Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   C.S. Lewis on materialistic thoughts
Phat
Member
Posts: 18349
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 13 of 43 (196034)
04-01-2005 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by pink sasquatch
03-30-2005 5:44 PM


Re: no crying over...
I guess what follows is a point I've seen jar try to make: Why should we trust a human account of God's creation more than the content of the creation itself?
Because one of the biggest and most dangerous lies that humanity confronts is the lie that we do not need God.
With all due apologies to atheists, I think that the quirk in human thought that dares to suggest that you can explain creation without a creator is as insulting as going to an art museaum and attempting to explain a great painting with no mention or concern of the artist.
This message has been edited by Phatboy, 04-01-2005 11:12 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by pink sasquatch, posted 03-30-2005 5:44 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by crashfrog, posted 04-01-2005 3:29 PM Phat has not replied
 Message 15 by Monk, posted 04-01-2005 4:20 PM Phat has not replied
 Message 17 by pink sasquatch, posted 04-01-2005 4:48 PM Phat has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18349
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 23 of 43 (196111)
04-01-2005 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Parasomnium
04-01-2005 5:34 PM


Re: misunderstanding and finger paint
Essentially people cannot distinguish art done with creative intelligent intent from that done rather randomly.
Then how can people distinguish things such as flowers, animals, and galaxies produced through creative intent from random activity.
Based on the logic of probability, a toddler could eventually splatter out a Mona Lisa given enough paint, time, and the impossible situation of remaining a patient toddler for umpteen billion years.
Great spans of time produce random selection. Odd how we can critically speculate and muse about such subjects so purposefully and intelligently.
I think this is called "backfiring". Or has Phatboy been "pissing into the wind"?
Although it is windier than I would have liked, I must remind you that we are not concluding either side as correct are we? I could just as well say that one day, Richard Dawkins will bow to the one whom he mocked.
While I disagree with you often, I respect that you have intelligence. Can't C.S. Lewis be given some measure of respect as well?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Parasomnium, posted 04-01-2005 5:34 PM Parasomnium has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by pink sasquatch, posted 04-01-2005 6:54 PM Phat has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18349
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 26 of 43 (196129)
04-01-2005 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by pink sasquatch
04-01-2005 6:54 PM


Re: misunderstanding and finger paint
PK writes:
You tell me. You were the one who made the assertion that we need to consider the creator of the universe when considering the universe. So, how do you distinguish?
C.S. Lewis was an intellectual before he became a Christian. The way that we a s believers distinguish is that we have met the Creator. That is why we consider Him. The natural man (without the Spirit)cannot even fathom God on a personal level.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by pink sasquatch, posted 04-01-2005 6:54 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024