- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God--WSJ--Eric Metaxas
Posted on 12/31/14 at 3:36 pm
Posted on 12/31/14 at 3:36 pm
quote:
Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God
The odds of life existing on another planet grow ever longer. Intelligent design, anyone?
By ERIC METAXAS
In 1966 Time magazine ran a cover story asking: Is God Dead? Many have accepted the cultural narrative that he’s obsolete—that as science progresses, there is less need for a “God” to explain the universe. Yet it turns out that the rumors of God’s death were premature. More amazing is that the relatively recent case for his existence comes from a surprising place—science itself.
From the Wall Street Journal--Christmas day-- LINK
This post was edited on 1/3/15 at 2:34 pm
17
Posted on 12/31/14 at 3:37 pm to I B Freeman
omg not this thread again
Posted on 12/31/14 at 3:46 pm to FT
This thread is proof of a creator.
Posted on 12/31/14 at 3:50 pm to I B Freeman
Posted on 12/31/14 at 4:19 pm to FT
Just more proof of your idiocy.
Posted on 12/31/14 at 4:24 pm to I B Freeman
We already did this, it was established that the author is an idiot who doesn't understand the science he is commenting on.
There, just saved us ten pages. Again.
There, just saved us ten pages. Again.
Posted on 12/31/14 at 4:24 pm to I B Freeman
I posted this about 2 weeks ago. Duck!
Posted on 12/31/14 at 4:27 pm to I B Freeman
I have certainly never denied the possibility of a 'Deist' God, I don't see how one could.
Posted on 12/31/14 at 4:34 pm to Revelator
quote:
I posted this about 2 weeks ago. Duck!
Sorry missed it.
Shows it was published Christmas day.
Ignore if everybody has already commented.
Posted on 12/31/14 at 4:41 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
Shows it was published Christmas day. Ignore if everybody has already commented.
Ok, it was one week. It got lots of comments and was an actually good thread until it got whacked.
This post was edited on 12/31/14 at 5:42 pm
Posted on 12/31/14 at 4:47 pm to S.E.C. Crazy
quote:
Just more proof of your idiocy.
What?
Posted on 12/31/14 at 4:52 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
Makes the Case for God
Going forward, this type of claim should be rejected out of hand and thread wacked if there is no explicit definition of "God" and for that matter, "the Case" right up front.
Capital-G "god" implies some endorsement of the Christian bible, and the evidence in that article doesn't support that in the slightest
This post was edited on 12/31/14 at 4:53 pm
Posted on 12/31/14 at 5:22 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God
Christians do this every day.
Posted on 12/31/14 at 5:37 pm to I B Freeman
When we didn't understand what lightning was many years ago, many people resigned it as an act of God. Now once again we face a mystery we cannot yet solve and some still assign it to God. Same 'ol BS. 
Posted on 12/31/14 at 5:48 pm to jcaz
quote:
When we didn't understand what lightning was many years ago, many people resigned it as an act of God. Now once again we face a mystery we cannot yet solve and some still assign it to God. Same 'ol BS.
If a creator God set the parameters of natural events such as what causes lightning, the net result would be that it's still something that could be attributed to God.
Posted on 12/31/14 at 6:14 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:
Going forward, this type of claim should be rejected out of hand and thread wacked if there is no explicit definition of "God" and for that matter, "the Case" right up front.
Capital-G "god" implies some endorsement of the Christian bible, and the evidence in that article doesn't support that in the slightest
It was a direct quote from the WSJ. You can take up the syntax with them.
But is there a religion without a God?? How does capitalizing G imply an endorsement of the Christian Bible?? I am curious how that logic works.
Posted on 12/31/14 at 7:43 pm to I B Freeman
I think I saw that in der Mauerstrassezeitung.
Posted on 12/31/14 at 8:04 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
But is there a religion without a God??
Most religions name their god, maybe all. "God" being the name narrows it down greatly, past just a neutral ID, down to a specific religion.
The point of the comment was that the article doesn't "make the case" for religion on its own in the slightest.
As for the "take syntax up w WSJ" comment, your submission without comment is taken as endorsement.
This post was edited on 12/31/14 at 8:08 pm
Posted on 12/31/14 at 8:13 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:
Most religions name their god, maybe all. "God" being the name narrows it down greatly, past just a neutral ID, down to a specific religion.
Ok maybe the stylebook at the WSJ should be updated. You should give them a call and let them know how wrong they are.
Posted on 12/31/14 at 8:17 pm to I B Freeman
Dude, was this intended to be an "I'll just leave this here" thread? You posted a dogshit article, that doesn't support what it tries to appear to. Do you endorse it at all?
Page 1 of 30
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News