William Lane Craig responds...
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Peter Atkins: "Science Can Account For Everything"
Posted by Puritan Lad at 1:36 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
William Lane Craig responds...
Posted by Puritan Lad at 1:36 PM
While many in the church today, who having bitten off the principles of the world rather than swallowing the word of God, fail to recognize it, the truth remains that CHRISTIAN SKEPTICISM is not only our great heritage and long standing tradition, but also our Christian calling! (Swordbearer: Christian Skepticism – Our Great Heritage and Calling; July 07)
The key is how the different schools of thought withstand internal critique. Naturalism struggles with internal critique, because it is inductive by nature. Any of its conclusions can be viewed with skepticism, because we can never examine all the evidence in all relationships in all senses. It further refuses to admit to its own metaphysical components. For example, how can the naturalist prove the laws of logic by use of the scientific method, without being viciously circular? It is a metaphysical assumption held to by a groundless faith. (Puritan Lad: Team CS and the clash of the worldviews!; July 07)
If you say that God is “unnecessary in everything we know about”, how do you know that? Do you know “everything we know about”? Who are “we”? How did you come to know the meaning of the word “be”? You said that you don’t know where the universe comes from. How does that remove the necessity for God? At the very least, it is equally an explanation as any other if you don’t know. So then God is not removed from everything we know about, since the universe had to come into existence in order to exist. (Puritan Lad: Team CS and the clash of the worldviews!; July 07)
You mean to say that you actually have evidence that the universe wasn’t created? That would be monumental. Can you point us to this evidence? (Puritan Lad: Team CS and the clash of the worldviews!; July 07)
10 comments:
Beautiful!
(even the blank stare ... as the examples are given)
smoke 'dat! :))
Puritan,
Since the clip doesn't include the scientist's answer, I hardly think this counts as humiliation.
The fact that you consider it humiliating is telling, however. You consistently operate under the assumption that because you have something to say that convinces *you,* then everyone who disagrees with you has a foolish or misguided or arrogant or (insert belittling adjective here) point of view. Then if they respond, no matter what they say, you take their comment as proof that you're right.
Saying something (however loudly and often) doesn't make it true, despite what may be taking place on talk radio and Fox News day after day.
skeptical,
How do you know PL considers this "humiliating"?
How do you know he didn't post it to show irrefutable arguments being skillfully applied to one who sides with and tries to argue on behalf of a weak worldview.
Perhaps, one might (rightly or wrongly) draw the conclusion you did from the comments OF OTHERS, but to assume this was PL's assessment and motive (given he has not spoken, but simply posted it and provided a title and factual introduction) ... perhaps reveals something "telling" about you, does it not?
Skeptimal,
I'm not sure what your objection here is. Did I use the word "humiliation"?
Didn't you object to an earlier post where I claimed that Peter Atkin's stated that Science can account for anything? Didn't you want to see the quote? (I'm sure someone can look it up.)
Unfortunately, this wasn't my video. I'd be interested in seeing the scientist's answer as well. I don't believe he has one. Perhaps you would like to take a stab at an answer.
"I'm not sure what your objection here is. Did I use the word "humiliation"?"
You've got me there. You didn't use the word humiliation. I tend to think of you guys as walking in lockstep, so the "gotcha" tone of the first two comments got mixed in my mind with your normal tone of conversation, and I came up with you thinking this clip amounted to an unanswerable argument by the speaker.
Without hearing the scientists answer, this clip is more of a quote taken out of context, isn't it? I'm not even sure what Atkins means when he says "science can account for everything," because he doesn't really get much of a chance to flesh it out. I suspect he means something different than what you think he does.
Maybe I'm being presumptuous, but I understand Peter Atkins to mean that "science can account for everything."
This isn't the first time he has said it.
what a great clip...i would have liked to see the entire thing as well.. was that Buckley as moderator? how old is the clip as we know Buckly died within the last 2 yrs or so.
have any of you seen the movie:
Expelled...No Intelligence Allowed?
There were similar rebuttals by Hawkins (i believe that was his name). on the question of where live originated, he actually put forth the theory that we were seeded by a super intelligent society...anything but designed by a creator.
btw: i don't feel quite smart enough for this blog...
kw
kris: "i don't feel quite smart enough for this blog..."
Response: We're just regular folks around here. You're more than welcome. (I can speak for myself, I'm still learning even as I participate!)
If you search our archives, I think it was PL who posted on Expelled. He might can tell you more.
Post a Comment