Hnefahogg
Sophomore
@hnefahogg
Posts: 881
Likes: 369
|
Post by Hnefahogg on Apr 10, 2021 14:47:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 10, 2021 18:15:43 GMT
Flew's ultimate conversion came about through being convinced by the Argument from Design. However, at no point was he ever a theist.
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Apr 10, 2021 20:21:35 GMT
Never heard of him. So i doubt he was the world leader of anything.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Apr 10, 2021 21:21:53 GMT
Just means he came to what many other atheists would say is an unwarranted conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 11, 2021 5:32:22 GMT
Flew's ultimate conversion came about through being convinced by the Argument from Design. However, at no point was he ever a theist. The title of his book seems to disagree with that assessment.
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on Apr 11, 2021 12:25:37 GMT
That is such a stupid reasoning! “How can such a complex structure as DNA exist without having been created?” How do the people who say that do not realise that it doesn’t actually answer anything? It only pushes the problem of something-from-nothing one level up. If DNA is so complex that it couldn’t have happened without God, how did God (presumably even more complex than DNA) come into being?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 11, 2021 12:30:35 GMT
That which we call 'God' can, ultimately, mean a whole range of things.
Science does not say that will be impossible to provide a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms. In fact given the recent discoveries of organic matter at such places as asteroids and the atmosphere of Pluto, the building blocks of life seem more common and widespread than originally surmised. Flew insisted that the evidence be followed, wherever it led. But it appears that he wasn't that too bothered to keep up to date on what the evidence was.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Apr 11, 2021 19:30:55 GMT
There's no "world's leading atheist" because atheism isn't an oganization or even an idealogy. "BUT WHAT ABOUT RICHARD DAWKINS AND SAM HARRIS" you ask? People like Dawkins and Harris were prominent figures in the New Atheism scene a while ago, I'm not even sure it's even that prominent anymore. It was never representative of atheism as whole. And is his reasoning seriously the tired "Complex stuff needs a creator" argument? This has been refuted a million times.
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Apr 12, 2021 10:25:44 GMT
What makes someone The World’s Leading Atheist? He has the best arguments? He talks louder than the others? He carries a big stick?
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Apr 12, 2021 13:32:29 GMT
That is such a stupid reasoning! “How can such a complex structure as DNA exist without having been created?” How do the people who say that do not realise that it doesn’t actually answer anything? It only pushes the problem of something-from-nothing one level up. If DNA is so complex that it couldn’t have happened without God, how did God (presumably even more complex than DNA) come into being? My guess is the theist would quibble with what they'd call the 'category error' of that comparison. DNA almost certainly 'began to exist.' They would claim that (their) God did NOT begin to exist so doesn't need a 'design' explanation.
Of course my view is that while DNA DID begin to exist and was 'designed,' the designing 'agent' was nature... the natural self organizing properties of matter/energy. So, if that's correct, the 'designer' of DNA would be nature/natural.
Of course they would claim that leads to the next question...who 'designed' nature. THEN I fall back on the assumption that nature was not designed/built/created. Rather it, with its admittedly remarkable features, tendencies and characteristics just exists and, I believe, exists eternally.
Both sides are faced with a dilemma...SOMETHING must have always existed (exists eternally) unless one makes the bold and unnecessary assertion that nature popped into existence out of nothing. The theists posits God with his remarkable abilities exists eternally with no more basis than I posit nature, with its remarkable tendencies, exists eternally.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 12, 2021 23:18:05 GMT
That is such a stupid reasoning! “How can such a complex structure as DNA exist without having been created?” How do the people who say that do not realise that it doesn’t actually answer anything? It only pushes the problem of something-from-nothing one level up. If DNA is so complex that it couldn’t have happened without God, how did God (presumably even more complex than DNA) come into being? My guess is the theist would quibble with what they'd call the 'category error' of that comparison. DNA almost certainly 'began to exist.' They would claim that (their) God did NOT begin to exist so doesn't need a 'design' explanation. Actually the claim is that the "first cause" did not begin to exist. Some call it God... ...you call it Nature.
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Apr 13, 2021 7:49:13 GMT
What makes someone The World’s Leading Atheist? He has the best arguments? He talks louder than the others? He carries a big stick? Stature among his peers, like anything else. The term wouldn’t have amused me if the title just referred to him as “a leading atheist” or just “leading atheist” but I suppose it was done to make it look more dramatic and important.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 13, 2021 8:33:30 GMT
Stature among his peers, like anything else. The term wouldn’t have amused me if the title just referred to him as “a leading atheist” or just “leading atheist” but I suppose it was done to make it look more dramatic and important. Maybe it's like the Pope disavowing God.
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Apr 13, 2021 9:17:32 GMT
The term wouldn’t have amused me if the title just referred to him as “a leading atheist” or just “leading atheist” but I suppose it was done to make it look more dramatic and important. Maybe it's like the Pope disavowing God. Now I already knew about those guys plus they got to wear the big hat. Perhaps leading atheists should wear big hats to help us common folk know who they are.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Apr 13, 2021 12:24:52 GMT
My guess is the theist would quibble with what they'd call the 'category error' of that comparison. DNA almost certainly 'began to exist.' They would claim that (their) God did NOT begin to exist so doesn't need a 'design' explanation. Actually the claim is that the "first cause" did not begin to exist. Some call it God... ...you call it Nature. And if one day I decided to define nature as God...I'd be like Anthony Flew and go about declaring there is a god.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Apr 13, 2021 14:13:22 GMT
That is such a stupid reasoning! “How can such a complex structure as DNA exist without having been created?” How do the people who say that do not realise that it doesn’t actually answer anything? It only pushes the problem of something-from-nothing one level up. If DNA is so complex that it couldn’t have happened without God, how did God (presumably even more complex than DNA) come into being? The “who created God then?” argument is probably the dumbest one atheists bring up.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 13, 2021 20:06:18 GMT
Actually the claim is that the "first cause" did not begin to exist. Some call it God... ...you call it Nature. And if one day I decided to define nature as God...I'd be like Anthony Flew and go about declaring there is a god. You may as well. After all, in this context, your description of Nature is the same as the description of God you summarily dismissed.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 13, 2021 21:26:34 GMT
You may as well. After all, in this context, your description of Nature is the same as the description of God you summarily dismissed. If God is Nature, then he created himself. Given that impossible conclusion, there must be something wrong with the premise.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 13, 2021 21:51:50 GMT
Given that impossible conclusion, there must be something wrong with the premise. Therefore, Nature is not God. Nature didn't create itself, either. Not sure what your point is.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 13, 2021 22:20:53 GMT
Nature didn't create itself, either. Not sure what your point is. “Nature” is a science narrative, much like “God” is a supernatural narrative, so humans with our limitations of knowledge can conceptualize it. Because most of us cannot think using the mathematical models science depends upon. As such what Nature is changes as more and more data and analysis comes in to reduce deficits in factual knowledge. I see. So in this context, Nature is simply defined as "not God." It's unreasonable to reject God for the same reason Nature is accepted... "If God exists, who created God?" vs. "Nature is eternal. Nothing created it." In other words, Nature is Supernatural but God doesn't exist because there is no such thing as "Supernatural."
|
|