(Click on the image for a larger version)
Thursday, April 15, 2010
2 comments:
Due to the number of requests, I have enabled commenting for this blog. All submissions must be approved. Please be patient during the review process.
If you have questions or challenges concerning the reasonableness of the Christian faith, CLICK HERE to submit the question.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You do realize that a lot of things on that you claim as evidence are explained by natural scientific means, right? You're not pointing out evidence, you are pointing at things and saying evidence.
ReplyDeleteAustin: thanks for the comment. I understand the framework of your question, but in a very real sense you are missing the point. Categorically, many of the evidences involve biology (DNA, RNA, etc). For those who can take the time, conduct research about abiogenesis and the current status of DNA research and probabilities. The sheer weight of mathematics and observed events in the biosphere overwhelmingly favor the necessity of a purposeful, intelligent creator. Considered one of the greatest living biologists and DNA researches, Francis Collins (head of the Human Genome project) concurs with this conclusion. Categorically, issues involving universal cosmology, ie the singularity, big bang inflation, etc also have been demonstrated to be best explained using logic and scientific processes (law of cause and effect) as requiring an uncaused cause--an intelligence outside of our space-time-matter/energy environ. Categorically, issues involving the Bible, such as fulfilled prophecy, are best explained, once again, by an intelligence outside of time. As one surveys the serious challenges to pure naturalism ("whence ariseth natural law? I think thou dost protest too much!") and considers the BEST explanations due to inference, the case is clear for a creator outside of "nature" per se. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list, it does convincingly demonstrate that the oft quipped mantra that "there is NO evidence for God" is fallacious at best, and an outright deception at worst. It is not that there is a paucity of evidence, it is that the culmination of evidence is so powerful that many cannot even conceive that perhaps they have been either wrong, misled, or biased. When discussing this same issue of evidence for God, the famous rocket scientist, Wernher von Braun offered this: "But must we really light a candle to see the sun?" He saw the issue clearly.
ReplyDelete