so kind to answer to specifically that?
That would say if "Both history and science proves you" right.

Best wishes

@Mathers So you finally admit you've lost the argument. Well done!

@Mathers Humans are a species of ape, not monkey. Apes and monkeys shared a common ancestor about 25 - 30 million years ago. Try to learn a bit about evolution before criticizing it.

Well you can believe that and looking at your listings it is not hard to dismiss the fact! 😂😂😂@Sharon

@Mathers
You don´t seem to have a close familiarity with the scientific community.
A lot if not most of scientists have various personal faiths.
There are chistian, muslim, jew, buddhist and others between them. Also atheists and agnostics.
And about the natural world they all trend to view it from a scientific viewpoint.
What they do not is to take the supernatural narrative about the material world as a good description of it.
And neither as a requisite for their personal faiths-

@Mathers I have no problem with god belief based in emotion. There are a few people I know that do pray but not necessarily a particular god. If that’s what you have, great.

I have a problem with God believe based on emotion because my belief is based on reason@BlueSkyKing