Comments on: Lee Strobel Answers Your Questions, Part 3

By: Guest

Guest — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 12:36:00 +0000

What the “Strong Free Will” theorem says is that if free will allows humans to “freely” ignore causality, electrons must also ignore causality. This… actually makes perfect sense.

But because it uses the sense of free will as “ignoring causality,” it doesn’t interfere with any sense of free will in accordance with causality. As Thomas Aquinas said: “Free-will is the cause of its own movement, because by his free-will man moves himself to act. But it [is] not of necessity [..] that what is free should be the first cause of itself, [..] for one thing to be cause of another [it need not] be the first cause.”

By: James Sweet

James Sweet — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 19:11:02 +0000

Sorry to be commenting on a two-year-old post… but I’m frankly shocked. Really. Like, intensely shocked. These are really just such truly awful arguments. A couple of them even have patently false premises. The rest of them are the same tired old BS that’s been refuted countless times before.

This is really it?? The best they can muster? Seriously, I’m floored.

By: Rosita

Rosita — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 18:29:49 +0000

“Explain how something can come from nothing”.

The question nobody asked:

Is [your version of god/s] “something” or “nothing”?

If it is “something” then explain why it is better able to come from “nothing” than anything else, or else why it has more ability to be “eternal”.

If it is “nothing” then explain how it could create “something”.

In the final analysis of this silly example of the First Cause cosmological argument, the questioner’s personal imagination of a divinity is inserted into the end statement as if it were already proven. (Therefore there is a First Cause which does not need to come from either something or nothing and which we shall call “god”.)

It is completely irrational to use a highly ambiguous term like “god” to identify what could just as easily be a non-sentient eternally existing “state”, which we might call “energy”. That term is considerably less ambiguous, but a lot less convenient for a theist desperate to make a case for their favorite addicting delusion.

By: Daylight Atheism > Answering Lee Strobel’s Questions for Atheists

Daylight Atheism > Answering Lee Strobel’s Questions for Atheists — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 17:21:56 +0000

[...] Friendly Atheist has posted the third part of a dialogue with Christian apologist Lee Strobel. In it, Strobel poses questions that he thinks would be the most effective at planting seeds of faith in an atheist’s mind. In this post, I’ll answer those questions. I’ve written on some of these issues at greater length in the past, and I’ll also provide links to those essays where appropriate. Historian Gary Habermas: “Utilizing each of the historical facts conceded by virtually all contemporary scholars, please produce a comprehensive natural explanation of Jesus’ resurrection that makes better sense than the event itself.” [...]

By: Siamang

Siamang — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 07:36:12 +0000

Thanks, Colin.

Though I think the post should have been entitled “Lee Strobel Evades Your Questions.”

He didn’t answer mine, which was a direct indictment of his entire self-positioning as an “investigating journalist”.

By: Colin

Colin — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 07:18:00 +0000

I’m late to the party, but couldn’t help but read through your entire series with Lee Strobel. I was somewhat familiar with him from my days of listening to Christian radio, and I think its fantastic you got him to come on as a “guest blogger”. Though the commenters thoroughly disintegrated his arguments, the vast majority maintained the “friendly” tone that sets this blog apart.

Great work here!

By: St. Eutychus » Let there be light

St. Eutychus » Let there be light — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 12:03:47 +0000

[...] can find them here, here, here, and here. It’s a great example of respectful dialogue between two opposing [...]

By: NYCatheist

NYCatheist — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 19:28:06 +0000

Atheists don’t have a unified doctrine of belief regarding the origin of the universe. A quantum fluctuation is one idea explaining the Big Bang, but nobody knows for sure. Personally I like the colliding branes theory because it sounds cool.

I don’t think any atheist would say they “believe” that a random fluctuation caused the Big Bang. I would rather say “entertain the notion”. I don’t really find it very satisfying because still my brain yearns for a cause of that fluctuation no matter what the physicists claim about uncaused quantum events. (Or the origin of the flapping branes.) Basically the only two options I can imagine is either 1. Something always existed, or 2. Something came from nothing, but maybe that’s because I am locked into a temporal reality. I find both options to be absurd.

Short Answer: I don’t know.

PS: Although I agree with you to some extent that an atheist who expressed a belief in a universe birthing quantum fluctuation isn’t being 100% rational, I would have to say he or she is being more rational than someone who believes in some kind of “creator” assuming you are referring to a being with personality. I justify this claim with Occam’s Razor. “Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity.” Besides we do have evidence for quantum fluctuations already.

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 16:09:54 +0000

Do atheists believe the universe is the result of quantum fluctuations (chance)? If so, does that make chance the creator? And why would this belief be any more rationinal than a belief that the universe was created for a reason?

Thanks for your time,

Paul

By: I’m at the 112th Carnival of the Godless

I’m at the 112th Carnival of the Godless — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 15:34:29 +0000

[...] for inclusion. Please check out my post and while your at it have a look at what others have said in reply to Lee Strobel over at the carnival. And for all you new people, please comment and let me know what you [...]