Rejoice on this day!

[Molly]

Would you say that if the zealot in question was a muslim googling for high profile converts? Or a Voodoo 'doctor' offering to heal you with dead chickens? Or if the god in question was Vishnu?

I'm pretty darned sure that they are all quite sincere in their faith, and are all somewhat amusingly out-to-lunch.

[Oleg Bach]

Would you say that if the zealot in question was a muslim googling for high profile converts? Or a Voodoo 'doctor' offering to heal you with dead chickens? Or if the god in question was Vishnu?

I'm pretty darned sure that they are all quite sincere in their faith, and are all somewhat amusingly out-to-lunch.

They are not sincere - they are nuts - you are too kind - and overly liberal....It is like the old Russian story...a king - kneels down to caress the bones of his faithful war horse that lay bleaching in the sun...as he shows thanks to the bones - a snake comes out and bites him...he asks the snake - " I meant you no harm - why do you kill me?" The snake answered ---"I am a snake and that is what snakes do" - You must be pragmatic - a friend of mine who takes care of the homeless..was knocked un-conscious by a lunitic - because he wanted two pieces of cake rather than the one allowed - this bum tried to kill..a man that was helping him - time to mature and understand not all want a better life and not all want to be saved - some are simply crazy and to far gone..."let the dead bury the dead"...... Christianity created peace and prosperity - those other religions created poverty..simple.

[scorpio]

Christianity created peace and prosperity

Yeah, gotta love them old crusades, Spanish Inquisition and the Salem witchburnings? But that's kid's stuff next to how many killed and died under the guise of Christianity.

[cybercoma]

Christianity created peace and prosperity

So did the Taliban and Saddam Hussein.

[WIP]

These were Atheists who tried to dis-prove Christianity....only to find themselves converted and believing of the faith they initially sought to dis-prove.

But, on the flipside, I can give you scores of theologians, especially Biblical textual scholars, who became atheists or agnostics (or at least dropped biblical literalism) such as Bart Ehrman, author of "Misquoting Jesus" who lost fundamentalism when he enrolled at the Harvard Divinity School and saw for himself the changes to the earliest manuscripts, by additions and omissions that were made as the manuscripts were copied.

Having people like C.S. Lewis, Alvin Plantinga, or Francis Collins tell about changing from atheists to becoming believers in some form of Christianity or another religion, does not prove a whole lot, since they give widely different reasons for their adoption of religion. Francis Collins's conversion story is the most bizarre I've heard from any prominent spokesman: he tells us that while he was out for a walk in the woods on a winter's day, he came upon a stream that had frozen into three streams and immediately thought of the Holy Trinity -- which meant something to him, but it sounds to me like he must have already wanted to believe and found a symbol. Richard Dawkins asked sarcastically, if he would have become a Zoroastrian if it was two frozen streams instead.

Not only did they end up embracing the faith. But they did more than a lot of Christians who've always believed had done (that includes me).

Who knows what compelled them to want to actively prove Christianity, for I haven't read any of their books. Perhaps it is self-atonement.... trying to undo what they've preached...said...and done... when they were Atheists,

atoning for their acts and words that helped sway, influence or convince people away from God.

One thing that bothers me about these big name Christian apologists, is that there is a lot of money to be made writing books and doing the lecture circuit, telling Christians what they want to hear. The implicit message is an argument from authority -- this guy is a physicist or a geneticist, and he's a Christian -- you can't possibly be smarter than him, so why don't you share his religious beliefs? Of course, even if a guy is a scientist, like Collins, that does not mean that he is an expert in all things, and may not have very good reasons for his religious conversion.

But the ones like Craig, Strobel, and C.S. Lewis, who try to write books that rationally prove their religions, have the paradox that if what they are doing is valid, they are eliminating the need to believe their doctrines on faith. If there is no role for faith to play in believing Christian doctrine, then salvation is jeopardized, because most Christian versions claim that salvation is dependent on faith, not coming to a rationally realization of doctrine. They end up trying to rationally prove beliefs that claim to be based on faith, rather than logic and reason.

[betsy]

Would you say that if the zealot in question was a muslim googling for high profile converts? Or a Voodoo 'doctor' offering to heal you with dead chickens? Or if the god in question was Vishnu?

I'm pretty darned sure that they are all quite sincere in their faith, and are all somewhat amusingly out-to-lunch.

Irrational ranting! Amusingly out-to-lunch...

And I've got the evidence to back it up.

Edited April 22, 2009 by betsy

[betsy]

Yeah, gotta love them old crusades, Spanish Inquisition and the Salem witchburnings? But that's kid's stuff next to how many killed and died under the guise of Christianity.

Get back in the game, Scorpio.

Your comment would make for a lively discussion. You should start a thread on that if that line interests you so.

[betsy]

WIP, I'm not ignoring you but I have to go. Will be busy for the next couple of days...I'll try to get back as soon as I can.

[betsy]

Yeah, gotta love them old crusades, Spanish Inquisition and the Salem witchburnings? But that's kid's stuff next to how many killed and died under the guise of Christianity.

So you know that atrocities were...and are being done....as you agree with what I've been saying in other threads - under the guise of Christianity!

In other words, you'd rather throw your credibility away just to do a senseless smear.

You're pinning the blame on the victim, - in this case unless you don't get it - Christianity.

So now we've cleared that up let's get back on topic.

[betsy]

But, on the flipside, I can give you scores of theologians, especially Biblical textual scholars, who became atheists or agnostics (or at least dropped biblical literalism) such as Bart Ehrman, author of "Misquoting Jesus" who lost fundamentalism when he enrolled at the Harvard Divinity School and saw for himself the changes to the earliest manuscripts, by additions and omissions that were made as the manuscripts were copied.

I am not denying that there are probably a whole lot of people who turn away from Christianity than those who voluntarily embrace it in their adulthood. Why is that any surprise at all?

Did you read the Parable of the Seeds in my other topic, "UPON THIS ROCK?"

People have their own reasons why they turn away from Christianity. There's a lot of reasons to be used as an excuse. We can blame the cruel God who turns a blind eye on sufferings, we can point out what we percieve as the "flaws" of God (his inconsistencies, his hard-to-understand-book, his pettiness, etc..), and like Scorpio we can point out all the atrocities made by men using the name of Christ (from the Crusaders and Inquisition to the molestations of children, young lassies and young lads)...

Let's face it it's harder to be a true Christian, all the more now when we're bombarded and surrounded by all kinds of temptations, distractions and confusions....

It is far easier to turn away ....than to follow Christ.

In my opinion, it's harder for an Atheist who's used to lead his own life at his own terms to follow a belief that requires an adherance to Christ.

Having people like C.S. Lewis, Alvin Plantinga, or Francis Collins tell about changing from atheists to becoming believers in some form of Christianity or another religion, does not prove a whole lot,

It proves that with all their success and knowledge.....Something was missing.

A Christian who's looking for an excuse to get out of Christianity will read all kinds of books that claim to prove God does not exists....that the Bible is a fantasy book...that Christians are being duped...anything to "confirm" that he is doing the right thing in dropping his belief in God.

After all, non-believers will attest that christians have been "indoctrinated" and "brain-washed"...therefore, a Christian who wants to be "de-programmed" will no doubt gobble up as many of these books as he can.

They need everything they can get to bolster their confidence that they've made the right decision. They need something to replace the old belief with a new "indoctrination"....the one that reassures them that there is no God.

On the other hand, if an atheist already knows and confidently believes that there is no God....why does he needs to prove that God does not exists? Why can't he just simply go on with his life knowing that there is no God?

since they give widely different reasons for their adoption of religion. Francis Collins's conversion story is the most bizarre I've heard from any prominent spokesman: he tells us that while he was out for a walk in the woods on a winter's day, he came upon a stream that had frozen into three streams and immediately thought of the Holy Trinity -- which meant something to him, but it sounds to me like he must have already wanted to believe and found a symbol. Richard Dawkins asked sarcastically, if he would have become a Zoroastrian if it was two frozen streams instead.

In my posted article about Francis Collins, it stated that working with dying patients was the reason how he started thinking of religion. I'm not saying the walk-in-the-woods you mention above is not true (or true, for I haven't read anything about him other than the one I googled)....but I would certainly believe that it is not the only reason why he decided to believe in God.

Francis Collins, with all his qualifications, is most likely not the kind of guy who'll suddenly change his belief just like that without much contemplation. I agree with you, he must already been thinking of religion....and who knows, God in His own way had "spoken" to him. When I say "spoken" I don't mean the sudden booming voice that say "Behold!"

Believers will understand what I mean.

I've thought about that part about the dying patients. A terminal person goes through several stages (denial, anger, resignation...). I've always thought that those who knew they're dying have the golden opportunity to embrace God without any more multiple distractions....for it is in the darkest hour when we usually cling to Him.

To have the time to humble one's self, confess and own up to all sins, to sincerely repent.

Collins must've seen the transformation in those patients.

When one sincerely believes, there is no fear. That is the POWER that was promised upon the Resurrection of Christ. The power over death. For a believer, death is not the end.

One thing that bothers me about these big name Christian apologists, is that there is a lot of money to be made writing books and doing the lecture circuit, telling Christians what they want to hear.

Why does Dawkins write books? Doing the lecture circuit? Why's he on about the non-existence of God?

Is it not to convince Atheists what they want to hear?

Dawkins to McGrath: Hey buddy, let's make more money. I'll go for the Atheists and you go for the religious people. I'll sell the theory of evolution and you sell creationism. I'll even go the extra mile by attacking religion and God! You defend them.

Collins: Count me in! Count me in! I'll shun evolution and creationism. I'll sell Theo evolution!

Frankly speaking, I haven't read any books writen by apologists. I don't even know about McGrath or Collins and the other atheist-converts until I started this thread googling for info about C.S.Lewis and Strobel (names that were given to me by a co-worker!)

I'm curious....how many true Christians really buy and read these books compared to Atheists?

I bet more Atheists read Dawkins books than Christians reading Collins or McGrath!

The implicit message is an argument from authority -- this guy is a physicist or a geneticist, and he's a Christian -- you can't possibly be smarter than him, so why don't you share his religious beliefs? Of course, even if a guy is a scientist, like Collins, that does not mean that he is an expert in all things, and may not have very good reasons for his religious conversion.

Argument of authority in the sense that these guys - being highly educated and highly accomplished in their fields, with reputations at stake - are not so gullible and easy to convince!

We find God on our own. I did by reading the Bible, and with the help of Charles Price, who introduced me back to the Bible.

But the ones like Craig, Strobel, and C.S. Lewis, who try to write books that rationally prove their religions, have the paradox that if what they are doing is valid, they are eliminating the need to believe their doctrines on faith. If there is no role for faith to play in believing Christian doctrine, then salvation is jeopardized, because most Christian versions claim that salvation is dependent on faith, not coming to a rationally realization of doctrine. They end up trying to rationally prove beliefs that claim to be based on faith, rather than logic and reason.

After Christ had died and risen, his Apostle Thomas did not believe that it was Him. Come Thomas, and touch my wounds. See for yourself that it is Me.

If you truly read the Bible, you'd see that all throughout the New Testament, the Apostles had their moments of doubts! Their faith flickered.

That even after Christ was crucified and buried, they were conflicted.....they did not know what Christ was on about talking about His death and resurrection while He was with them. They grouped together...afraid...and maintained a low profile, fearing that the mob will go after them now that their leader is dead!

Of course we know that after Christ had appeared to them all in that room which was their hide-out, behind their locked door, and showed Thomas His wounds....that the transformation in their belief was so pronounced.

The Book of Acts showed their re-newed faith...and this time, boy....did they ever have faith!

Defying and courting death in their mission to spread the Word!

So where's the paradox? Who says you can't have faith by reading and learning or by proofs?

How much more faith can these highly accomplished men show - risking reputation and scorn from colleagues - by embarking on a mission to tell the world about their found Faith?

Edited April 24, 2009 by betsy

[betsy]

FRANK MORRISON

I can't find much about Morrison. This review of his book, "Who Moved The Stone" gives some info about him.

"Every Christian has their own story about how they came to know

Jesus Christ as their personal savior. This is known as their testimony. Frank Morrison's testimony can be found in Who Moved the Stone?

What makes this story compelling on many levels is that Morrison, an English journalist and one-time skeptic of Christianity, actually began this book as a means to disprove the very foundation of the Christian religion: the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

He researched numerous historical documents including the four gospels found in the Bible and it became apparent that over the course of his research one question continued to plague him, thus the title of his book. What began as a narrative aimed at refuting the resurrection soon became a testimonial of how one man transformed from skeptic to follower.

Rather than argue the case for the resurrection with faith alone, Morrison uses logic and reason to discount the counter-theories that he once believed to hold the truth. For example, why would the Jewish high

priests hide Christ's body when the resurrection itself poses such a

substantial threat to their power? Why would the disciples do the same

and not immediately proclaim that Christ had risen, knowing that not

doing so would risk the movement running out of steam as had been the

case with other philosophic and religious leaders at the time? Instead,

they waited months before doing so, perhaps because they were asking

the same question that Morrison was asking. And if the resurrection

were false, how could such a large following have developed on its

heels?

If you're a Christian, you will enjoy the pure and simple reason that Morrison applies to the trial, conviction, execution and resurrection of Jesus Christ. If you're searching for spiritual answers, Morrison may very well have provided them."

Debunks the common claims against Christ,

October 9, 2006

By John Washburn

http://www.amazon.com/review/R3A88NU5BEQ064

[betsy]

ANTONY FLEW

Prof. Antony Flew, 81 years old, is a legendary British philosopher and atheist and has been an icon and champion for unbelievers for decades. His change of mind is significant news, not only about his personal journey, but also about the persuasive power of the arguments modern theists have been using to challenge atheistic naturalism.

The interviewer is Dr. Gary Habermas, a prolific philosopher and historian from Liberty University who has debated Flew several times. They have maintained a friendship despite their years of disagreement on the existence of God.

Antony Flew and Gary Habermas met in February 1985 in Dallas, Texas. The occasion was a series of debates between atheists and theists, featuring many influential philosophers, scientists, and other scholars. (1)

A short time later, in May 1985, Flew and Habermas debated at Liberty University before a large audience. The topic that night was the resurrection of Jesus. (2) Although Flew was arguably the world’s foremost philosophical atheist, he had intriguingly also earned the distinction of being one of the chief philosophical commentators on the topic of miracles. (3) Habermas specialized on the subject of Jesus’ resurrection. (4) Thus, the ensuing dialogue on the historical evidence for the central Christian claim was a natural outgrowth of their research.

Over the next twenty years, Flew and Habermas developed a friendship, writing dozens of letters, talking often, and dialoguing twice more on the resurrection. In April 2000 they participated in a live debate on the Inspiration Television Network, moderated by John Ankerberg. (5) In January 2003 they again dialogued on the resurrection at California Polytechnic State University–San Luis Obispo. (6)

During a couple telephone discussions shortly after their last dialogue, Flew explained to Habermas that he was considering becoming a theist. While Flew did not change his position at that time, he concluded that certain philosophical and scientific considerations were causing him to do some serious rethinking. He characterized his position as that of atheism standing in tension with several huge question marks.

Then, a year later, in January 2004, Flew informed Habermas that he had indeed become a theist. While still rejecting the concept of special revelation, whether Christian, Jewish or Islamic, nonetheless he had concluded that theism was true. In Flew’s words, he simply “had to go where the evidence leads.” (7)

http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/

[betsy]

DR. SIMON GREENLEAF

Dr. Greenleaf was the Royal Professor of Legal Evidences at Harvard University. He was goaded by his students into looking at the evidences for the resurrection. After a thorough examination he came back and said, “There is not a single unbiased juror in the world who would ever look at the evidence and deny it. Dr. Simon Greenleaf became a Christian.

http://www.equip.org/perspectives/bible-my...e-bible-a-myth-

Greenleaf is an important figure in the development of that Christian school of thought known as legal or juridical apologetics. This school of thought is typified by legally trained scholars applying the canons of proof and argument to the defense of Christian belief. Greenleaf's book, which he wrote after examining the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ and becoming a christian,The Testimony of the Evangelists set the model for many subsequent works by legal apologists. He is distinguished as one who applied the canons of the ancient document rule to establish the authenticity of the gospel accounts, as well as cross-examination principles in assessing the testimony of those who bore witness to the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. His style of reasoning is reflected in the apologetic works by John Warwick Montgomery, Josh McDowell and Ross Clifford.

''The Testimony of the Evangelists Examined by the Rules of Evidence Administered in Courts of Justice'' or simply The Testimony of the Evangelists is an 1846 Christian apologetic work by Simon Greenleaf, a principal founder of the Harvard Law School. His "A Treatise on the Law of Evidence (3 vols., 1842-1853)" forms the basis for his study of the gospels. Greenleaf came to the conclusion that the witnesses were reliable, and that the resurrection happened. Testimony of the Evangelist is often cited by contemporary Christian apologists.

As a Christian apologist of the mid-Nineteenth century, Greenleaf was one of many writers who contributed to the debates that ensued on both sides of the Atlantic concerning the historicity of the gospel accounts in general, and specifically the miracle of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Part of his argument relied on earlier Christian apologists such as William Paley, Thomas Hartwell Horne, and Mark Hopkins, and he cites their works in The Testimony of the Evangelists. Here he followed the basic appeals to logic, reason, and historical evidences on behalf of the Bible generally, and in defence of the possibility of miracles occurring.

However, what distinguished Greenleaf from previous apologists is that he is the first American apologist to develop an argument favoring the reliability of the gospels and specifically on the evidences for the resurrection of Jesus Christ using technical legal criteria. His technical arguments concerning the evidentiary weight of the eyewitness passages found in the gospel narratives, the criteria for cross-examining that eyewitness testimony, and the claimed status of the gospels as competent evidence, have been relied on and restated by several American Christian apologists of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, such as Clarence Bartlett (As A Lawyer Sees Jesus), Walter M. Chandler (The Trial of Jesus), Pamela Binnings Ewen (Faith on Trial), Francis J. Lamb (Miracle and Science), Irwin H. Linton (A Lawyer Examines the Bible), Josh McDowell (More Than A Carpenter, The Resurrection Factor), Howard Hyde Russell (A Lawyer's Examination of the Bible),Joseph Evans Sagebeer (The Bible in Court), and Stephen D. Williams (The Bible in Court or Truth vs Error).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testimony_of_the_Evangelist

Edited May 8, 2009 by betsy

[M.Dancer]

Unimpressed.

[betsy]

For those interested to read the evidence of Simon Greenleaf. Excerpts from...

Opening Argument

"Never make up your mind about any significant matter without first considering the evidence."

These are the words of Simon Greenleaf, the famous Harvard Law Professor considered by many to be the foremost legal expert on evidence the world has known. When it came to his opinion regarding Christianity, however, it was a standard he long refused to apply to himself - without examining any evidence he had already made up his mind about Christianity, holding that it was groundless and based on myths.

Dr. Greenleaf eventually succumbed to a challenge by one of his students to review the evidence. Applying the principles contained in his 3 volume discourse A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, he became so overwhelmed by the evidence that he eventually became a Christian

He came to the conclusion that there is more historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ than for just about any other event in history, and that any unbiased jury in the world would reach the same conclusion based on the unswerving evidence.

In the following pages I hope you will sincerely apply Dr. Greenleaf's basic principle of first reviewing the evidence, then deciding on their merits.

http://www.bibleevidences.com/opening_arg.htm

Edited May 8, 2009 by betsy

[betsy]

Unimpressed.

So what?

[M.Dancer]

So what?

That's what I said. So what. I couldn't give a rat's ass if someone finds heresay evidence credible....I certainly don't find greenleaf credible...

[betsy]

That's what I said. So what. I couldn't give a rat's ass if someone finds heresay evidence credible....I certainly don't find greenleaf credible...

Oh well, you're entitled to your opinion.

[GostHacked]

Opening Argument

"Never make up your mind about any significant matter without first considering the evidence."

Good point, words to live by. Learn both sides before you decide

[betsy]

A. N. WILSON

"Andrew Norman Wilson (born 27 October 1950), is an English writer and newspaper columnist, known for his critical biographies, novels, works of popular history and religious views. He is a columnist for the Daily Mail and the London Evening Standard, and has been an occasional contributor to the Times Literary Supplement, New Statesman, The Spectator and The Observer. In 2006, he was the victim of a notable literary hoax played by Bevis Hillier.

A. N. Wilson was educated at Rugby School and New College, Oxford. Destined originally for ordination in the Church of England, Wilson entered St Stephen's House, the High Church theological hall at Oxford, but left at the end of his first year. He later became a convert to Roman Catholicism, but reverted to the Church of England. In the late 1980s he publicly stated that he was an atheist, and published a pamphlet Against Religion in the Chatto & Windus CounterBlasts series; however, religious and ecclesiological themes continue to inform his work.

In April 2009 he published an article in the Daily Mail affirming his rediscovery of faith, attacking at the same time both academic and media atheists[1]."

From Wikipedia

Edited January 17, 2010 by betsy

[kimmy]

Yay! Another soul has been saved!

-k

[bloodyminded]

I'm just happy it wasn't mine.

[betsy]

I came across a christian show where-in a physicist, apparently with the Pentagon, was being interviewed. I didn't get his name. He stated that scientists who are Christians are no longer loooked down upon. He went on to talk about quantum physiscs.....and spoke about "quantum enigma"...and he mentioned one other scientist who was an atheist but now "writes as a Christian.".

Frank J. Tipler

"Frank Jennings Tipler III (born February 1, 1947 in Andalusia, Alabama[1]) is a mathematical physicist and cosmologist, holding a joint appointment in the Departments of Mathematics and Physics at Tulane University.[2]

Tipler is the son of Frank Jennings Tipler Jr., a lawyer, and Anne Tipler, a homemaker.[1] Tipler attended the Massachusetts Institute of Technology from 1965 through 1969, and he completed his bachelor of science degree in physics in 1969.[2] Tipler entered graduate school, and in 1976 he earned his doctor of philosophy (Ph.D.) degree from the University of Maryland.[3] Tipler was next hired to a sequence of postdoctoral researcher positions at in physics at three universities, with the final one being at the University of Texas, where he worked under John Archibald Wheeler, Abraham Taub, Rainer Sachs, and Dennis Sciama.[2] Tipler became a faculty member in mathematical physics in 1981 at Tulane University, where he has been a faculty member ever since.[2]

In his controversial 1994 book The Physics of Immortality,[4][5][6] Tipler claims to provide a mechanism for immortality and the resurrection of the dead consistent with the known laws of physics via the use of computers which use the entire universe to compute on and which diverge to a state infinite computational resources that Tipler terms the Omega Point and which he identifies with God. The line of argument is that the evolution of intelligent species will enable scientific progress to grow exponentially, eventually enabling control over the universe even on the largest possible scale. Tipler predicts that this process will culminate with an all-powerful intelligence whose computing speed and information storage will grow exponentially at a rate exceeding the collapse of the universe, thus providing infinite "experiential time" which will be used to run computer simulations of all intelligent life that has ever lived in the history of our universe. This virtual reality emulation is what Tipler means by "the resurrection of the dead." In more recent works, Tipler says that the existence of the Omega Point is required to avoid the violation of the known laws of physics.

His 1986 book, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (with John D. Barrow) reviews the intellectual history of teleology, the large number of physical coincidences which allow sapient life to exist (see anthropic principle), and then investigates the ultimate fate of the universe. This was the first book to describe the Omega Point Theory. Tipler has also published his Omega Point Theory in a number of peer-reviewed scientific journals since 1986.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]

Tipler's 2007 book The Physics of Christianity analyzes the Omega Point Theory's pertinence to Christian theology.[23] In the book, Tipler identifies the Omega Point as being the Judeo-Christian God, particularly as described by Christian theological tradition. In this book Tipler also analyzes how Jesus Christ could have performed the miracles attributed to him in the New Testament without violating any known laws of physics, even if one were to assume that we currently don't exist on a level of implementation in a computer simulation (in the case that we did then, obviously and as noted by Tipler, such miracles would be trivially easy to perform for the society which was running the simulation whilst it would still seem amazing from our perspective).

Tipler's writings on scientific peer review have been cited by William A. Dembski as having formed the basis of the process for "peer review" in the so-called intelligent design journal Progress in Complexity, Information and Design of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (now defunct), where both Tipler and Dembski served as fellows.

In a 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper that was included as one of 12 papers in the journal's "Highlights of 2005",[24] Tipler combines the Omega Point as a boundary condition with a version of the FeynmanWeinbergDeWitt theory of quantum gravity along with an extended Standard Model od subatomic particles in order to form what he maintained is the correct Theory of Everything (TOE) describing and unifying all the forces in physics.[16]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_J._Tipler

Edited August 1, 2010 by betsy

[DogOnPorch]

Isn't this more or less the plot to 'Bender's Big Score?'

Seriously...

[betsy]

The name of the tv program is "It Is Written," and the topic was "How Science Discovered God." Here is an excerpt from an article posted on their website:

"In search of answers, scientists have been forced by their own theories to consider seriously the theological implica- tions of quantum cosmology1 and the anthropic cosmologi- cal principles2 concerning a Creator-God. In the early stages of development of quantum cosmology, scientists did consid- er the teachings of non-Christian (polytheistic) religions. But after much debate and study, they’ve come to the shock- ing conclusion that the traditional claims of Judeo-Christian theology concerning God and the origin of our universe best fit the implications of quantum cosmology and the anthropic cosmological principles.

In his recent book on the physics of immortality, Frank J. Tipler makes the following confession: “When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a con- vinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the

laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.”

In June 1998 the world’s leading experts in the field of cosmology and astronomy, including such giants as Stephen Hawking, attended a conference of scientists, theologians, and others at the University of California at Berkeley. The subject of the conference was the conflict and convergence between science and religion. Two questions attracted con- siderable attention among participants: 1. Is there enough evidence to warrant belief in God? 2. Is there something

to the claims of anthropic cosmological principles that warrants an in-depth study? The answer to both questions was yes.

By employing the most rigorous logic and the most advanced, sophisticated methods and experiments, cosmolo- gists and astronomers are now painting an astonishingly inter- esting picture of God, a picture that stands in stark contrast with the limited picture of the Creator-God presented by some Christian theologians, religious publications, clergy, and lay Christians. Professor Tipler, currently one of the mostvocal supporters of Judeo-Christian the- ology (but who is not himself a church- going person), is genuinely concerned about the future of theology, so much so that he is publicly advocating its inclusion into physics. In his recent book he contends that “it is time scientists reconsider the God hypothesis.” “I hope in this book to persuade them to do so,” he says. “The time has come to absorb theology into physics, to make Heaven as real as an electron.”

More....

http://www.itiswrittencanada.ca/programs/current-program.html

And remember, as I've said before, long long ago, if you set out to prove your belief, if you're honest, you must be prepared to disprove it. The honesty is the hard part.

Edited August 1, 2010 by betsy