Religion III

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

To "select" is to choose, pick out, to make a choice. This is what making a selection means.

Not necessarily. The meaning of words can, and do, change over time. to deny this is the Etymological Fallacy.

Originally Posted by boxcar

An impersonal, inorganic, irrational universe cannot make selections.

Not true. For example, the sun generates electromagnetic energy which consists of very long radio waves to very short gamma radiation. Most of these wavelengths do not penetrate the earth's atmosphere. For the most part only visible light penetrates the atmosphere. The atmosphere "selects" visible light.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Not necessarily. The meaning of words can, and do, change over time. to deny this is the Etymological Fallacy.

Tell that to my M-W.

Not true. For example, the sun generates electromagnetic energy which consists of very long radio waves to very short gamma radiation. Most of these wavelengths do not penetrate the earth's atmosphere. For the most part only visible light penetrates the atmosphere. The atmosphere "selects" visible light.

In only in the world of science fiction comic books.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Tell that to my M-W.

I think the editors of M-W are aware of it.

Originally Posted by boxcar

In only in the world of science fiction comic books.

Which comic books do you read?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

I think the editors of M-W are aware of it.

Little slow on updating their material.

Which comic books do you read?

Gave them up while I was still a kid. But many of us never grow up.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Little slow on updating their material.

It's been 163 years since Darwin published On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. How fast do they need to be?

Originally Posted by boxcar

Gave them up while I was still a kid. But many of us never grow up.

Comics are an art form. Read Watchmen.

[Bustin Stones]

I thought this was an appropriate thread to write that I just watched the DVD "The Most Reluctant Convert", and enjoyed it.
'The Most Reluctant Convert depicts the events that shaped author C.S. Lewis' early life and journey from hard-boiled atheism to prolific Christianity.'
It was thought provoking.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

It's been 163 years since Darwin published On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. How fast do they need to be?

Then I'd say they're slower than molasses going up Mt. Everest in the dead of winter.

Comics are an art form. Read Watchmen.

Exactly. Science fiction is designed to entertain, and not inform us with truth. Now you're catching on.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Bustin Stones

I thought this was an appropriate thread to write that I just watched the DVD "The Most Reluctant Convert", and enjoyed it.
'The Most Reluctant Convert depicts the events that shaped author C.S. Lewis' early life and journey from hard-boiled atheism to prolific Christianity.'
It was thought provoking.

Hah! I have heard from others who have read Lewis extensively that his conversion is an incredible story. I knew he was a staunch atheist...up until the day God got a hold of him.

This movie is streaming on Amazon Prime, by the way.

[Bustin Stones]

What is most interesting is that Lewis treated the acceptance of religion as an exercise in rational thinking. He was well educated, well read and had access to any number of brilliant colleagues to discuss and debate his anti religious stances. They were able to convince him through brute force of reason to change his views. Neither side appeared dismissive of the other's viewpoint. The presentation takes us through some of the high points of those discussions.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Bustin Stones

What is most interesting is that Lewis treated the acceptance of religion as an exercise in rational thinking. He was well educated, well read and had access to any number of brilliant colleagues to discuss and debate his anti religious stances. They were able to convince him through brute force of reason to change his views. Neither side appeared dismissive of the other's viewpoint. The presentation takes us through some of the high points of those discussions.

To change his views from what to what?

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Bustin Stones

What is most interesting is that Lewis treated the acceptance of religion as an exercise in rational thinking. He was well educated, well read and had access to any number of brilliant colleagues to discuss and debate his anti religious stances. They were able to convince him through brute force of reason to change his views. Neither side appeared dismissive of the other's viewpoint. The presentation takes us through some of the high points of those discussions.

Lewis was influenced greatly by G.K. Chesterton and his The Everlasting Man. Chesterton was fluent in paradox, exposing his opponents' arguments to contradiction when thought about more deeply. One of my favorite examples is the idea that progressives are on a continued march into the future (cf. Steven Pinker, Enlightenment Now) by changing the standard. Chesterton cites Tennyson..."Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change." Yet one needs a standard to measure progress, as well as by continually changing, one is doing the same thing over and over again, the most stale of tedious, monotonous ideals.

I have Orthodoxy, The Everlasting Man and his collected works in my library.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Then I'd say they're slower than molasses going up Mt. Everest in the dead of winter.

You were the one who brought up M-W. So what's your point?

Originally Posted by boxcar

Science fiction is designed to entertain, and not inform us with truth.

Science fiction has made more predictions that have come true than the Bible has. How's this for truth?

• Nuclear weapons, predicted in The World Set Free by H.G. Wells
• Submarines as weapons of war, predicted in 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea by Jules Verne
• Proxy wars such as Vietnam and Afganistan, predicted in 1984 by George Orwell
• A world wide pandemic predicted by Contagion by Scott Z. Burns

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

You were the one who brought up M-W. So what's your point?

Above my paygrade. I can't make you understand it.

Science fiction has made more predictions that have come true than the Bible has. How's this for truth?

• Nuclear weapons, predicted in The World Set Free by H.G. Wells
• Submarines as weapons of war, predicted in 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea by Jules Verne
• Proxy wars such as Vietnam and Afganistan, predicted in 1984 by George Orwell
• A world wide pandemic predicted by Contagion by Scott Z. Burns

And each of these met your stringent, multi-point requirements for predictions, too, right?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

And each of these met your stringent, multi-point requirements for predictions, too, right?

I did not make any stringent, multi-point requirements for predictions. I quoted a list of stringent, multi-point requirements for prophecies. Predictions and prophecies are not the same thing.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

And each of these met your stringent, multi-point requirements for predictions, too, right?

The requirements for a fulfilled prophecy are:

• Made clearly and demonstrably prior the the events predicted.
• Intended to be a prediction.
• A non-mundane claim.
• Answerable only by a single, clear, verifiable occurrence.
• Not open to interpretation.
• Not something people are actively attempting to fulfill.

Notice that a prediction is only one of the requirements.