From Christian to atheist: The problem of evil caused Flew to question the possibility of an omnipotent God
probleem 1: geen rationele wetenschappelijke beslissing, maar een gevoelskwestie die hem deed afkeren van zn geloof
From atheism to theism
This debate was held in Dallas in front of a crowd of three thousand people. It was judged by two panels of experts from leading American universities: one panel comprised five philosophers who were asked to judge the content of the debate, and the other comprised five professional debate judges who were asked to judge the quality of the arguments.
probleem 2: relgieuze overtuiging van de panel leden was?
Flew was particularly impressed with a physicist’s refutation of the idea that monkeys at typewriters would eventually produce a Shakespearean sonnet. The likelihood of getting one Shakespearean sonnet by chance is one in 10690; to put this number in perspective, there are only 1080 particles in the universe. Flew concludes:
‘If the theorem won’t work for a single sonnet, then of course it’s simply absurd to suggest that the more elaborate feat of the origin of life could have been achieved by chance’ (p. 78).
probleem 3: gebrekkige kennis in het onderwerp chaos theory, zie filmpjes enkele paginas terug voor meer uitleg
Three questions must be answered: ‘Where do the laws of physics come from? Why is it that we have these laws instead of some other set? How is that we have a set of laws that drives featureless gases to life, consciousness, and intelligence?’ (p. 108). Flew argues along with many other classical and modern scientists that theism is the only serious answer.
When Flew was an atheist, he argued that the universe and its laws were themselves ultimate (p. 134). Every belief has some fundamental assumption; for theists, the existence of God is the fundamental assumption. Flew, however, took the universe and its most fundamental features as that assumption. The discovery that the universe was not infinite threw a wrench into this assumption; if the universe had begun to exist at some point in time, it was reasonable to assume something caused its beginning. Because it is more likely that God exists uncaused, rather than the universe, it is logical to argue for the existence of God from the existence of the universe (pp. 144–145).
probleem 4: zoals ik al zei "tijd is een dimensie" dus the universe is god assumptie kan nog steeds kloppen
probleem 5: hoe dan ook is 'er kan EEN god bestaan' geen enkel bewijs voor de god met de eigenschappen uit het christendom, islam, jodendom,... dus je staat nog steeds nergens
Not only does our universe follow finely tuned physical laws, but laws which seem to be finely tuned to enable life to exist. The most common atheist answer is to assert that our universe is one of many others—the ‘multiverse’ speculation. It is interesting that atheists who refuse to believe in an unseen God, based supposedly on the lack of evidence for His existence, explain away the appearance of design by embracing the existence of an unknown number of other universes for which there is no evidence—or even any effect of their evidence. In any case, Flew argues that even if there were multiple universes, it would not solve the atheists’ dilemma; ‘multiverse or not, we still have to come to terms with the origin of the laws of nature. And the only viable explanation here is the divine Mind’ (p. 121).
probleem 6: ze zijn niet finely tuned zodat leven kan bestaan. Leven bestaat omdat ze op die manier finely tuned zijn. Leuke poging om cause-effect proberen om te keren
probleem 7: divine mind meer plausibel dan multiverse, give me a break
Stochastische aard van de quantummechanica is een overtuigender argument (uiteraard ook nog steeds geen bewijs) dan het "gevoel" van een mens
Flew identifies his god as the god of Aristotle, with the attributes of ‘immutability, immateriality, omnipotence, omniscience, oneness or indivisibility, perfect goodness and necessary existence’ (p. 92). He is adamant that his conversion to theism does not represent a paradigm shift, because his paradigm remains simply to follow the argument where it leads (p. 89).
probleem 8: sorry, maar omnipotent, omniscient and perfect goodness is een contradictie in termen en bovendien ook nog eens in tegenspraak met de wereld die we voor ons zien
en dit is voldoende, nu ben ik er wel klaar mee, aangezien jullie ook weigeren mijn argumenten (die ergens op slaan in tegenstelling tot die van jullie) proberen onderuit te halen
