P.S.: the book was mainly written by the co-author Roy Abraham Varghese as Antony Flew needed assistence with the writing due to his age. After the publication of the book, Antony Flew confirmed that the thoughts expressed in the book were 100% his. With further sources: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew ---- Clarification regarding 9:16: depending on the way the experiment would be conducted, creating life in a lab wouldn't necessarily show that intelligence is necessary to create life.
and for every a-theist that converted to theism, I can can show you 10,000 that have left theism. demonstrating, that the only thing keeping theism going is the repugnant practice of indoctrinating children
By the time the book was published, Flew had been adjudged legally incompetent to manage his own affairs. And those who knew him for his lifetime have said repeatedly that Varghese and the zealots around him took advantage of Flew and conned him into saying whatever they wanted. I wish you would stop defending these people. If you research them, even a little, you will realize that they are hateful creatures who deliberate took advantage of a doddering man without the mental capacity to deal with them.
I was a atheist the first 30 years of my life. Then I experienced God and I just got can't go back to my old way of thinking. I've been blessed with the best year of my life
I have a book recommendation: 7 types of atheism by John Gray. It's got a pretty interesting thesis. Although he is an Atheist, he's one of the better Atheist thinkers.
@@IanM-id8or I think many Christains would also say there are better Christian things. So, I do not see this as a swipe but as an author worth reading.
As an omnipotent God, you have to create everything from scratch and define their parameters. For example, what is time? What is pleasure? What is pain? What is good? What is evil? What is language? What is bright? What is dark? What is clean? What is dirty? What is moral? What is immoral? So naturally, as omnipotent God, you are above all these things. Because if you did not define those parameters, those definitions and boundaries would not mean anything. For example, you could have easily defined immoral as moral and moral as immoral and the world would not know any better.
I read recently that many organic compounds have been found on objects in space, so it is apparent that they are self-organizing on their own-they do not need billions of years of chance to randomly form. Scientists are also finding that there are compounds that are actually able to reproduce and even show some selective pressure when they organize, even before they could be called living things.
The way that we determine reality and existence is to see what happens when you act as though it did not exist. Real things will continue to affect you no matter how hard you try to deny them. Holding onto things in spite of this is wishful thinking, but wanting something to be true doesn’t make it true. You're fully allowed to hold onto them anyway, and the act of holding on may have a real affect on you, but that is different from the thing itself being real. But the mere fact that you can be an atheist with no issue whatsoever should be enough to convince you that theism is misguided, even if being misguided "helps" you, like a psychological crutch.
@@OCD-GUY erm... explain? The fact that you replied to it shows that it's enduring even though you're trying to deny its existence, proving its reality according to its content. I mean, your reply literally couldn't be more wrong. My comment is exactly how people determine the reality of absolutely everything, *except* for the religious about their religion.
@@Nyghl0 Your intelligent comment produced something intelligent (in the sense that it produced thoughts and actions within billions of cells of different organisms - the above, and me). However, in order to produce something it needed to first happen in your mind and you needed to act on those thoughts. Then you needed to have a way to deliver your thoughts. Now, we have a Universe and that contains intelligence (us, humans, if not else). We see an effect. We see a mechanism (the propagation of life and cellular division). We have sources of energy and everything needed to replenish the process. So, what is missing in my model? The source? And if the "reaction" or "effect" is intelligent thought, what was at the start of the action?
Once again thank you Elisabeth! As I'm sure you know one of the original proponents of the "Big Bang" theory was the Belgian Catholic priest Monsignor Georges Lemaitre. I think he is a great example of the compatibility of Christian faith and scientific reason. As you were talking about Anthony Flew's journey to Deism I kept thinking of C.S. Lewis' book "Surprised by Joy" where he recounts his journey from atheism to a belief in God. Lewis recounts that the final 'leap' to Christianity was ultimately revelation outside of himself. Helped by discussions with the Catholic J.R.R. Tolkien. I'm not sure if you have reviewed this book but I think that you would enjoy it! Peace and Blessing be with you always! 🙂🙏
While it is always interesting to see what changes an atheist's mind to become a believer, it is likewise as interesting to see what changes a believer into a non-believer. If we are talking about reason, it seems one can reason their way into and out of belief. Someone who sees nature "obeying" laws will reason differently than someone understanding laws are a human definition of natural repetition based upon the physical properties, meaning a square peg not fitting through a hole too small is not cleverly following or obeying any law, it is simply too big to fit. There is certainly oddities to life that can make a person believe there is more than meets the eye in living, but there is also plenty of evidence demonstrating people often jumping to wrong conclusions from their observations. Science does generally come across atheistic because it is a field that attempts to keep emotions out of the equation in order to not distort the findings. Religions and philosophy however, thrive on human emotion and will use science when able to support those emotions. Humans are both intellectual and emotional where the emotional part is far more important than the intellectual part of being human when it comes to successful living. This is why there is great value in religions and philosophies even if Gods don't exist. My perspective is always from the perspective of skepticism. I am somewhat skeptical about God's existence and skeptical about who God is should one exist. When it comes to figuring things out, we have more luck knowing what the answer isn't than what the answer is. It is easier to see the mistakes of religions and philosophies than understand what the truth or answer actually is. If a placebo works, it works because the mind says it works. That certainly indicates the mind is a powerful thing but it also demonstrates we can believe something is working for the wrong reasons. Here is an example from my imagination, say there is an afterlife but no God, where those in the afterlife attempt to help us here on earth the best that they can. One could give credit to a God even though its actually those who passed on attempting to help. All we have supposed evidence for is that we have been miraculously helped. What if our intelligence radiates out like the internet where it is not God or people in the afterlife helping but rather those living providing the help through this invisible network? I think what I am getting at is we could be right that we have been helped but wrong about where the help came from. If I were a Christian, I would be interested in how new Christians found their way into the religion but I would also be interested in how people leave their Christian faith, especially in the clergy or biblical scholars who study these things.
Genuinely thank you so much for this. I literally had an honest conversation with my mom today about my struggles in the Christian faith. This was exactly what I needed.
@@ArenHill sad that he doesn't know who his creator is, and sad for dad who tried his best to show him his creator. It would be disgusting to let it go. Trying to wake the guy up to the greatest thing that can happen to a human being in this life , knowing the One who made him. I am on his dad's side. I have four kids who are still struggling on the issue, and it breaks my heart.
You are a delight to watch. Smart and with an accent that never gets old. I'm still an atheist myself, but have been collecting bibles lately for some reason. Perhaps I'm still searching for reasons to believe. BTW, the multiverse theory doesn't say that there's only 1 universe that's fine tuned to evolve life, just that there are infinitely many universes, many of which (infinitely many actually!) with different "finely tuned" physical laws and constants, each of which can give rise to life that is therefore finely tuned to those specific laws and constants. "Fine tuning" doesn't imply there was any intelligence behind the "tuning" at all. Finally, we happen to be finely tuned to our own universe simply because we evolved here!
I'm glad that you like my channel! 😊 I'd say if the multiverse theory is correct then fine tuning doesn't imply intelligence. If our universe is the only one it still doesn't necessarily imply intelligence but it strongly supports that conclusion.
I don't follow. What supports what conclusion? Some universes in the Multiverse would give rise to intelligence and some wouldn't. But since we only have one example - our universe, which did evolve intelligence in us (and probably elephants, dolphins and whales, among other suspects) - we can't say anything about what tuning parameters will give rise to intelligence and which ones won't. We suffer from an embarrassing dearth of information. Assuming a Multiverse, my bet is that an infinite number of them give rise to intelligence, all with different starting "tuning" parameters.
@@-johnny-deep- Sorry, for the misunderstanding. I was referring to this sentence in your comment: '"Fine tuning" doesn't imply there was any intelligence behind the "tuning" at all.' I didn't mean whether universes give rise to intelligence but whether they imply an intelligent creator
Ok. Then I disagree with your statement that "If our universe is the only one it still doesn't necessarily imply intelligence *but it strongly supports that conclusion.* ". I see no reason why the fact that we are intelligent implies that an intelligence created the universe. Hence, I'm still an atheist. 😊
@@-johnny-deep- We humans, being somewhat intelligent beings, have created artificial intelligence. Would artificial intelligence be able to arise on its own, without the first computer code written by a human? Hence the conclusion that the existence of a higher intelligence that creates a lower intelligence seems more likely, because we can observe it ourselves on a micro scale.
I’ve been an atheist for many, many decades and was involved in atheist groups for a lot of that time. I never heard of Antony Flew until his supposed change of heart disclosed in a book under suspicious circumstances and he was certainly not an atheist of any note at the time. None of my associates knew of him either. Even disregarding the fact that he was most likely manipulated when he was developing dementia it matters not one fig that such and such an atheist became religious. It is not a rational thing to be religious. There are more atheists on the planet now (Even in places where they are killed by religious zealotry if it is made public) than have ever existed. That number is growing mainly in western nations and even in the good ol’ US of A.
Fundamental has became a slam word. Fundamentals is a good thing. "a central or primary rule or principle on which something is based. "two courses cover the fundamentals of microbiology" "
_From fundamentalist Christian to happier atheist_ We all know that only nothing comes from nothing. There's not one exception. Virtual particles are not real particles. And postulating that the whole, long-lasting Universe came from a virtual particle which only fleetingly exists is stupid. Please explain to me where the Universe and everything in it came from.
Great video as always Elisabeth! I always enjoy watching your videos because your analysis is fanatastic, and you have a wonderful voice that I enjoy listening to as well! Its very soothing, God bless you!
The best apologetics book for Christianity is "Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. The best apologetics book for the existence of God is "Is atheism dead" by Eric Metaxas.
The statement "I don't know if God exists, but it can be known that he exists" seems contradictory. If I believe his existence can be known, wouldn't I be obligated to believe in his existence?
Well, there's a difference between believing and knowing in this context. A Christian who doesn't know (=is not sure) whether God exists still believes it (=thinks it's likely). I hope this helps.
@@ichthus1890Does it become clearer what I mean by a weak Christian agnostic if I phrase it like that: "I don't know if God exists, but it can be known *if* he exists *and I choose to believe it* "? I didn't include the part with choosing to believe it in the video because I thought that that's clear anyway as all Christians believe in God, some just aren't sure about it Sorry for the confusion
@@petercollins7730 correct, an agnostic Christian chooses to believe that God exists but isn't sure about it. Of course the fact that smth can be known doesn't mean it is/isn't. I'm sorry that this creates so much confusion 🙈
How can "in the beginning" within Genesis related to the Big bang is beyond me. The Bible didn't say "In the beginning there was a infinite hot and dense spacetime and it expand". Is "the earth" in genesis 1 related to the universe or our Earth today?
This type of book is just sad. Here are a few reasons why; 1. What do you know about Antony Flew, except his *'conversion'* from atheism to ... ? Well, some kind of theism. What's he "Notorious" for, let alone famous or even known for, except for ... being some unknown reason for being 'important'? 2. With #1 in mind, the focus of this book is on the self-assuring title that may make some money, and assure the existing theists. It is not in the actual value of the facts. 3. Flew was losing his mind, so his final thoughts can't be relied on much. 4. Hitchens (someone who was known for many things) was said to have 'converted' in some vague way after he died...yet he knew that nonsense would be dragged up before he died and made it explicit that it would. Yet, someone still tried to make him into some kind of repentant former atheist turned quasi-Christian. White lies are still lies, and don't make proponents of any set of ideas -- including Christian ones -- look good by promoting them. If stories like this are needed to support or advocate for even a little bit of a personal Christian faith, then consider that there are likely other issues that actually need attention. This type of book and stories like it are a distraction from those issues and aren't a good look. ------- Edits: Minor structural edits; intended content unchanged. Edits occurred within 2 hours of the original comment.
I’m sorry his conversion distresses you. I would wager there are some issues that need attention…. Sent in love, even if bathed in snark. Atheism to theism is a common occurrence once more life experience is gained. Perspective shifting is all it takes.
1 Million people follow Alex o Connor or Jordan Peterson and their Arguments against God..... Why what has these people done so remarkable except for writing books( which are their view points) and doing podcasts. Yet no Atheist questions them but think that they are the Einsteins of Philosophy and Psychology.
The interest is in the reasoning that led to such a radical change of position (so yes the fact he was famously atheist IS relevant to the distance travelled). Same with accounts going the other way. I'm agnostic (albeit well disposed to Christianity) so my interest is in the reasoning. If he's lost his faculties that will affect quality of that reasoning. Would agree such books don't prove anything (to extent anyone argues that) but don't see why it's not worthwhile.
Actually the cosmologists Botde, Gute and Vilenkin solved the kinematics incompleteness theorem. It proved that if the universe is inflationary, it must have had a beginning. That is true also for a multiverse. It had to have a beginning and because of the law of cause and effect there has to do exist an unca Causal Agent.
I like reason too but I am grateful for my personal relationship with God and Jesus. You can live by reason but if you want to get to know someone you have to talk with them and listen and do things with God. A relationship takes time and effort. While I am 69 and never married, I do know the Lord more than do most. I have an unpublished book titled Science and the Bible: Evidence for the God of the Bible. So I have no problem with reason but I am so glad that I know God and He knows me
Can you link me a video where you recommend some books? Not the john piper ones or some devotionals. What i mean is more about apologetics, conversion, history and whatnot.
Thank you for the summary, GOD BLESS….so many ways to testify of GOD, but one of my favorite is that I find it ironic that we call it “the law” of physics and we call DNA a “code” and yet most do not even spend ONE moment to think beyond what they just said…where did a law and code come from without an intelligent mind behind it? Nothing, BANG, LIGHT and everything and “let there be…” and it organized, a supernatural event started it because it was outside of the known physical universe and it eventually lead to me and you when he said “let us make man…” again, I do not have enough faith to be an atheist…I find their arguments child like in their reasoning and full of pride which makes them ignorant. We are all ignorant to one degree or the other, but to look in the mirror and lie to yourself….WOW, only GOD can help such a person.
@@BiblicalBookworm no worries, I don’t engage anymore…I let others pickup that torch. 27 years is enough, sooner or later all you are doing is tossing pearls. They matter, GOD loves them and if they want to have an honest conversation I will engage one on one…not online, but you have to know where you draw the line, where your patience is not good enough to toss pearls. 27 years, even the prophets did not preach indefinitely, even GOD gave the Jews a time of silence in their history. Now, if they start respectfully I will give one response and move on. If not, I just don’t engage…life is too short for belligerent mockers.
Sub is out und lieben Gruss aus Mexico. Ganz lieben Dank und ein dickes Lob fuer Ihre Arbeit. Es ist heute so wichtig, Zusammenhaenge richtig zu verstehen. Ausserdem finde ich Ihr Resumee sehr aufbauend und motivierend, auch gerade im Gespraech mit anderen ueber die Gruende meines Glaubens. Nochmals Danke y saludos cordiales desde Tepotzlan, Morelos.
Using the word notorious delivers a negative connotation. Should Anthony Flew be viewed that way? What did he do that was notorious? Or is the title just click bait and it's really just saying he was famous? And why would going from not thinking God exists to thinking God exists be considered a conversion? Because best i can tell, he did not 'convert' but decided it was likely there was some sort of creator/designer...and because a deist. Is that really 'converting?' Would someone who did not believe the earth was spherical then determining the earth was spherical be considered to have 'converted' to spherical earth belief? I go from thinking God exists to not thinking God exists often. I am not convinced either way. Am I converting and deconverting with each changing thought?
In reading Flews book, it was clear to me that the change was in Flews mind, not from new science or understandings of the universe or origins. I found his arguments no more compelling, need less quotes out of context.
Very cool! I've heard of Anthony Flew, but this is the first video I see about him and his book, thanks for the summary! I'm very into apologetics, especially the scientific arguments (as a biochemist and med student). Some of my favs that I've learned a lot from over the years, include Frank Turek, Hugh Ross, William Lane Craig, J Warner Wallace, Lee Strobel, Stephen Meyer, James Tour, Michael Behe, John Lennox. You have a new sub!
There are no credible scientific arguments for the existence of any god - just gratuitous inferences made from arbitrary interpretations of selectively chosen data. Science can only work with detectable data which when it come to god there is absolutely none.
Most of those excusegists have no capacity for 'scientific arguments.' Turek, Craig, Wallace, Strobel, Meyer, and Lennox have no scientific education or knowledge, and demonstrate that with their claims. Tour and Behe are laughingstocks among actuall scientists. Actual scientists do not engage in apologetics - scientific knowledge makes the falsity of religious claims patent.
Just a quick point about beginnings: Although it's true that something like the Big Bang seems very compatible with the start of Genesis, biblical believers are not dependent on there having been an absolute beginning from nothing. Although creatio ex nihilo has a long and august theological pedigree, traditional thinkers, such as Rabbi Solomon (Rashi; 11th cent. France), already pointed out that Genesis 1:1-2 can be read differently. Essentially, it may mean: When God began to shape and form the matter that existed-under conditions of darkness, water, the deep, etc.-the first thing God did was make light. God may have created everything from nothing, but Genesis 1 may not be telling the story of the true start of being, but from some point further along.
Rashi's problem is that he failed distinguishing verse 1 from other verses. The very first verse "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" itself is a pronouncement of creatio ex nihilo. The word 'create' here should be differentiated from Aristotelian concept of making things out of 'something.' The word 'create' in Genesis contains in it several philosophical premises: 1) God and the world are qualitatively different, 2) there was a 'time' when the world was not, and 3) it was by the fiat of God that the world emerged out of nothing. Creatio Ex Nihilo is truly and uniquely biblical view on how the world began.
@@gamnamoo6195 Thanks for your reply! I personally happen to believe that the world was created ex nihilo. I also think it's possible that this is the teaching of Genesis 1. However, you are dismissing Rashi's analysis much too blithely. There are important textual reasons for what he said, and historical reasons why your certainty about what Genesis is conveying is questionable. And since Rashi was one of the closest readers of the Holy Scriptures ever, that should give one more pause. For example, the Hebrew word "breishit" ("In the beginning") is in construct state; in normal grammar there needs to another noun following it, so this requires explanation that people rarely address. Rashi points out that the word "barishonah" should have been used to express strict chronological order. Then, the beginning of verse 2 uses the simple-perfect form of the verb "to be" (hay'tah) as opposed to the imperfect with vav-consecutive (vatehi) which would normally be used for a sequential narrative. This suggests the sense, "Now, the earth had been disordered..." that is, giving us the prior condition of the world when verse 1 was taking place. In addition, Rashi observes that there's a major problem with verse 2: the Text never says that God created darkness, the deep, or water. If you try to answer that by saying that those things were created in verse 1, then you need to explain why all the subsequent days contain creations which should already have existed. I'll conclude for now by pointing out that you cannot assume that the Hebrew Bible is operating with the same set of philosophic concepts which the Greeks introduced. The Text may not be particularly concerned with the issue of ex nihilo or the quality of God's being. It certainly isn't afraid to use bodily, anthropomorphic terms about God which, if taken literally, negate your premise (1). It may also be relevant here to point out that the Septuagint Greek translation-what Christians employed as their Bible-uses the ordinary verb for making to translate Hebrew "bara"-Greek ποιεω.
The idea of nothingness as such was not a concept that the ancient Hebrews probably even held to. Formlessness, darkness, and the deep are all images conveying something similar to what we mean by nothingness. But rather than juxtaposing the reification of existence versus non existence, they held chaos and order as the ultimate polar ends of reality. Theologically this is important when we think of death. Those who believe in death as the end of existence or the final judgment as annihilationism are not following the biblical cosmology. The grave and death were bad because they are the disorder of life. The new heaven and new earth are the correcting of right order. We don’t just go to heaven as disembodied souls for eternity. The belief in the resurrection of the body is also a consequence of this perspective as well.
@@campomambo I think what you're saying has a lot to commend it. Indeed, it's hard to say that anyone, at any time, has a real conception of "nothingness." Some of the pre-Socratics famously said that about nothing nothing could be said. At the same time, abstract concepts like "order" and "chaos" are not well represented in biblical Hebrew either. Having said all this, I will take note of Isaiah 45:7 where God is described as the "creator of darkness."
Havent watched the video yet, just to say I was brought to the christian catholic religion by reason logic and study of history. Long story short, all path leaded to Him.
It's nice to see that hard agnosticism gets some accurate air time. People just don't use the terms in this productive manner. I wonder whether Flew would become a Deist today like during his time, since the scientific landscape has changed significantly since as well. That is, the big bang theory being treated as evidence for a beginning universe is obsolete since roughly 30 years now. Flew's reasons: Nature must obey laws (that is, patterns), otherwise it wouldn't be stable, and no prediction could be made. The puddle analogy is a *conviction* creating reductio ad absurdum against the conclusion that those laws are made up by some intelligent mind. His second reason points towards multiple different explanations. An unknown explanans (God) cannot be used as the explanandum for life. Evolution explains this sufficiently already, without invoking agency. The third reason implies a circular "creator creation". 9:11 This objection has the same epistemic issue as Flew's second reason. An unknown entity cannot be used as an explanation for an observation. The multiverse is unscientific. But that at least makes it a _religious_ argument against a religious argument. 10:17 This of course cuts both ways, and on top of it, it's a disingenuous remark, that should have no place in a serious debate (it's an attempt to poison the well). Overall this was an entertaining and well put together video, which I appreciate. I just disagree.
Flew's case is very interesting. 1. It seems he became atheist early for the wrong reason. Are there wrong reasons becoming a believer? 2. You say scientific advances helped his conversion. Yet, it seems scientific literacy pushes people away from religion. 3. As Flew describes his conversion, he cites a handful of known, cookie-cutter apologetic arguments. Those did not require advances in science. How come?
@@grasonicus If Lennox, the Cambridge Mathemetics professor says 1+1+1= 1 you should change your thinking and accept it. Now the problem is you are putting your own nonsense into his mouth.
@@Fastbenefits-y4p Is doesn't matter who says 1+1+1=1, it's still nonsense. Lennox is a Trinitarian, and the foundation of the Trinity dogma is 1+1+1=1. Every Trinitarian believes it. 1god + 1god + 1god = 1 god.
@@grasonicus I said what you used - "+" - is nonsense. You just copied that nonsense widely used by Islamists. No trinitarian use the Mathematical operation of addition to prove trinity and Lennox never used it and his trinity is ONE God in three persons. If trinitarians really use a more powerful mathematical operation of addition - 1X1X1=1 - what would you say?
@@Fastbenefits-y4p Of course no Trinitarian would come out and say 1+1+1=1, but they say they/you have a Father who is fully god, a Jesus who is fully god, and a HS who is fully god, but yet they/you have only one god. I.e 1god + 1god +1god = 1god. If that doesn't mandate that 1+1+1=1, what does? As for the 1x1x1=1, you've fallen into the trap. Most Trinitarians won't even use that one, only the truly stupid do, because, for them, addition and multiplication are interchangeable. Even a slow six-year-old knows they're not. You're happy for 4+5+6 to be 15 or 120, you don't care which one, or maybe both. And you cannot multiply 1god times 1 god just as you cannot multiply 1 goat times one goat. In multiplication, at most one member may not evaluate to a number, the rest must evaluate to real numbers. You can multiply 1 goat times 3, then you get three goats. The same goes for gods, ships, humans, stones, etc. Where does the Bible say God is a person? We have no idea what God is. The closest the Bible comes to saying what God is, is Jesus saying _God is spirit._ By that I take it God is not composed of matter. The Trinitarian dogma is falsified by four groups of arguments: 1) Its utter stupidity. 1+1+1=1, ridiculous claims, e.g. Jesus is fully god and fully man--two incompatible conditions. If God can be a man, he's not truly a man because no man is a god, and no man can take on godhood. So, God becoming a true man will be stuck as a man. Its stupid supporting language, e.g. eternally begotten, essence, etc. 2) It's nowhere in the Bible explicitly spelled out. Can you believe it? The nature of God left up for grabs? 3) The clear, simple statements about the nature of God are ignored. E.g. Jesus saying the Father is the only true god, Paul saying, for us, there is one God, the Father. 4) Its history. It slowly evolved starting in the second century. Do you know about the Trimurti? The Trinity has company: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_deity
Imagine if you were omnipotent God, were immortal and could create/edit/destroy anything, even have the power to set the future events in stone; there were truly no limits, no one you were answerable to and you had infinite time to kill. How would you spend your time? I mean you would want the pace of events in the universe to be as slow as possible, right? Because after all, you have infinite time to kill. You will still exhaust all the possible combinations of everything at some point but there is not much you can do about it. You are stuck with infinite time. At some point, you will become a monster and your own worst enemy. As God, you can live the life of every person that has ever lived throughout history many times over, have every single experience they ever had many times over and still have infinite time to kill. So you deprive yourself for some time. You deliberately decide to live a boring and painful life on this planet.
I'd be grateful if BB's critical reading skills were less angled towards how theistic readers might use the arguments "in a debate". Surely there are enough theist v atheist "debates" on YT to show what a worthless undertaking it is, scoring cheap, crowd-pleasing points off an "opponent" rather than genuinely trying to find the truth together? This book is a good example. At 9:00 , Collin's critique of Flew's abiogenesis argument is germane, but to resort to quoting Lennox in an attempt at a rebuttal is unfair to both Flew and Collins. I suspect neither would thank you for associating them with such motivated argument
Just imagine a scenario where you are dreaming that you are having a debate with an atheist and you are arguing that (dream) universe is created by God and the atheist argues against your stance. And then somebody comes along and says "You are God". Who's right here?? Waking state is no different from Dream state in terms of raw experience. So search for your Real Self and you'll discover GOD. To see God is to be God.
If this man beleived in deism alone then you have no right to claim him for your relegion or that he beleived in any single relegion, it has no bearing on Christianity anymore than anyother diety claim.
I believe it is possible to explain the Trinity of a being rationally, without considering revelation. In fact, Saint Thomas Aquinas is one of those who explains this in a rational way, aligning with the findings of neuroscience and existing metaphysical models in philosophy. If we reduce the foundation of nature to a single entity, being, as described in ontology, we see that being, when it is infinite and knows itself, reduces to an object when the act of self-knowledge occurs. This object, known by the infinite being, is what is attributed as the Son. The relationship created between the knower and the known, through the act of will, is conceptualized as the Holy Spirit. This can be observed as a basic principle even before the universe, simply by analyzing being (ontology) This concept aligns with some metaphysical models in philosophy. Being itself can be described as one, but it has a triune manifestation. I am not claiming that the concept of the Holy Spirit arises purely from rational rhetoric; it is derived from the Bible. However, it is still possible to arrive at the conclusion of a fundamental triune being in reality without revelation. This idea is both plausible and philosophically parsimonious. Great content btw
Greetings Lady Elizabeth, Key Thoughts :- -> Insights reflect with, "The Omnipresent Nature of God with Incipient aspects of Human Creation corroborate with Decorum in World of Science in Spiritual Forum by all means." -> Truthfully Simple Honest Words. Thanks. Good. With regards, Ranjith Joseph (R.J)
Here's the thing though. If you are God, the entire universe is like a loop of events with you at the center. As God, you are immortal and that is not a blessing but a curse. If you are not omnipotent enough to eradicate evil, you are in for a rough ride as the forces of evil Devil/Satan will torment you relentlessly even if for a relatively limited period of time. And consider that an immortal God can do all the things he can ever think of several zillion times over and still have more time. That is maddening. Eventually, such a God would become sadistic and cause pain to himself just to avoid getting bored. Even if you have just 10 atoms, the number of possible combinations is huge. Now imagine that as God, you have infinite atoms and infinite combinations to play with and yet, there is always more time. As God, you have created every possible combination of the best and beautiful men or women possible and had s*x with them several zillion times over so it gets boring after a while. So you also create imperfect men and women of all shapes and sizes. But even that gets boring after a while. You still have infinite time to kill. Is it maddening enough yet? You still have infinite time to kill. Remember that as God, you can suffer but you cannot die. Pain and pleasure are relative. Without pain, pleasure loses its meaning. As God, you need extreme self-restraint to avoid going off the deep end yet that might not always be possible. But you remain unaffected by it all and can always purify and/or reset yourself. As God, you retain your original properties.
This is BS. The dude was never atheist. I am an 80 year old atheist, for 61 years. Wake up folks, if you want a god to believe in, believe in the intelligence of matter which can convert to other forms, but can never be destroyed. Sounds like god to me.
What happened to Flew was really just sad. As an atheist myself, I'm all ears if you have evidence to support the existence of a God. So when Flew converted to deism my curiosity was somewhat piqued. Surely he of all people would have a compelling reason? Imagine my disappointment when it turns out to be the same creationist pseudoscience claptrap we hear all the time.
Didn’t he become senile and delusional near the end of his life? And he didn’t “convert” to Christianity but was “open” to a divine creator. Deism is far from becoming a follower in Christ
God might exist but the existence of suffering, pain and evil poses a huge problem. It should not be taken lightly. To make things worse, there is no accountability and provision for fair reward at the right time. Either God is powerless to do anything about suffering, pain and evil or he does not want to do anything about it.
That's old news and Flew did not 'convert' at all because it was not a religion to which he converted. What was more remarkable was Ayaan Hirsi Ali's conversion to Christianity.
We were all born atheist before we had even heard of God. That is the kind of atheist that I am. I don’t care whether a god exists but I am not inclined to believe that a god exists. I just wish religious people would leave non-believers like me alone.
The question is not “ is there a God ?” The question is “ do you hope there’s a God?” … and then you must ask yourself why you do or do not have such a hope…. If you hope there is a God, I believe there are enough “proofs” or “logic” to support that belief… if you do not hope there’s a God , Then no amount of “ evidence” or logic will change your mind… but I think you should still ask yourself. Why you do not hope there is a God…
The author was not a well-known athiest. I Don't know what's fascinating about some guy who used to be religious, then wasn't, then was again. And no evidence for god presented...
It is a great shame that the christian preachers or apologists couldn't convert such an open welcoming man. I watched Dr Craig's debate with him or perhaps just a part of it, he kept pressing on the absurd traditional position of compulsion or forced conversion without which the person goes to hell no matter how good he was. ie. the deception of original sin. Flew showed his objection against Christianity was only this absurdity, but Craig behaved like a fundamentalist traditional apologist. I recommend you too to attack this fallacy of Gnostic original sin of Manichaen Augustin by breaking the wall of gnostic deception to open doors for the atheists, bec it go against the bible. God welcomes righteous men (Rom 2.6-16; Acts10.34-35), faith alone is useless; Jesus came for the sinners, the righteous needs no doctor or saviour. The Roman pagans denied natural immunity from sin through gnostic original sin transmitted through concupiscene to put all population under their rule by conversion, the same way Big pharma now denies natural immunity to sell their poisonous products/injection to impose their authority. This remains the biggest stumbling block to atheists. I would have never converted with such strawman christianity. Thankfully I read the bible myself to expose these fallacies of calvinism and luther/Augustine. The argument is genuine that mother teresa goes to hell but a wicked sinner terrorist in heaven solely for a mental belief difference. Works alone matters to God, not faith. Faith is to receive security n peace, relationship with God; salvation in advance before judgment day.
He was not. This is typical empty christian-speak. They make such claims, because they think it lends credence to their christian fantasy world, because they themselves are easily impressed and swayed by fallacious reasoning.
You've never heard of Antony Flew? Dawkins ,to his everlasting shame actually claimed his conversion was similar to a deathbed conversion in his book The God Delusion. Flew was well known let me reassure you. I'd say he took over from Russell.
The title of the video makes the claim "most notorious atheist," I am merely giving evidence that runs counter to that. Is it conclusive evidence? No, but I do know some atheists who I would say, by that fact alone, are more likely to be "the most notorious" than someone I have never heard about. Does it make a difference to the debate of the existence of god? No, whilst being a philosopher, he might have given it a lot more thought than most, thought alone is not a good method for determining if something exists or not. For the following reasons: 1. Thought is not restricted to real objects, events, times, places, etc. 2. We don't need philosophers to tell us about the existence of objects we encounter in our daily lives. The reasons why he was an atheist and the reasons why he changed and what he changed to don't make any difference to what I personally do not believe. Though I will say, when atheists argue against theists, they do have to have a concept of the God who they are arguing against existing and their adversaries are arguing for. They do have to create counter-arguments for themselves to develop counter arguments to and it could just be that eventually his ability to counter his theistic arguments declined quicker than his ability to develop theistic arguments. So on that basis it doesn't surprise me. After all, "God does exist" and "God doesn't exist" is virtually the same thought, although opposite in meaning. It's the same reason why the "wicked bible" included the commandment "thou shalt commit adultery." I would also point out that going "mad" seems to be an occupational hazard of philosophy.
And when you talked to Flew, his reasons for believing were just as horribly bad as those of any 3d rate apologist. It is beyond laughable. In his later years, he came across as quite unhinged, and him becoming a christian then, was not surprising at all.
@@BiblicalBookwormthank you! I was editing my previous post, but have decided to respond here, since you responded to me so quickly! You might enjoy Gary B. Ferngren’s “Medicine & Religion” , which I am reading for Historathon. He also writes two other books about Science and Religion. When recently researching the Catholic view on human dissection, I also stumbled across and picked up “Galileo Goes To Jail: And Other Myths About Science And Religion”, edited by Ronald L. Numbers. I likely will read this after finishing Ferngren’s book. Thought I’d share; nice to find another booktuber with a similar interest in this topic. God Bless…
In his declining years Flew came to believe in a deistic version god but rejected the idea of a personal god. He did not believe in personal gods such as Christianity and Islam nor did he believe in an afterlife. However his reasons for changing his mind are fundamentally flawed because they are rationally invalid. His reasons are predicated on the logical fallacies of argument from ignorance and argument from incredulity. Since there was not a complete explanation for the origin of the universe and of life he felt the only explanation must be some manner of god (argument from ignorance). Furthermore, he could not believe it was possible that they could accounted for by natural explanations (argument from incredulity). His change of mind was the result of aging mental decline and lack of awareness of the significant scientific advances in understanding the origin of the universe and origin of life. But at least his mental deterioration never got so severe that he came to believe in anything as patently absurd as the ancient mythology of a personal god. Of course Christians wallowing in their ignorance will still gloat about it.
Whatever significant advances we've made in understanding the origin of the universe and the origin of life, it still doesn't rule out the idea that nature consciously created these things for a specific purpose. Why would nature go through the trouble of creating natural selection as a process if it had no intention of seeing life go a specific direction? Nature did create natural selection. The question is, did nature create it intentionally through conscious effort? I do not believe we will ever be able to scientifically claim it did. Most science axiomatically assumes nature makes no conscious effort to do anything, because it makes experiments much easier to do when assuming nature operates solely on rote mechanistic principles. What's nice is that it DOES operate on quite a few rote mechanistic principles. But is that all there is to it? It's as difficult to refute as it is easy to speculate. That's why it's in the realm of philosophy and not science.
@@theboombody There is nothing CONCEPTUALLY to rule out nature consciously created the universe and life for a specific purpose. However there is ZERO objective evidence nature actually is conscious or the universe and life actually were ‘created’ for any purpose. Everything we have learned about the universe and life has depended on and derived from the methodology of applying reason to evaluation of objective evidence. Since there is ZERO objective evidence the universe is conscious or exists for a specific purpose there is ZERO rationally credible reason to believe in either. Nature simply does whatever nature does. The concept of nature ‘going through the trouble’ is a simplistic and naive human concept inappropriately projected as applying beyond the human conceptual domain. It is a category error. Since there are some ten billion trillion stars or so in the observable universe (which is likely only a tiny fraction of what there is beyond) a conscious nature would have to be almost infinitely absurd to produce such a ridiculous abundance just for life to exist. Nature didn’t ‘create natural selection’. Natural selection is a label for the process of the evolution of organic entities arising from how dynamics of interactions produce adaptations promoting survival in prevailing environmental conditions. Natural selection is reactive, not proactive. There is ZERO evidence natural selection is anything other than a result of undirected blind natural processes without any teleological implications. Smolin once quipped the only purpose of the universe seems to be to create black holes. Your understanding of science is fundamentally wrong. Science does not axiomatically assume anything about nature. Science relies on an evidence-based methodology to investigate nature since that is the only way that has ever been demonstrated to consistently produce valid results. Evaluation by objective evidence is principal science operation. Since there is ZERO objective evidence of purpose or design in nature there is nothing for science to investigate. The only basis for ascribing purpose and design to nature comes from human imagination. Humans by and large are still psychologically mired in the vacuous intellectual swamp of ancient anthropocentric mythology. Here human-friendly and human-compatible explanations are projected onto the reality outside of human imagination. This is psychologically comforting but intellectually specious as anyone with an elementary understanding of GR and QM realizes how our innate conceptual framework we rely on bears no relation to the deep structures of nature. The concept of a conscious universe with purpose is a less ludicrous variation on how ancient humans invented anthropomorphic gods in their own image. Deism is a somewhat more sophisticated layer of abstraction where the patent nonsense of a personal god is replaced with an impersonal consciousness. But the main seductive attraction that humans are special in some way still remains. Since there is ZERO objective evidence nature is conscious or has purpose then those ideas lack rational credibility. Hence they are trivially easy to reject. That does not mean those ideas are not possible but rather means there is no rational reason to believe they are true. It is clear however there are powerful psychologically comforting reasons to want to believe they are true and so people cling to them in any number of their various philosophical and religious formulations. Philosophical arguments about the nature of reality in and of themselves are worthless. This is so because the sole criterion for a philosophical argument is that a conclusion follows from the premises adhering to the rules of inference. The validity of the premises is irrelevant and plays no part is determining the validity of the conclusion. Philosophical arguments can therefore be constructed to prove anything as it is just a matter of choosing the appropriate premises. Such conclusions are only valid within the philosophical conceptual domain. Unless premises can be objectively verified such conclusions cannot justify any belief about nature. There is a striking example of this from two and half thousand years ago. Paremenides constructed a valid philosophical argument to prove change was illusory. Democritus subsequently rejected this on the grounds change is an empirically verifiable fact of experience. Those two positions neatly encapsulate how a philosophical conclusion about the world in itself is worthless and that the only reliable conclusion about the world has to be based on objective evidence. So in summary the only verifiable and reliable method for investigating nature has been shown to be through evaluation of objective evidence. Any objective evidence demonstrating nature is conscious and has a purpose would justify such a belief. But until and unless such objective evidence is forthcoming then the idea that nature is conscious and has a purpose is nothing but psychologically comforting but rationally unfounded speculation.
@@theboombody Unfounded speculation would not be accepted in any scientific publications since it lacks the fundamental requirements to be considered as scientific. However it would likely be warmly welcomed in theological publications where confidence of belief prevails over confirmation by evidence. But you are sensible not to worry about it as the point of entertaining unfounded speculation derives from its attendant psychological gratification so worrying about the lack of rational credibility would rather defeat the whole point.
@@talleyhoe846 Rationality without spice is for machines. Not for any inhabitant of the animal kingdom. My wife and I spent most of yesterday evening irrationally making fun of the contestants on Love Island that were half of our age. It would have been much more rational for me to have spent the evening at a second job at an IT firm in an attempt to solve the world's problems and prolong the existence of our species.
This is really sad ! He actually had dementia at that point in his life So really the disintegration of his higher functions led him to believe in an intelligent designer It is incredibly sad , but perfectly understandable.
First off, he wasn’t at all “notorious.” He had lots of Christian friends and had a lot of good things to say about faith. Secondly, he didn’t change his mind; he developed dementia near the end of his life and was taken advantage of by unscrupulous Christian “friends.”
There is a compelete lack of transparency and accountability on part of any higher power. Nothing is in writing so a higher power can deny it all at any time. You cannot enforce anything on the higher power. For example, if a higher power(not necessarily God) makes me suffer for 240 million seconds of my life, I expect atleast 5 million dollars as compensation at the right time compared to a guy who has not gone through that suffering. But what the higher power does is it gives 70 million dollars to the guy who has not gone through that suffering. An absolute mockery of justice. That's why people become athiests.
One of the best arguments against "God" is the observation that many of God's loudest cheerleaders are some of the most irrational , hateful hypocrites in the country, who can embrace an amoral, lying, sleazy character like Trump,
Funny how the fact that there is no evidence of the existence of muti-universes is a problem for AF, but doesn't require that for god....Most of these arguments are poorly presented and one questions what or how the claim of a conversion actually happened.
Just another gap jumper. His logic can get him to a creator but not the Christian God. An all-powerful God wouldn't be constrained by fine-tuning limitations.
TBH I was unimpressed with the way he argued that life does not arise from non-life. The book was interesting primarily to understand how and why he changed his mind.
During my 30 years as a Christian i spent time in ministry and studied apologetics. I asked for the ultimate proof and was told it was a matter of faith, as atheism was faith God doesn't exist. A dictionary definition of atheism is a lack of faith. There's a difference. Ephesians 2:8-9 says salvation is by faith. Faith is believing what you cannot know. You cannot find salvation through knowledge and if there were proof of God then what of salvation? Dan Barker is a former pastor who is an atheist. The clergy project is full of pastors who no longer believe. After loding I spent five years trying to understand Christianity. I don't miss it. You want to be a Christian? Fine. Why do you need so badly to assure yourself if not for your own doubts? I can't prove there is no god. I can prove your holy book is a mess. You can't prove there is a god. I refuse to waste any more time on bold claims without any proof. Besides I agree with Dan Barker that God is the most unpleasant person in all of fiction.
9:16 If you don't see the clear mistake in this reasoning, I'm worried about you. In the same breath you go from demonstrating its "possible" for an intelligence to create life, to it being "necessary". If humans manage to create lightning in a lab does it mean an intelligence is necessary to create lightning? I mean come on lol
Flew only converted on his deathbed, when he was not all there. He didn't do it because of evidence. And so what if he did? It doesn't show that the whole idea is valid in any way. How did you demonstrate your god exists?
The problem with Christianity, word of God, Bible is that over 90% people who lived on this planet never heard about this. Lets imagine- I am a boss of a company and have milions workers. Yet I tell only 100 of them what they should do, for what they will be rewarded or punished.😂
Agree that his atheism was wrongly based. Im at 2:32 already 3 red flags - 1. self proclaimed pure reason - it is rarely the case advanced age - would suggest rationalisation of internal fear od dying rather than rational thought If god is a higher being than by definition it eludes human mind so you cant know and you cant learn his nature. you cannot give him any attributes like omnipotent or good or love. Only thing you can do is either assume or if that being makes contact and starts to communicate on your level like we do with dogs the only thing you can do is trust. Because since supposably this is the only source of truth you cant know if it is true you can only trust the source. EG. lets imagine a creator that claims he is god(being god means being above and in control of at least one aspect of nature) but this creator build a super advanced simulation and tells you it is true even though behind him there is a whole world. you being trapped in simulation have no way of knowing if he is truthful or is it just his tickery. The begining of the universe meaning of what we can observe now we dont know if it is a cyclic universe and what we percieve as begining is really an reitration or something completely different Laws can arise from nolaws. because if there are no laws even laws are allowed. On the other hand omnipotent means that it breaks the laws eg god doesnt have a plan, a purpose or anything because to every action he can choose both cause, effect and means There is no need for laws a giant turtle. Nature doesnt obey laws it is a classic mistake stems from flaw in reasoning from long ago that we divide nature into dumb balls that are moved by forces we still think og matter like smaller grains of sand. but nature is the manifestation of laws so a pattern of behavior. Fine tuning argument is against god because it implies that there are laws that god needs to fine tune the universe to. if there was omnipotent god only his will no math even be needed for such a world cause there is no need for anything to make sense, a being that has no laws above it has no scale nothing to bounce its behavior out of anything goes if god lived outside of human mind it would be chaos it is only the human perception that takes natural order and places it in gods hands from the simplest desire to control it is environment in short god is a mental creation that allows us to think we can influence something we cant which gives our animalistic ego peace of mind. Science is about looking at truth simply as truth do not seek satisfying answer or answer that benefits me that is why it is hated even by scientist themselves perceived as cold because it doesnt fullfill the comfort our highest need. our brains are adaptation machines seeking dangers and safety. the truth is somewhere between but it is not the case. Science says plenty about good and evil and beauty and sensation it is just not as satisfying. The claim that god was incarnate in man body is far from unique, same goes for ressurection as it symbolised the cycles of earth. As for god in western understanding the problem is this gravity is fine without a human but god without a human looses all meaning. For me it is important to remember that science and religion had once the same root which our strive to understand world around us although science evolved to try to remove antropocentism, and religion clings onto it. the religion serves as a basic comfort layer its not about the truth but sanity. dealing with emotions by creating concepts that neutralise our fears and fullfill desires. So we all believe that we are a manifestation of something the question is whether this something requires a person because that is what god essencialy is not only intelligence but having a personality, memory and all those other. In my reasoning no. will similarly to intelligence can exist without all other components like awareness etc that constitute a person. will doesnt even need preference because if all there is is will to exist and no awereness you dont know if it is possible to not exist. the rest is just chaos and relativity that forms local order we know as the universe.
If your Christianity came from the God of Abraham, can you provide me one thing you believe and practice as in Christianity that is valid before the God and it stands before the God, that which could lead you to salvation, just one thing please????? Hint: Five pillars of Islam that Muslims practice day-in and day-out are valid before the God and they stand before the God.
Christianity has started and runs many many charities, hospitals schools, fun social clubs, sport centers and created great works of art. Plus Christianity good morals helps to make this world better now also Christianity gives the hope and truth of a excellent world to come for Jesus Christ followers when the universal King Jesus Christ returns !!. { The book The Case For Christ by Lee Strobel gives lot's and lots of scholarly evidence the Biblical Jesus Christ is real }.
Here's the Anthony Flew story of the old man who found comfort in a community of believers. People change their beliefs all the time but reality remains godless. Ayaan Hirsi Ali did the same thing. Check out her story.
@@theboombody That’s it, Idol Eyes!!! ‘All Day’. A hit on the Canadian charts for sure, circa 85. Yes, the P.Fs had some good tunes. ‘Pretty in pink’✌️
P.S.: the book was mainly written by the co-author Roy Abraham Varghese as Antony Flew needed assistence with the writing due to his age. After the publication of the book, Antony Flew confirmed that the thoughts expressed in the book were 100% his.
With further sources: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew
----
Clarification regarding 9:16: depending on the way the experiment would be conducted, creating life in a lab wouldn't necessarily show that intelligence is necessary to create life.
and for every a-theist that converted to theism, I can can show you 10,000 that have left theism. demonstrating, that the only thing keeping theism going is the repugnant practice of indoctrinating children
By the time the book was published, Flew had been adjudged legally incompetent to manage his own affairs. And those who knew him for his lifetime have said repeatedly that Varghese and the zealots around him took advantage of Flew and conned him into saying whatever they wanted.
I wish you would stop defending these people. If you research them, even a little, you will realize that they are hateful creatures who deliberate took advantage of a doddering man without the mental capacity to deal with them.
@@petercollins7730I came to say what you have already so eloquently posted.
Sadly intellectual dishonesty is all these apologists have.
As an aside one post is only visible if comments are sorted by newest.
@@downenout8705?yeah, tell me about it.
my comment's only in 'newest' - because youtube is awesome
I was a atheist the first 30 years of my life.
Then I experienced God and I just got can't go back to my old way of thinking.
I've been blessed with the best year of my life
I have a book recommendation: 7 types of atheism by John Gray. It's got a pretty interesting thesis. Although he is an Atheist, he's one of the better Atheist thinkers.
Interesting, thank you! I always try to listen to the best thinkers of both sides on any issue 👌
"Although he is an atheist, he's one of the better atheist thinkers"
Poisoning the well much there Attila?
@@IanM-id8or I think many Christains would also say there are better Christian things. So, I do not see this as a swipe but as an author worth reading.
@@IanM-id8or Hmm...as a lot of atheists are zealots I'd see it more as a sweetening of the well!
As an omnipotent God, you have to create everything from scratch and define their parameters. For example, what is time? What is pleasure? What is pain? What is good? What is evil? What is language? What is bright? What is dark? What is clean? What is dirty? What is moral? What is immoral? So naturally, as omnipotent God, you are above all these things. Because if you did not define those parameters, those definitions and boundaries would not mean anything. For example, you could have easily defined immoral as moral and moral as immoral and the world would not know any better.
This brings to mind one of my favorite books, Brothers Karamazov, By Dostoevsky, which wrestles with the God question.
I read recently that many organic compounds have been found on objects in space, so it is apparent that they are self-organizing on their own-they do not need billions of years of chance to randomly form. Scientists are also finding that there are compounds that are actually able to reproduce and even show some selective pressure when they organize, even before they could be called living things.
The way that we determine reality and existence is to see what happens when you act as though it did not exist.
Real things will continue to affect you no matter how hard you try to deny them.
Holding onto things in spite of this is wishful thinking, but wanting something to be true doesn’t make it true.
You're fully allowed to hold onto them anyway, and the act of holding on may have a real affect on you, but that is different from the thing itself being real.
But the mere fact that you can be an atheist with no issue whatsoever should be enough to convince you that theism is misguided, even if being misguided "helps" you, like a psychological crutch.
Your comment does not exist according to your theory 😮
@@OCD-GUY erm... explain?
The fact that you replied to it shows that it's enduring even though you're trying to deny its existence, proving its reality according to its content.
I mean, your reply literally couldn't be more wrong.
My comment is exactly how people determine the reality of absolutely everything, *except* for the religious about their religion.
@@Nyghl0 I'm confused now lol
@@OCD-GUY same! :D
@@Nyghl0 Your intelligent comment produced something intelligent (in the sense that it produced thoughts and actions within billions of cells of different organisms - the above, and me).
However, in order to produce something it needed to first happen in your mind and you needed to act on those thoughts. Then you needed to have a way to deliver your thoughts.
Now, we have a Universe and that contains intelligence (us, humans, if not else). We see an effect. We see a mechanism (the propagation of life and cellular division). We have sources of energy and everything needed to replenish the process. So, what is missing in my model? The source? And if the "reaction" or "effect" is intelligent thought, what was at the start of the action?
Once again thank you Elisabeth! As I'm sure you know one of the original proponents of the "Big Bang" theory was the Belgian Catholic priest Monsignor Georges Lemaitre. I think he is a great example of the compatibility of Christian faith and scientific reason.
As you were talking about Anthony Flew's journey to Deism I kept thinking of C.S. Lewis' book "Surprised by Joy" where he recounts his journey from atheism to a belief in God. Lewis recounts that the final 'leap' to Christianity was ultimately revelation outside of himself. Helped by discussions with the Catholic J.R.R. Tolkien.
I'm not sure if you have reviewed this book but I think that you would enjoy it!
Peace and Blessing be with you always! 🙂🙏
Thank you for the recommendation! I actually haven't read the book yet 😊
Lemaitre meant the term 'Big Bang Theory' as an insult, of course.
@@petercollins7730 Fred Hoyle came up with that term.
@@kwebb121765 Lemaitre first proposed the theory in 1931. Hoyle popularized the expression in an interview around 1950.
The more scientific minded you are, the less beliefs you have
While it is always interesting to see what changes an atheist's mind to become a believer, it is likewise as interesting to see what changes a believer into a non-believer. If we are talking about reason, it seems one can reason their way into and out of belief. Someone who sees nature "obeying" laws will reason differently than someone understanding laws are a human definition of natural repetition based upon the physical properties, meaning a square peg not fitting through a hole too small is not cleverly following or obeying any law, it is simply too big to fit. There is certainly oddities to life that can make a person believe there is more than meets the eye in living, but there is also plenty of evidence demonstrating people often jumping to wrong conclusions from their observations.
Science does generally come across atheistic because it is a field that attempts to keep emotions out of the equation in order to not distort the findings. Religions and philosophy however, thrive on human emotion and will use science when able to support those emotions. Humans are both intellectual and emotional where the emotional part is far more important than the intellectual part of being human when it comes to successful living. This is why there is great value in religions and philosophies even if Gods don't exist. My perspective is always from the perspective of skepticism. I am somewhat skeptical about God's existence and skeptical about who God is should one exist. When it comes to figuring things out, we have more luck knowing what the answer isn't than what the answer is. It is easier to see the mistakes of religions and philosophies than understand what the truth or answer actually is. If a placebo works, it works because the mind says it works. That certainly indicates the mind is a powerful thing but it also demonstrates we can believe something is working for the wrong reasons. Here is an example from my imagination, say there is an afterlife but no God, where those in the afterlife attempt to help us here on earth the best that they can. One could give credit to a God even though its actually those who passed on attempting to help. All we have supposed evidence for is that we have been miraculously helped. What if our intelligence radiates out like the internet where it is not God or people in the afterlife helping but rather those living providing the help through this invisible network? I think what I am getting at is we could be right that we have been helped but wrong about where the help came from.
If I were a Christian, I would be interested in how new Christians found their way into the religion but I would also be interested in how people leave their Christian faith, especially in the clergy or biblical scholars who study these things.
Genuinely thank you so much for this.
I literally had an honest conversation with my mom today about my struggles in the Christian faith. This was exactly what I needed.
I'm glad this video is useful for you! 🤗😊
Subbed. Concise, precise and soothing to listen to your voice.
Wow. You've made a great channel, here, and I enjoy watching your videos!
Antony Flew's father was a Methodist minister, as was my father: they were great friends. I am still an Atheist!
Thank you for sharing!
then wake up...
how sad for you, and your father.
@@liljade53 what a disgusting thing to say.
@@ArenHill sad that he doesn't know who his creator is, and sad for dad who tried his best to show him his creator. It would be disgusting to let it go. Trying to wake the guy up to the greatest thing that can happen to a human being in this life , knowing the One who made him. I am on his dad's side. I have four kids who are still struggling on the issue, and it breaks my heart.
You are a delight to watch. Smart and with an accent that never gets old. I'm still an atheist myself, but have been collecting bibles lately for some reason. Perhaps I'm still searching for reasons to believe. BTW, the multiverse theory doesn't say that there's only 1 universe that's fine tuned to evolve life, just that there are infinitely many universes, many of which (infinitely many actually!) with different "finely tuned" physical laws and constants, each of which can give rise to life that is therefore finely tuned to those specific laws and constants. "Fine tuning" doesn't imply there was any intelligence behind the "tuning" at all. Finally, we happen to be finely tuned to our own universe simply because we evolved here!
I'm glad that you like my channel! 😊
I'd say if the multiverse theory is correct then fine tuning doesn't imply intelligence. If our universe is the only one it still doesn't necessarily imply intelligence but it strongly supports that conclusion.
I don't follow. What supports what conclusion? Some universes in the Multiverse would give rise to intelligence and some wouldn't. But since we only have one example - our universe, which did evolve intelligence in us (and probably elephants, dolphins and whales, among other suspects) - we can't say anything about what tuning parameters will give rise to intelligence and which ones won't. We suffer from an embarrassing dearth of information. Assuming a Multiverse, my bet is that an infinite number of them give rise to intelligence, all with different starting "tuning" parameters.
@@-johnny-deep- Sorry, for the misunderstanding. I was referring to this sentence in your comment: '"Fine tuning" doesn't imply there was any intelligence behind the "tuning" at all.'
I didn't mean whether universes give rise to intelligence but whether they imply an intelligent creator
Ok. Then I disagree with your statement that "If our universe is the only one it still doesn't necessarily imply intelligence *but it strongly supports that conclusion.* ". I see no reason why the fact that we are intelligent implies that an intelligence created the universe. Hence, I'm still an atheist. 😊
@@-johnny-deep- We humans, being somewhat intelligent beings, have created artificial intelligence. Would artificial intelligence be able to arise on its own, without the first computer code written by a human? Hence the conclusion that the existence of a higher intelligence that creates a lower intelligence seems more likely, because we can observe it ourselves on a micro scale.
I watched 2 of your videoa for the first time. I need to say that you content is very good for now
I hope that impression will last! If not, I welcome constructive feedback.
Welcome to the channel! 😊
I’ve been an atheist for many, many decades and was involved in atheist groups for a lot of that time. I never heard of Antony Flew until his supposed change of heart disclosed in a book under suspicious circumstances and he was certainly not an atheist of any note at the time. None of my associates knew of him either. Even disregarding the fact that he was most likely manipulated when he was developing dementia it matters not one fig that such and such an atheist became religious. It is not a rational thing to be religious. There are more atheists on the planet now (Even in places where they are killed by religious zealotry if it is made public) than have ever existed. That number is growing mainly in western nations and even in the good ol’ US of A.
I went the other way mate. From fundamentalist Christian to happier atheist
I wouldn't want to be a fundamentalist Christian either, mate 🙃
Atheists are only happy when they are here partying using Gods gifts, that ends shortly after checking out.
@@BiblicalBookworm Go reality😁
Fundamental has became a slam word. Fundamentals is a good thing.
"a central or primary rule or principle on which something is based.
"two courses cover the fundamentals of microbiology"
"
_From fundamentalist Christian to happier atheist_ We all know that only nothing comes from nothing. There's not one exception. Virtual particles are not real particles. And postulating that the whole, long-lasting Universe came from a virtual particle which only fleetingly exists is stupid. Please explain to me where the Universe and everything in it came from.
Great video as always Elisabeth! I always enjoy watching your videos because your analysis is fanatastic, and you have a wonderful voice that I enjoy listening to as well! Its very soothing, God bless you!
Thank you! God bless you too!
The best apologetics book for Christianity is "Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. The best apologetics book for the existence of God is "Is atheism dead" by Eric Metaxas.
The statement "I don't know if God exists, but it can be known that he exists" seems contradictory. If I believe his existence can be known, wouldn't I be obligated to believe in his existence?
Well, there's a difference between believing and knowing in this context. A Christian who doesn't know (=is not sure) whether God exists still believes it (=thinks it's likely). I hope this helps.
@@BiblicalBookworm not really
It can be known if black holes have chocolate in the middle; this does not indicate that I believe that black holes have chocolate in the middle.
@@ichthus1890Does it become clearer what I mean by a weak Christian agnostic if I phrase it like that: "I don't know if God exists, but it can be known *if* he exists *and I choose to believe it* "?
I didn't include the part with choosing to believe it in the video because I thought that that's clear anyway as all Christians believe in God, some just aren't sure about it
Sorry for the confusion
@@petercollins7730 correct, an agnostic Christian chooses to believe that God exists but isn't sure about it. Of course the fact that smth can be known doesn't mean it is/isn't. I'm sorry that this creates so much confusion 🙈
How can "in the beginning" within Genesis related to the Big bang is beyond me. The Bible didn't say "In the beginning there was a infinite hot and dense spacetime and it expand". Is "the earth" in genesis 1 related to the universe or our Earth today?
You may also be interested in the Conversation of Ayaan Hirsi Ali
This type of book is just sad. Here are a few reasons why;
1. What do you know about Antony Flew, except his *'conversion'* from atheism to ... ? Well, some kind of theism. What's he "Notorious" for, let alone famous or even known for, except for ... being some unknown reason for being 'important'?
2. With #1 in mind, the focus of this book is on the self-assuring title that may make some money, and assure the existing theists. It is not in the actual value of the facts.
3. Flew was losing his mind, so his final thoughts can't be relied on much.
4. Hitchens (someone who was known for many things) was said to have 'converted' in some vague way after he died...yet he knew that nonsense would be dragged up before he died and made it explicit that it would. Yet, someone still tried to make him into some kind of repentant former atheist turned quasi-Christian.
White lies are still lies, and don't make proponents of any set of ideas -- including Christian ones -- look good by promoting them.
If stories like this are needed to support or advocate for even a little bit of a personal Christian faith, then consider that there are likely other issues that actually need attention. This type of book and stories like it are a distraction from those issues and aren't a good look.
-------
Edits: Minor structural edits; intended content unchanged. Edits occurred within 2 hours of the original comment.
I’m sorry his conversion distresses you. I would wager there are some issues that need attention…. Sent in love, even if bathed in snark. Atheism to theism is a common occurrence once more life experience is gained. Perspective shifting is all it takes.
1 Million people follow Alex o Connor or Jordan Peterson and their Arguments against God..... Why what has these people done so remarkable except for writing books( which are their view points) and doing podcasts. Yet no Atheist questions them but think that they are the Einsteins of Philosophy and Psychology.
The interest is in the reasoning that led to such a radical change of position (so yes the fact he was famously atheist IS relevant to the distance travelled). Same with accounts going the other way. I'm agnostic (albeit well disposed to Christianity) so my interest is in the reasoning. If he's lost his faculties that will affect quality of that reasoning. Would agree such books don't prove anything (to extent anyone argues that) but don't see why it's not worthwhile.
Actually the cosmologists Botde, Gute and Vilenkin solved the kinematics incompleteness theorem. It proved that if the universe is inflationary, it must have had a beginning. That is true also for a multiverse. It had to have a beginning and because of the law of cause and effect there has to do exist an unca Causal Agent.
I like reason too but I am grateful for my personal relationship with God and Jesus. You can live by reason but if you want to get to know someone you have to talk with them and listen and do things with God. A relationship takes time and effort. While I am 69 and never married, I do know the Lord more than do most. I have an unpublished book titled Science and the Bible: Evidence for the God of the Bible. So I have no problem with reason but I am so glad that I know God and He knows me
Believe, Confess, Repentance, Baptism. Four steps. Eternal life.
Can you link me a video where you recommend some books? Not the john piper ones or some devotionals. What i mean is more about apologetics, conversion, history and whatnot.
I've never reviewed anything by John Piper. Either way, here's my playlist with apologetic books: ruclips.net/p/PLS0LOE5V8yUZYKd7HzqwhKRIEU623H4yD
Thank you for the summary, GOD BLESS….so many ways to testify of GOD, but one of my favorite is that I find it ironic that we call it “the law” of physics and we call DNA a “code” and yet most do not even spend ONE moment to think beyond what they just said…where did a law and code come from without an intelligent mind behind it? Nothing, BANG, LIGHT and everything and “let there be…” and it organized, a supernatural event started it because it was outside of the known physical universe and it eventually lead to me and you when he said “let us make man…” again, I do not have enough faith to be an atheist…I find their arguments child like in their reasoning and full of pride which makes them ignorant. We are all ignorant to one degree or the other, but to look in the mirror and lie to yourself….WOW, only GOD can help such a person.
Thank you for sharing and God bless you too!
However, I would caution against assuming that all atheists are lying to themselves.
@@BiblicalBookworm most lol, 27 years listening to them, debates, participating in dialog with them… for most, intellectual honesty escapes them
@@heatice77 The problem with saying that is that hardly any atheist/agnostic will consider converting if you accuse them of that 🥶
@@BiblicalBookworm no worries, I don’t engage anymore…I let others pickup that torch. 27 years is enough, sooner or later all you are doing is tossing pearls.
They matter, GOD loves them and if they want to have an honest conversation I will engage one on one…not online, but you have to know where you draw the line, where your patience is not good enough to toss pearls.
27 years, even the prophets did not preach indefinitely, even GOD gave the Jews a time of silence in their history.
Now, if they start respectfully I will give one response and move on. If not, I just don’t engage…life is too short for belligerent mockers.
Fantastic video. Your channel truly glorifies God. Keep up the great work. God Bless!
Thank you! I'm happy to hear that! God bless you too!
Sub is out und lieben Gruss aus Mexico. Ganz lieben Dank und ein dickes Lob fuer Ihre Arbeit. Es ist heute so wichtig, Zusammenhaenge richtig zu verstehen. Ausserdem finde ich Ihr Resumee sehr aufbauend und motivierend, auch gerade im Gespraech mit anderen ueber die Gruende meines Glaubens. Nochmals Danke y saludos cordiales desde Tepotzlan, Morelos.
This is true about Jean Paul Sartre too. At the end of his life he believed in God.
Using the word notorious delivers a negative connotation. Should Anthony Flew be viewed that way? What did he do that was notorious? Or is the title just click bait and it's really just saying he was famous?
And why would going from not thinking God exists to thinking God exists be considered a conversion? Because best i can tell, he did not 'convert' but decided it was likely there was some sort of creator/designer...and because a deist. Is that really 'converting?'
Would someone who did not believe the earth was spherical then determining the earth was spherical be considered to have 'converted' to spherical earth belief?
I go from thinking God exists to not thinking God exists often. I am not convinced either way. Am I converting and deconverting with each changing thought?
In reading Flews book, it was clear to me that the change was in Flews mind, not from new science or understandings of the universe or origins. I found his arguments no more compelling, need less quotes out of context.
He had a debate with Gary Habermas about Christianity around 15 years ago.
I didn't know that, thanks for sharing!
Also with William Lane Craig.
Flew died 14 years ago, and years before his death was unable to even recognize friends, let alone debate anyone.
Very cool! I've heard of Anthony Flew, but this is the first video I see about him and his book, thanks for the summary! I'm very into apologetics, especially the scientific arguments (as a biochemist and med student). Some of my favs that I've learned a lot from over the years, include Frank Turek, Hugh Ross, William Lane Craig, J Warner Wallace, Lee Strobel, Stephen Meyer, James Tour, Michael Behe, John Lennox. You have a new sub!
There are no credible scientific arguments for the existence of any god - just gratuitous inferences made from arbitrary interpretations of selectively chosen data. Science can only work with detectable data which when it come to god there is absolutely none.
Thank you! Welcome to the channel!
Most of those excusegists have no capacity for 'scientific arguments.' Turek, Craig, Wallace, Strobel, Meyer, and Lennox have no scientific education or knowledge, and demonstrate that with their claims. Tour and Behe are laughingstocks among actuall scientists. Actual scientists do not engage in apologetics - scientific knowledge makes the falsity of religious claims patent.
Just a quick point about beginnings: Although it's true that something like the Big Bang seems very compatible with the start of Genesis, biblical believers are not dependent on there having been an absolute beginning from nothing. Although creatio ex nihilo has a long and august theological pedigree, traditional thinkers, such as Rabbi Solomon (Rashi; 11th cent. France), already pointed out that Genesis 1:1-2 can be read differently. Essentially, it may mean: When God began to shape and form the matter that existed-under conditions of darkness, water, the deep, etc.-the first thing God did was make light. God may have created everything from nothing, but Genesis 1 may not be telling the story of the true start of being, but from some point further along.
Rashi's problem is that he failed distinguishing verse 1 from other verses. The very first verse "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" itself is a pronouncement of creatio ex nihilo. The word 'create' here should be differentiated from Aristotelian concept of making things out of 'something.' The word 'create' in Genesis contains in it several philosophical premises: 1) God and the world are qualitatively different, 2) there was a 'time' when the world was not, and 3) it was by the fiat of God that the world emerged out of nothing. Creatio Ex Nihilo is truly and uniquely biblical view on how the world began.
@@gamnamoo6195 Thanks for your reply! I personally happen to believe that the world was created ex nihilo. I also think it's possible that this is the teaching of Genesis 1. However, you are dismissing Rashi's analysis much too blithely. There are important textual reasons for what he said, and historical reasons why your certainty about what Genesis is conveying is questionable. And since Rashi was one of the closest readers of the Holy Scriptures ever, that should give one more pause.
For example, the Hebrew word "breishit" ("In the beginning") is in construct state; in normal grammar there needs to another noun following it, so this requires explanation that people rarely address. Rashi points out that the word "barishonah" should have been used to express strict chronological order. Then, the beginning of verse 2 uses the simple-perfect form of the verb "to be" (hay'tah) as opposed to the imperfect with vav-consecutive (vatehi) which would normally be used for a sequential narrative. This suggests the sense, "Now, the earth had been disordered..." that is, giving us the prior condition of the world when verse 1 was taking place. In addition, Rashi observes that there's a major problem with verse 2: the Text never says that God created darkness, the deep, or water. If you try to answer that by saying that those things were created in verse 1, then you need to explain why all the subsequent days contain creations which should already have existed.
I'll conclude for now by pointing out that you cannot assume that the Hebrew Bible is operating with the same set of philosophic concepts which the Greeks introduced. The Text may not be particularly concerned with the issue of ex nihilo or the quality of God's being. It certainly isn't afraid to use bodily, anthropomorphic terms about God which, if taken literally, negate your premise (1). It may also be relevant here to point out that the Septuagint Greek translation-what Christians employed as their Bible-uses the ordinary verb for making to translate Hebrew "bara"-Greek ποιεω.
@@gamnamoo6195 That verse is incorrectly translated from the Hebrew as you state. In fact, the correct translation is 'When god began to .....'
The idea of nothingness as such was not a concept that the ancient Hebrews probably even held to. Formlessness, darkness, and the deep are all images conveying something similar to what we mean by nothingness. But rather than juxtaposing the reification of existence versus non existence, they held chaos and order as the ultimate polar ends of reality. Theologically this is important when we think of death. Those who believe in death as the end of existence or the final judgment as annihilationism are not following the biblical cosmology. The grave and death were bad because they are the disorder of life. The new heaven and new earth are the correcting of right order. We don’t just go to heaven as disembodied souls for eternity. The belief in the resurrection of the body is also a consequence of this perspective as well.
@@campomambo I think what you're saying has a lot to commend it. Indeed, it's hard to say that anyone, at any time, has a real conception of "nothingness." Some of the pre-Socratics famously said that about nothing nothing could be said. At the same time, abstract concepts like "order" and "chaos" are not well represented in biblical Hebrew either. Having said all this, I will take note of Isaiah 45:7 where God is described as the "creator of darkness."
hey quick question do you know if biblio or abebooks are reputable sites to buy books?
I personally have never used those sites
Faith and science is so different. There is salvation & condemnation
There is dark & light.
Havent watched the video yet, just to say I was brought to the christian catholic religion by reason logic and study of history. Long story short, all path leaded to Him.
Interesting! Thanks for sharing!
I became an Apatheist in my late 20s and outright rejected the idea of God much later in life. The Abrahamic God doesn't exist and will never exist.
Wonderful
It's nice to see that hard agnosticism gets some accurate air time. People just don't use the terms in this productive manner.
I wonder whether Flew would become a Deist today like during his time, since the scientific landscape has changed significantly since as well. That is, the big bang theory being treated as evidence for a beginning universe is obsolete since roughly 30 years now.
Flew's reasons:
Nature must obey laws (that is, patterns), otherwise it wouldn't be stable, and no prediction could be made. The puddle analogy is a *conviction* creating reductio ad absurdum against the conclusion that those laws are made up by some intelligent mind.
His second reason points towards multiple different explanations. An unknown explanans (God) cannot be used as the explanandum for life. Evolution explains this sufficiently already, without invoking agency.
The third reason implies a circular "creator creation".
9:11 This objection has the same epistemic issue as Flew's second reason. An unknown entity cannot be used as an explanation for an observation.
The multiverse is unscientific. But that at least makes it a _religious_ argument against a religious argument.
10:17 This of course cuts both ways, and on top of it, it's a disingenuous remark, that should have no place in a serious debate (it's an attempt to poison the well).
Overall this was an entertaining and well put together video, which I appreciate. I just disagree.
Flew's case is very interesting.
1. It seems he became atheist early for the wrong reason. Are there wrong reasons becoming a believer?
2. You say scientific advances helped his conversion. Yet, it seems scientific literacy pushes people away from religion.
3. As Flew describes his conversion, he cites a handful of known, cookie-cutter apologetic arguments. Those did not require advances in science.
How come?
My book, The Conscience of an Agnostic (available on Amazon), addresses some of these issues.
Do you have any J.C. Ryle books uploaded? I searched your YouTUbe name followed by 'J.C. Ryle' but didn't see anything.
No, I haven't read anything by him yet
"Area of expertise?" Even "experts" are limited. You don't need 1k yrs of research to grasp basic biology. Lennox is brillant. Period.
_Lennox is brillant._ Yet Lennox, a professor in mathematics, believes 1+1+1=1. Is that brilliant?
@@grasonicus If Lennox, the Cambridge Mathemetics professor says 1+1+1= 1 you should change your thinking and accept it. Now the problem is you are putting your own nonsense into his mouth.
@@Fastbenefits-y4p Is doesn't matter who says 1+1+1=1, it's still nonsense. Lennox is a Trinitarian, and the foundation of the Trinity dogma is 1+1+1=1. Every Trinitarian believes it. 1god + 1god + 1god = 1 god.
@@grasonicus I said what you used - "+" - is nonsense. You just copied that nonsense widely used by Islamists. No trinitarian use the Mathematical operation of addition to prove trinity and Lennox never used it and his trinity is ONE God in three persons.
If trinitarians really use a more powerful mathematical operation of addition - 1X1X1=1 - what would you say?
@@Fastbenefits-y4p Of course no Trinitarian would come out and say 1+1+1=1, but they say they/you have a Father who is fully god, a Jesus who is fully god, and a HS who is fully god, but yet they/you have only one god. I.e 1god + 1god +1god = 1god. If that doesn't mandate that 1+1+1=1, what does?
As for the 1x1x1=1, you've fallen into the trap. Most Trinitarians won't even use that one, only the truly stupid do, because, for them, addition and multiplication are interchangeable. Even a slow six-year-old knows they're not. You're happy for 4+5+6 to be 15 or 120, you don't care which one, or maybe both.
And you cannot multiply 1god times 1 god just as you cannot multiply 1 goat times one goat. In multiplication, at most one member may not evaluate to a number, the rest must evaluate to real numbers. You can multiply 1 goat times 3, then you get three goats. The same goes for gods, ships, humans, stones, etc.
Where does the Bible say God is a person? We have no idea what God is. The closest the Bible comes to saying what God is, is Jesus saying _God is spirit._ By that I take it God is not composed of matter.
The Trinitarian dogma is falsified by four groups of arguments:
1) Its utter stupidity. 1+1+1=1, ridiculous claims, e.g. Jesus is fully god and fully man--two incompatible conditions. If God can be a man, he's not truly a man because no man is a god, and no man can take on godhood. So, God becoming a true man will be stuck as a man. Its stupid supporting language, e.g. eternally begotten, essence, etc.
2) It's nowhere in the Bible explicitly spelled out. Can you believe it? The nature of God left up for grabs?
3) The clear, simple statements about the nature of God are ignored. E.g. Jesus saying the Father is the only true god, Paul saying, for us, there is one God, the Father.
4) Its history. It slowly evolved starting in the second century.
Do you know about the Trimurti? The Trinity has company: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_deity
Imagine if you were omnipotent God, were immortal and could create/edit/destroy anything, even have the power to set the future events in stone; there were truly no limits, no one you were answerable to and you had infinite time to kill. How would you spend your time? I mean you would want the pace of events in the universe to be as slow as possible, right? Because after all, you have infinite time to kill. You will still exhaust all the possible combinations of everything at some point but there is not much you can do about it. You are stuck with infinite time. At some point, you will become a monster and your own worst enemy. As God, you can live the life of every person that has ever lived throughout history many times over, have every single experience they ever had many times over and still have infinite time to kill. So you deprive yourself for some time. You deliberately decide to live a boring and painful life on this planet.
I'd be grateful if BB's critical reading skills were less angled towards how theistic readers might use the arguments "in a debate". Surely there are enough theist v atheist "debates" on YT to show what a worthless undertaking it is, scoring cheap, crowd-pleasing points off an "opponent" rather than genuinely trying to find the truth together?
This book is a good example. At 9:00 , Collin's critique of Flew's abiogenesis argument is germane, but to resort to quoting Lennox in an attempt at a rebuttal is unfair to both Flew and Collins. I suspect neither would thank you for associating them with such motivated argument
Thank you for your feedback!
I was the opposite. I tried to be a Christian for about 50 years then I saw the futility of it all and became atheist.
You had to put the little bookworm on the screen. 🤗
Just imagine a scenario where you are dreaming that you are having a debate with an atheist and you are arguing that (dream) universe is created by God and the atheist argues against your stance. And then somebody comes along and says "You are God". Who's right here?? Waking state is no different from Dream state in terms of raw experience. So search for your Real Self and you'll discover GOD. To see God is to be God.
If this man beleived in deism alone then you have no right to claim him for your relegion or that he beleived in any single relegion, it has no bearing on Christianity anymore than anyother diety claim.
True, I'm not claiming him for Christianity
I believe it is possible to explain the Trinity of a being rationally, without considering revelation. In fact, Saint Thomas Aquinas is one of those who explains this in a rational way, aligning with the findings of neuroscience and existing metaphysical models in philosophy. If we reduce the foundation of nature to a single entity, being, as described in ontology, we see that being, when it is infinite and knows itself, reduces to an object when the act of self-knowledge occurs. This object, known by the infinite being, is what is attributed as the Son. The relationship created between the knower and the known, through the act of will, is conceptualized as the Holy Spirit. This can be observed as a basic principle even before the universe, simply by analyzing being (ontology)
This concept aligns with some metaphysical models in philosophy. Being itself can be described as one, but it has a triune manifestation. I am not claiming that the concept of the Holy Spirit arises purely from rational rhetoric; it is derived from the Bible. However, it is still possible to arrive at the conclusion of a fundamental triune being in reality without revelation. This idea is both plausible and philosophically parsimonious. Great content btw
Thank you for sharing!
And I'm glad that you like my content! 😊
Greetings Lady Elizabeth,
Key Thoughts :-
-> Insights reflect with, "The Omnipresent Nature of God with Incipient aspects of Human Creation corroborate with Decorum in World of Science in Spiritual Forum by all means."
-> Truthfully Simple Honest Words. Thanks. Good.
With regards,
Ranjith Joseph (R.J)
Thank you for sharing!
Who is Ranjith Joseph?
@@godsonarieo2156 Myself handling Social media Handle in My Parents Domain purely for Informative Purposes. Ok. Bye.
- Ranjith Joseph (R.J)
Bot
@@snowflakemelter1172 My Sympathies for your Thoughts. Bye.
- Ranjith Joseph (R.J)
Because, Many have seen and testify angels, some familiar saints.
Many have seen Hindu Gods, were they true or false ?
Here's the thing though. If you are God, the entire universe is like a loop of events with you at the center. As God, you are immortal and that is not a blessing but a curse. If you are not omnipotent enough to eradicate evil, you are in for a rough ride as the forces of evil Devil/Satan will torment you relentlessly even if for a relatively limited period of time. And consider that an immortal God can do all the things he can ever think of several zillion times over and still have more time. That is maddening. Eventually, such a God would become sadistic and cause pain to himself just to avoid getting bored. Even if you have just 10 atoms, the number of possible combinations is huge. Now imagine that as God, you have infinite atoms and infinite combinations to play with and yet, there is always more time. As God, you have created every possible combination of the best and beautiful men or women possible and had s*x with them several zillion times over so it gets boring after a while. So you also create imperfect men and women of all shapes and sizes. But even that gets boring after a while. You still have infinite time to kill. Is it maddening enough yet? You still have infinite time to kill. Remember that as God, you can suffer but you cannot die. Pain and pleasure are relative. Without pain, pleasure loses its meaning. As God, you need extreme self-restraint to avoid going off the deep end yet that might not always be possible. But you remain unaffected by it all and can always purify and/or reset yourself. As God, you retain your original properties.
This is BS. The dude was never atheist. I am an 80 year old atheist, for 61 years. Wake up folks, if you want a god to believe in, believe in the intelligence of matter which can convert to other forms, but can never be destroyed. Sounds like god to me.
What happened to Flew was really just sad. As an atheist myself, I'm all ears if you have evidence to support the existence of a God. So when Flew converted to deism my curiosity was somewhat piqued. Surely he of all people would have a compelling reason? Imagine my disappointment when it turns out to be the same creationist pseudoscience claptrap we hear all the time.
Thank you.
You'd make a great contributor to the Thomistic Institute 😊, maybe we'd see you on their channel someday 😊.
Keep the good work!
Didn’t he become senile and delusional near the end of his life? And he didn’t “convert” to Christianity but was “open” to a divine creator. Deism is far from becoming a follower in Christ
Is it because he's getting up in years and his fearful for his eternal soul?
God might exist but the existence of suffering, pain and evil poses a huge problem. It should not be taken lightly. To make things worse, there is no accountability and provision for fair reward at the right time. Either God is powerless to do anything about suffering, pain and evil or he does not want to do anything about it.
That's old news and Flew did not 'convert' at all because it was not a religion to which he converted.
What was more remarkable was Ayaan Hirsi Ali's conversion to Christianity.
We were all born atheist before we had even heard of God. That is the kind of atheist that I am. I don’t care whether a god exists but I am not inclined to believe that a god exists. I just wish religious people would leave non-believers like me alone.
I'd say we were all born agnostic
@@BiblicalBookworm we were all born not knowing a single thing.
The question is not “ is there a God ?” The question is “ do you hope there’s a God?” … and then you must ask yourself why you do or do not have such a hope…. If you hope there is a God, I believe there are enough “proofs” or “logic” to support that belief… if you do not hope there’s a God , Then no amount of “ evidence” or logic will change your mind… but I think you should still ask yourself. Why you do not hope there is a God…
The author was not a well-known athiest.
I Don't know what's fascinating about some guy who used to be religious, then wasn't, then was again.
And no evidence for god presented...
McG8lchrist is superb.
I too might become a deist or theist if I develop dementia.
It is a great shame that the christian preachers or apologists couldn't convert such an open welcoming man. I watched Dr Craig's debate with him or perhaps just a part of it, he kept pressing on the absurd traditional position of compulsion or forced conversion without which the person goes to hell no matter how good he was. ie. the deception of original sin. Flew showed his objection against Christianity was only this absurdity, but Craig behaved like a fundamentalist traditional apologist. I recommend you too to attack this fallacy of Gnostic original sin of Manichaen Augustin by breaking the wall of gnostic deception to open doors for the atheists, bec it go against the bible. God welcomes righteous men (Rom 2.6-16; Acts10.34-35), faith alone is useless; Jesus came for the sinners, the righteous needs no doctor or saviour. The Roman pagans denied natural immunity from sin through gnostic original sin transmitted through concupiscene to put all population under their rule by conversion, the same way Big pharma now denies natural immunity to sell their poisonous products/injection to impose their authority. This remains the biggest stumbling block to atheists. I would have never converted with such strawman christianity. Thankfully I read the bible myself to expose these fallacies of calvinism and luther/Augustine. The argument is genuine that mother teresa goes to hell but a wicked sinner terrorist in heaven solely for a mental belief difference. Works alone matters to God, not faith. Faith is to receive security n peace, relationship with God; salvation in advance before judgment day.
Was he really the world's most renowned Atheist?
I've never heard of him.
He was not. This is typical empty christian-speak. They make such claims, because they think it lends credence to their christian fantasy world, because they themselves are easily impressed and swayed by fallacious reasoning.
You've never heard of Antony Flew? Dawkins ,to his everlasting shame actually claimed his conversion was similar to a deathbed conversion in his book The God Delusion. Flew was well known let me reassure you. I'd say he took over from Russell.
The title of the video makes the claim "most notorious atheist," I am merely giving evidence that runs counter to that. Is it conclusive evidence? No, but I do know some atheists who I would say, by that fact alone, are more likely to be "the most notorious" than someone I have never heard about.
Does it make a difference to the debate of the existence of god?
No, whilst being a philosopher, he might have given it a lot more thought than most, thought alone is not a good method for determining if something exists or not. For the following reasons:
1. Thought is not restricted to real objects, events, times, places, etc.
2. We don't need philosophers to tell us about the existence of objects we encounter in our daily lives.
The reasons why he was an atheist and the reasons why he changed and what he changed to don't make any difference to what I personally do not believe.
Though I will say, when atheists argue against theists, they do have to have a concept of the God who they are arguing against existing and their adversaries are arguing for. They do have to create counter-arguments for themselves to develop counter arguments to and it could just be that eventually his ability to counter his theistic arguments declined quicker than his ability to develop theistic arguments.
So on that basis it doesn't surprise me. After all, "God does exist" and "God doesn't exist" is virtually the same thought, although opposite in meaning.
It's the same reason why the "wicked bible" included the commandment "thou shalt commit adultery."
I would also point out that going "mad" seems to be an occupational hazard of philosophy.
World's Most notorious atheist? Wow I didn't know someone won the vote or contest or however someone came up with the provocative title to sell books
And when you talked to Flew, his reasons for believing were just as horribly bad as those of any 3d rate apologist. It is beyond laughable.
In his later years, he came across as quite unhinged, and him becoming a christian then, was not surprising at all.
He never became a Christian
@@BiblicalBookworm That's true. My old christian roots played up and tried to claim him.
New subscriber; thanks for a very interesting video.
Welcome to the channel! 😊
@@BiblicalBookwormthank you! I was editing my previous post, but have decided to respond here, since you responded to me so quickly!
You might enjoy Gary B. Ferngren’s “Medicine & Religion” , which I am reading for Historathon. He also writes two other books about Science and Religion. When recently researching the Catholic view on human dissection, I also stumbled across and picked up “Galileo Goes To Jail: And Other Myths About Science And Religion”, edited by Ronald L. Numbers. I likely will read this after finishing Ferngren’s book. Thought I’d share; nice to find another booktuber with a similar interest in this topic. God Bless…
@@tahlia__nerds_out thank you for the recommendations!
In his declining years Flew came to believe in a deistic version god but rejected the idea of a personal god. He did not believe in personal gods such as Christianity and Islam nor did he believe in an afterlife. However his reasons for changing his mind are fundamentally flawed because they are rationally invalid. His reasons are predicated on the logical fallacies of argument from ignorance and argument from incredulity. Since there was not a complete explanation for the origin of the universe and of life he felt the only explanation must be some manner of god (argument from ignorance). Furthermore, he could not believe it was possible that they could accounted for by natural explanations (argument from incredulity). His change of mind was the result of aging mental decline and lack of awareness of the significant scientific advances in understanding the origin of the universe and origin of life. But at least his mental deterioration never got so severe that he came to believe in anything as patently absurd as the ancient mythology of a personal god. Of course Christians wallowing in their ignorance will still gloat about it.
Whatever significant advances we've made in understanding the origin of the universe and the origin of life, it still doesn't rule out the idea that nature consciously created these things for a specific purpose. Why would nature go through the trouble of creating natural selection as a process if it had no intention of seeing life go a specific direction? Nature did create natural selection. The question is, did nature create it intentionally through conscious effort? I do not believe we will ever be able to scientifically claim it did. Most science axiomatically assumes nature makes no conscious effort to do anything, because it makes experiments much easier to do when assuming nature operates solely on rote mechanistic principles. What's nice is that it DOES operate on quite a few rote mechanistic principles. But is that all there is to it? It's as difficult to refute as it is easy to speculate. That's why it's in the realm of philosophy and not science.
@@theboombody There is nothing CONCEPTUALLY to rule out nature consciously created the universe and life for a specific purpose. However there is ZERO objective evidence nature actually is conscious or the universe and life actually were ‘created’ for any purpose. Everything we have learned about the universe and life has depended on and derived from the methodology of applying reason to evaluation of objective evidence. Since there is ZERO objective evidence the universe is conscious or exists for a specific purpose there is ZERO rationally credible reason to believe in either.
Nature simply does whatever nature does. The concept of nature ‘going through the trouble’ is a simplistic and naive human concept inappropriately projected as applying beyond the human conceptual domain. It is a category error. Since there are some ten billion trillion stars or so in the observable universe (which is likely only a tiny fraction of what there is beyond) a conscious nature would have to be almost infinitely absurd to produce such a ridiculous abundance just for life to exist.
Nature didn’t ‘create natural selection’. Natural selection is a label for the process of the evolution of organic entities arising from how dynamics of interactions produce adaptations promoting survival in prevailing environmental conditions. Natural selection is reactive, not proactive. There is ZERO evidence natural selection is anything other than a result of undirected blind natural processes without any teleological implications. Smolin once quipped the only purpose of the universe seems to be to create black holes.
Your understanding of science is fundamentally wrong. Science does not axiomatically assume anything about nature. Science relies on an evidence-based methodology to investigate nature since that is the only way that has ever been demonstrated to consistently produce valid results. Evaluation by objective evidence is principal science operation. Since there is ZERO objective evidence of purpose or design in nature there is nothing for science to investigate.
The only basis for ascribing purpose and design to nature comes from human imagination. Humans by and large are still psychologically mired in the vacuous intellectual swamp of ancient anthropocentric mythology. Here human-friendly and human-compatible explanations are projected onto the reality outside of human imagination. This is psychologically comforting but intellectually specious as anyone with an elementary understanding of GR and QM realizes how our innate conceptual framework we rely on bears no relation to the deep structures of nature.
The concept of a conscious universe with purpose is a less ludicrous variation on how ancient humans invented anthropomorphic gods in their own image. Deism is a somewhat more sophisticated layer of abstraction where the patent nonsense of a personal god is replaced with an impersonal consciousness. But the main seductive attraction that humans are special in some way still remains.
Since there is ZERO objective evidence nature is conscious or has purpose then those ideas lack rational credibility. Hence they are trivially easy to reject. That does not mean those ideas are not possible but rather means there is no rational reason to believe they are true. It is clear however there are powerful psychologically comforting reasons to want to believe they are true and so people cling to them in any number of their various philosophical and religious formulations.
Philosophical arguments about the nature of reality in and of themselves are worthless. This is so because the sole criterion for a philosophical argument is that a conclusion follows from the premises adhering to the rules of inference. The validity of the premises is irrelevant and plays no part is determining the validity of the conclusion. Philosophical arguments can therefore be constructed to prove anything as it is just a matter of choosing the appropriate premises. Such conclusions are only valid within the philosophical conceptual domain. Unless premises can be objectively verified such conclusions cannot justify any belief about nature.
There is a striking example of this from two and half thousand years ago.
Paremenides constructed a valid philosophical argument to prove change was illusory. Democritus subsequently rejected this on the grounds change is an empirically verifiable fact of experience. Those two positions neatly encapsulate how a philosophical conclusion about the world in itself is worthless and that the only reliable conclusion about the world has to be based on objective evidence.
So in summary the only verifiable and reliable method for investigating nature has been shown to be through evaluation of objective evidence. Any objective evidence demonstrating nature is conscious and has a purpose would justify such a belief. But until and unless such objective evidence is forthcoming then the idea that nature is conscious and has a purpose is nothing but psychologically comforting but rationally unfounded speculation.
@@talleyhoe846 Yes, it's very much speculation. But I don't worry too much about that. I just won't publish it in any scientific papers.
@@theboombody Unfounded speculation would not be accepted in any scientific publications since it lacks the fundamental requirements to be considered as scientific. However it would likely be warmly welcomed in theological publications where confidence of belief prevails over confirmation by evidence. But you are sensible not to worry about it as the point of entertaining unfounded speculation derives from its attendant psychological gratification so worrying about the lack of rational credibility would rather defeat the whole point.
@@talleyhoe846 Rationality without spice is for machines. Not for any inhabitant of the animal kingdom. My wife and I spent most of yesterday evening irrationally making fun of the contestants on Love Island that were half of our age. It would have been much more rational for me to have spent the evening at a second job at an IT firm in an attempt to solve the world's problems and prolong the existence of our species.
This is really sad !
He actually had dementia at that point in his life
So really the disintegration of his higher functions led him to believe in an intelligent designer
It is incredibly sad , but perfectly understandable.
First off, he wasn’t at all “notorious.” He had lots of Christian friends and had a lot of good things to say about faith. Secondly, he didn’t change his mind; he developed dementia near the end of his life and was taken advantage of by unscrupulous Christian “friends.”
Hmmm, he doesn't seem to be suffering from dementia in this writing. So, I must question your inference that dementia clouded his thinking.
There is a compelete lack of transparency and accountability on part of any higher power. Nothing is in writing so a higher power can deny it all at any time. You cannot enforce anything on the higher power. For example, if a higher power(not necessarily God) makes me suffer for 240 million seconds of my life, I expect atleast 5 million dollars as compensation at the right time compared to a guy who has not gone through that suffering. But what the higher power does is it gives 70 million dollars to the guy who has not gone through that suffering. An absolute mockery of justice. That's why people become athiests.
One of the best arguments against "God" is the observation that many of God's loudest cheerleaders are some of the most irrational , hateful hypocrites in the country, who can embrace an amoral, lying, sleazy character like Trump,
Funny how the fact that there is no evidence of the existence of muti-universes is a problem for AF, but doesn't require that for god....Most of these arguments are poorly presented and one questions what or how the claim of a conversion actually happened.
Hi biblical bookworm: Do you ever read books that challenge your faith instead of confirming it?
Life is enough of a challenge to faith every day.
@@physiocrat7143 if it was based on reality it wouldn't be.
@@snowflakemelter1172
'Reality" is an illusion that we construct for ourselves. We can never know what is really "there".
Yes, not necessarily books, but I like to watch debates and videos from atheist RUclips channels
@@BiblicalBookworm Thanks.
Just another gap jumper. His logic can get him to a creator but not the Christian God. An all-powerful God wouldn't be constrained by fine-tuning limitations.
TBH I was unimpressed with the way he argued that life does not arise from non-life. The book was interesting primarily to understand how and why he changed his mind.
During my 30 years as a Christian i spent time in ministry and studied apologetics. I asked for the ultimate proof and was told it was a matter of faith, as atheism was faith God doesn't exist. A dictionary definition of atheism is a lack of faith. There's a difference. Ephesians 2:8-9 says salvation is by faith. Faith is believing what you cannot know. You cannot find salvation through knowledge and if there were proof of God then what of salvation? Dan Barker is a former pastor who is an atheist. The clergy project is full of pastors who no longer believe. After loding I spent five years trying to understand Christianity. I don't miss it. You want to be a Christian? Fine. Why do you need so badly to assure yourself if not for your own doubts? I can't prove there is no god. I can prove your holy book is a mess. You can't prove there is a god. I refuse to waste any more time on bold claims without any proof. Besides I agree with Dan Barker that God is the most unpleasant person in all of fiction.
Anthony Flew = Most Notorious Atheist
(never heard of him)
Oh...deism is a form of theism. I think what people intend to say a personal deity versus a distant deity.
I can't be an atheist because it requires you believe in unbelievable things. Like life forming in a puddle. Yeah, right...
@@jamesgossweiler1349 show me where it is written that what you said is widely believed by atheists.
9:16 If you don't see the clear mistake in this reasoning, I'm worried about you. In the same breath you go from demonstrating its "possible" for an intelligence to create life, to it being "necessary". If humans manage to create lightning in a lab does it mean an intelligence is necessary to create lightning? I mean come on lol
You're right, depending on the experiment it wouldn't necessarily show that intelligence is necessary to create life.
Flew only converted on his deathbed, when he was not all there. He didn't do it because of evidence. And so what if he did? It doesn't show that the whole idea is valid in any way. How did you demonstrate your god exists?
The problem with Christianity, word of God, Bible is that over 90% people who lived on this planet never heard about this. Lets imagine- I am a boss of a company and have milions workers. Yet I tell only 100 of them what they should do, for what they will be rewarded or punished.😂
Agree that his atheism was wrongly based. Im at 2:32 already 3 red flags - 1. self proclaimed pure reason - it is rarely the case
advanced age - would suggest rationalisation of internal fear od dying rather than rational thought
If god is a higher being than by definition it eludes human mind so you cant know and you cant learn his nature. you cannot give him any attributes like omnipotent or good or love. Only thing you can do is either assume or if that being makes contact and starts to communicate on your level like we do with dogs the only thing you can do is trust. Because since supposably this is the only source of truth you cant know if it is true you can only trust the source.
EG. lets imagine a creator that claims he is god(being god means being above and in control of at least one aspect of nature) but this creator build a super advanced simulation and tells you it is true even though behind him there is a whole world. you being trapped in simulation have no way of knowing if he is truthful or is it just his tickery.
The begining of the universe meaning of what we can observe now we dont know if it is a cyclic universe and what we percieve as begining is really an reitration or something completely different
Laws can arise from nolaws. because if there are no laws even laws are allowed. On the other hand omnipotent means that it breaks the laws eg god doesnt have a plan, a purpose or anything because to every action he can choose both cause, effect and means There is no need for laws a giant turtle. Nature doesnt obey laws it is a classic mistake stems from flaw in reasoning from long ago that we divide nature into dumb balls that are moved by forces we still think og matter like smaller grains of sand. but nature is the manifestation of laws so a pattern of behavior.
Fine tuning argument is against god because it implies that there are laws that god needs to fine tune the universe to. if there was omnipotent god only his will no math even be needed for such a world cause there is no need for anything to make sense, a being that has no laws above it has no scale nothing to bounce its behavior out of anything goes if god lived outside of human mind it would be chaos it is only the human perception that takes natural order and places it in gods hands from the simplest desire to control it is environment in short god is a mental creation that allows us to think we can influence something we cant which gives our animalistic ego peace of mind.
Science is about looking at truth simply as truth do not seek satisfying answer or answer that benefits me that is why it is hated even by scientist themselves perceived as cold because it doesnt fullfill the comfort our highest need. our brains are adaptation machines seeking dangers and safety. the truth is somewhere between but it is not the case. Science says plenty about good and evil and beauty and sensation it is just not as satisfying.
The claim that god was incarnate in man body is far from unique, same goes for ressurection as it symbolised the cycles of earth.
As for god in western understanding the problem is this gravity is fine without a human but god without a human looses all meaning.
For me it is important to remember that science and religion had once the same root which our strive to understand world around us although science evolved to try to remove antropocentism, and religion clings onto it. the religion serves as a basic comfort layer its not about the truth but sanity. dealing with emotions by creating concepts that neutralise our fears and fullfill desires.
So we all believe that we are a manifestation of something the question is whether this something requires a person because that is what god essencialy is not only intelligence but having a personality, memory and all those other. In my reasoning no. will similarly to intelligence can exist without all other components like awareness etc that constitute a person. will doesnt even need preference because if all there is is will to exist and no awereness you dont know if it is possible to not exist. the rest is just chaos and relativity that forms local order we know as the universe.
Famous? Lol im sorry never heard of him at all. I belonged to debate societies...etc etc .... Never came across this guy in any form
Great video! After a very strange spiritual experience, I'm joining the Orthodox Church and reading the bible most days. God bless you 🙏
God bless you too!
If your Christianity came from the God of Abraham, can you provide me one thing you believe and practice as in Christianity that is valid before the God and it stands before the God, that which could lead you to salvation, just one thing please?????
Hint: Five pillars of Islam that Muslims practice day-in and day-out are valid before the God and they stand before the God.
You are arguing over which details of a relegious fantasy story is best, which is like two bald men arguing over a comb.
Who is this God person, anyway?
@@snowflakemelter1172 If you cannot provide an answer to question above, I understand.
@@suntorytimes1 God person? You mean which God?
@@rizwanrafeek3811 you obviously cannot understand what I said.
It's called dementia.
No, atheists are not demented, they're just ideologically possessed, like many other people are
Christianity has started and runs many many charities, hospitals schools, fun social clubs, sport centers and created great works of art. Plus Christianity good morals helps to make this world better now also Christianity gives the hope and truth of a excellent world to come for Jesus Christ followers when the universal King Jesus Christ returns !!. { The book The Case For Christ by Lee Strobel gives lot's and lots of scholarly evidence the Biblical Jesus Christ is real }.
@@canden-t7w So has Satanism, what's your point?
This should be really good.
We expect to observe law in nature yet deny the existence of a law giver. Foolishness.
Here's the Anthony Flew story of the old man who found comfort in a community of believers. People change their beliefs all the time but reality remains godless. Ayaan Hirsi Ali did the same thing. Check out her story.
I herd he was going senile or something.
He was rehashing old arguments for religion he’d formerly rejected.
When your body and mind start going, you really only have your spirit left.
@@theboombody maybe not even that. “ when my mind goes…. ( 80s pop song)
@@chriswest8389 The Psychedelic Furs? They had some good stuff.
@@theboombody That’s it, Idol Eyes!!! ‘All Day’. A hit on the Canadian charts for sure, circa 85.
Yes, the P.Fs had some good tunes. ‘Pretty in pink’✌️
Abthony Flew the most notorious atheist? I'd never heard of him before he died and christians started babbling about his supposed conversion!