Eric Metaxas in WSJ
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-12-2014, 08:36 AM
Eric Metaxas in WSJ
Anybody read this thing on Christmas?

"Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God"

I'd be interested in reading the surgical eviscerations of its premises and logical fallacies from TTA forum posters.

God does not work in mysterious ways — he works in ways that are indistinguishable from his non-existence.
Jesus had a pretty rough weekend for your sins.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2014, 08:50 AM
RE: Eric Metaxas in WSJ
There appears to be a pay wall, so you can't read the article without subscribing.

Found this article about it though:

More Creationism in the Wall Street Journal

Looks to be a very old god-of-the-gaps argument combined with the fine tuning nonsense.

Another primate seeing patterns that aren't necessarily there.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheInquisition's post
27-12-2014, 08:54 AM
RE: Eric Metaxas in WSJ
It opens when opened from a link of Facebook. I'll copy and paste the article for those interested:

By ERIC METAXAS
Dec. 25, 2014 4:56 p.m.

"In 1966 Time magazine ran a cover story asking: Is God Dead? Many have accepted the cultural narrative that he’s obsolete—that as science progresses, there is less need for a “God” to explain the universe. Yet it turns out that the rumors of God’s death were premature. More amazing is that the relatively recent case for his existence comes from a surprising place—science itself.

Here’s the story: The same year Time featured the now-famous headline, the astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there were two important criteria for a planet to support life: The right kind of star, and a planet the right distance from that star. Given the roughly octillion—1 followed by 24 zeros—planets in the universe, there should have been about septillion—1 followed by 21 zeros—planets capable of supporting life.

With such spectacular odds, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, a large, expensive collection of private and publicly funded projects launched in the 1960s, was sure to turn up something soon. Scientists listened with a vast radio telescopic network for signals that resembled coded intelligence and were not merely random. But as years passed, the silence from the rest of the universe was deafening. Congress defunded SETI in 1993, but the search continues with private funds. As of 2014, researches have discovered precisely bubkis—0 followed by nothing.

What happened? As our knowledge of the universe increased, it became clear that there were far more factors necessary for life than Sagan supposed. His two parameters grew to 10 and then 20 and then 50, and so the number of potentially life-supporting planets decreased accordingly. The number dropped to a few thousand planets and kept on plummeting.

Even SETI proponents acknowledged the problem. Peter Schenkel wrote in a 2006 piece for Skeptical Inquirer magazine: “In light of new findings and insights, it seems appropriate to put excessive euphoria to rest . . . . We should quietly admit that the early estimates . . . may no longer be tenable.”

As factors continued to be discovered, the number of possible planets hit zero, and kept going. In other words, the odds turned against any planet in the universe supporting life, including this one. Probability said that even we shouldn’t be here.

Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.

Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?

There’s more. The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. For example, astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces—gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the “strong” and “weak” nuclear forces—were determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction—by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000—then no stars could have ever formed at all. Feel free to gulp.

Multiply that single parameter by all the other necessary conditions, and the odds against the universe existing are so heart-stoppingly astronomical that the notion that it all “just happened” defies common sense. It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row. Really?

Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term “big bang,” said that his atheism was “greatly shaken” at these developments. He later wrote that “a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology . . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

Theoretical physicist Paul Davies has said that “the appearance of design is overwhelming” and Oxford professor Dr. John Lennox has said “the more we get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator . . . gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.”

The greatest miracle of all time, without any close seconds, is the universe. It is the miracle of all miracles, one that ineluctably points with the combined brightness of every star to something—or Someone—beyond itself."

Mr. Metaxas is the author, most recently, of “Miracles: What They Are, Why They Happen, and How They Can Change Your Life” ( Dutton Adult, 2014).

http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas...1419544568
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2014, 09:11 AM
RE: Eric Metaxas in WSJ
So...basically an old article arguing the "Anthropic" principle? Also, being some what skewed in its view of what can and can't and does and doesn't support life?

Some one blowing smoke, then?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2014, 09:38 AM
RE: Eric Metaxas in WSJ
(27-12-2014 08:54 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  By ERIC METAXAS

Brought to you by a guy who writes scripts for VeggieTales.

(27-12-2014 09:11 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  So...basically an old article arguing the "Anthropic" principle?

Wheeler's interpretation is far more interesting. Does the Universe Exist if We're Not Looking?

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2014, 10:03 AM (This post was last modified: 27-12-2014 10:18 AM by Gordon.)
RE: Eric Metaxas in WSJ
When you combine the weights of the teleological argument for the existence of God (that is the apparent design in the universe), along with the cosmological argument (that is the necessity for all physical things to have an initial cause), you can't escape the belief that God exists--without being irrational that is. If you throw in the ontological argument (that is that God, with a capital G, must logically exist), you just can't be an atheist.

However, none of these arguments gets you close to God--which is all that matters to us. Who cares if God exists if He takes no notice of us? It also doesn't tell us that we will live after we die--but if we don't, then once again, who cares about God?

The fact is without a personal revelation of God, the question of God is moot. There has to be a way to God.

Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father except by me."

He's right. If God exists, then God is the God of quarks and galaxies all at the same time. Our mind can be nothing like God's mind. We cannot contain him in our thoughts. We have to simplify Him. We must have a revelation. Was Jesus that revelation, that way? You need to answer that question for yourselves.

And don't look at Christianity. The Church has almost nothing to do with Jesus at all. You have to go to the Gospels yourself. You have to read them as if you had just found them on a beach and had no idea of where they came from. And when you read them, read them like this:
  • Jesus represents what you are trying to become.
  • The disciples represent various aspects of your personality and your thinking processes.
  • Read as if the Gospels were sent to you alone by God and are actually for you and about you.
  • Look for the riddles and figure them out: They're the parts that don't seem to make any sense. They're there for you to figure out and grow into Christ as a result.

Do not read any other part of the Bible. Don't look at any of it. You don't need to. The Gospels, when they were written, were stand alone documents. When they were written, there was no Bible and no "Church." Everyone was still trying to figure out what Jesus was all about.

Some churches were sex cults. Some mixed paganism with the teachings of Jesus, some were still doing sacrifices, some were Gnostic and secretive, each of the "Apostles" seemed to be teaching different things. There were false prophets of Jesus running all over the place. Some sects were even wealthy, or Jewish.

Jesus came on to the scene. He lived, taught, was crucified, and no one ever found his body after that. Not then, not now. He was so amazing to people then, that even today, people are trying to figure out what his existence meant?

Because for some people, when they read the Gospel record, they get a sense that Jesus is still alive. It's like he's all around. Resurrected.

[Image: Bonnell--The%20Road%20to%20Emmaus.jpg]
The Road to Emmaus by Bonnell

Go and do likewise. Read the Gospels. Make your own religion just for you. Figure out what the life of Jesus means. They say there are some 34,000 denominations of Christianity. But I'm telling you there should be a billion sects searching to know what Jesus Christ meant--because he's the way to God.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2014, 10:07 AM (This post was last modified: 27-12-2014 10:11 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Eric Metaxas in WSJ
What an idiot Metaxas is. He actually thinks Bonhoeffer was a Christian.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...Bonhoeffer
You call "design" the fact that for all the time the universe exists/existed 1^(-80) humans existed. Nope. I don't think so. Davies didn't say "design is everywhere". He said "THE APPEARANCE of design" is everywhere. A VAST difference.
It's called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2014, 10:09 AM
RE: Eric Metaxas in WSJ
It took us billions of years to get here and I doubt we, as a slightly advanced civilization, are going to be here that long given our environmental impact.

For intelligent life similar to ours to exist in the same small fraction of a billion years that we do is a long shot, but I'm willing to bet, there are some out there.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2014, 10:13 AM
RE: Eric Metaxas in WSJ
(27-12-2014 10:09 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  It took us billions of years to get here and I doubt we, as a slightly advanced civilization, are going to be here that long given our environmental impact.

For intelligent life similar to ours to exist in the same small fraction of a billion years that we do is a long shot, but I'm willing to bet, there are some out there.

And if, as cosmologists *may* find, there are countless billions of universes, that one happened to pop out with the properties seen in this one, is not special at all.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2014, 10:14 AM
RE: Eric Metaxas in WSJ
(27-12-2014 10:03 AM)Gordon Wrote:  When you combine the weights of the teleological argument for the existence of God (that is the apparent design in the universe), along with the cosmological argument (that is the necessity for all physical things to have an initial cause), you can't escape the belief that God exists--without being irrational that is. If you throw in the ontological argument (that is that God, with a capital G, must logically exist). You just can't be an atheist.

However, none of these arguments gets you close to God--which is all that matters to us. Who cares if God exists if He takes no notice of us? It also doesn't tell us that we will live after we die--but if we don't, then once again, who cares about God?

The fact is without a personal revelation of God, the question of God is moot. There has to be a way to God.

Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father except by me."

He's right. If God exists, then God is the God of quarks and galaxies all at the same time. Our mind is nothing like God's mind. We cannot contain God in our minds. We must have a revelation. Was Jesus that revelation, that way? You need to answer that question for yourselves. And don't look at Christianity. The Church has almost nothing to do with Jesus at all. You have to go to the Gospels yourself. You have to read them as if you had just found them on a beach and had no idea of where they came from. And when you read them, read them like this:
  • Jesus represents what you are trying to become
  • The disciples represent various aspects of your personality and thinking processes
  • Read as if the Gospels were sent to you alone by God and are actually about you.
  • Look for the riddles and figure them out: They're the parts that don't seem to make any sense. They're there for you to figure out, and grow into Christ as a result.

Do not read any other part of the Bible. Don't look at any of it. You don't need to. The Gospels, when they were written, were stand alone documents. When they were written, there was no Bible and no "Church." Everyone was still trying to figure out what Jesus was all about. Some churches were sex cults. Some mixed paganism with the teachings of Jesus, some were still doing sacrifices, some were Gnostic and secretive, each of the "Apostles" seemed to be teaching different things. There were false prophets of Jesus running all over the place. Some sects were even wealthy, or Jewish.

Jesus came on to the scene. He lived, taught, was crucified, and no one ever found his body after that. Not then, not now. He was so amazing, that even today, people are trying to figure out what his existence meant? Because for some people, when they read the Gospel record, they get a sense that Jesus is alive. It's like he's all around us.

[Image: Bonnell--The%20Road%20to%20Emmaus.jpg]
The Road to Emmaus by Bonnell

Go and do likewise. Read the Gospels. Make your own religion just for you. Figure out what the life of Jesus means. They say there are some 34,000 denominations of Christianity. But I'm telling you God loves the diversity. There should be a billion sects searching to know what Jesus Christ meant--because he's the way to God.

Totally completely false.




Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: