Mar 28, 2009
The Case For A Creator, A Scientist And His Journey From Aethism To Faith
“Description: This 60-minute program is a compelling adaptation of Lee Strobel’s personal journey from atheism to faith in God… a journey in search of the truth about intelligent design in the universe. During his academic years, Lee became convinced that God was outmoded, a belief that colored his ensuing career as an award-winning journalist at the Chicago Tribune . Science made the idea of a Creator irrelevant… or so Strobel thought. My road to atheism was paved by science… but, ironically, so was my later journey to God. Lee Strobel Has science discovered God? At the very least, it’s giving faith an immense boost as new findings emerge about the incredible complexity of life and our universe. In The Case for a Creator DVD, Strobel reexamines the theories that once led him away from God. Highlighted by spectacular computer animation, The Case for a Creator DVD is a remarkable film in which you’ll encounter the mind-stretching discoveries from cosmology, cellular biology, DNA research, astronomy, physics, and human consciousness. The Case for a Creator DVD is produced by Illustra Media, the same studio team that released The Privileged Planet, Unlocking the Mystery of Life , Where Does the Evidence Lead and The Prophecies of the Passion . More than 40 minutes of extra bonus features (not included; please upload if you have this!).”
Personally, I’m agnostic. I think atheism is an absurd concept by its own definition: the Cartesian scientific method does not allow conclusions to be made from unknowns. I find the sometimes childish and offensive posturings of athiests (particularly on the net, stumbleupon.com is full of them for some reason [social engineering propaganda for "Generation i", I wonder?]) boring and, frankly, a little scary. In my opinion, we need God. Without the unknown, without the temperment of its uncertainty, we are nothing but soft machines to be tinkered with by psychopathic Corporations and Ivy League Eugenicists. The existance of God is not an argument or a debate any more than a discussion about the existance of the Binomial Theorum. God is a sum of infinite parts, a timeless destination, a collective wonderment forever, most likely, beyond our understanding. And who is any one of us to decide boundaries to such a thing? You have to be technically insane.
- Dr. Schroeder’s Argument Was So Powerful It Played A Part In Influencing The Worlds Leading Atheist, Antony Flew, To Accept The Existence Of An Infinitely Intelligent Creator ** HIGHLY RECOMMENDED
- Issac Newton: The Dark Heretic, “Last of the Magicians” – BBC Documentary
- The Four Horsemen; Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris in a 2 Hours Discussion About Religion And Faith Culture
- The Penultimate Truth About Philip K Dick, 2007
- The Boy Who Lived Before, A Case Study In Reincarnation?
Baruch HaShem!! Let them all search till they all look straight in he face of YHWH (G’d)
Baruch HaShem!! Let them all search till they all look straight in he face of YHWH (G’d)
Saying their is room for a creatory philisophically or theologically is quite different from asserting the absolute nature of the literal translation of the bible, flawed by its own intentions, and all the other dogmatic celebrations and rules ascribed by its particular denominations of a very partuicular and peculiarly prescribed denomination that could be named in short: an abrahamic monotheistic deity.
Saying their is room for a creatory philisophically or theologically is quite different from asserting the absolute nature of the literal translation of the bible, flawed by its own intentions, and all the other dogmatic celebrations and rules ascribed by its particular denominations of a very partuicular and peculiarly prescribed denomination that could be named in short: an abrahamic monotheistic deity.
Saying their is room for a creatory philisophically or theologically is quite different from asserting the absolute nature of the literal translation of the bible, flawed by its own intentions, and all the other dogmatic celebrations and rules ascribed by its particular denominations of a very partuicular and peculiarly prescribed denomination that could be named in short: an abrahamic monotheistic deity.
Saying their is room for a creatory philisophically or theologically is quite different from asserting the absolute nature of the literal translation of the bible, flawed by its own intentions, and all the other dogmatic celebrations and rules ascribed by its particular denominations of a very partuicular and peculiarly prescribed denomination that could be named in short: an abrahamic monotheistic deity.
Hmm. I think the bible could, or maybe should, be forgiven that. I mean nobody expects a Rover Montego to have air bags, satnav and an iPod port so why shouldn’t the bible – by a contemporary thinker – be considered to be an ideological work of numerous layers of intersecting symbolic discourse, rather than literal? Isn’t any description of an event, rather than the event itself, by definition, representative, anyway?
It seems a little to me like proclaiming the carbon dating of the Venitian foundations wrong, and thereby dissassembling the nation’s constitutiion, making it’s people homeless, building a giant fence around the place with an empty horizon painted on it and then handing out leaflets insisting to everyone the place never existed.
And if Atheists are not against the theological or philosophical proposal of the existance of a creatory, and are simply trying to argue that The Bible isn’t a literal historical document of fact, why isn’t this made clear? It would appear, generally to me, that they are making the statement over and over again that science proclaims there can be no Creator: which simply isn’t true or even possible (as argued above), and is so therefore just wrong. Shouldn’t we define what we mean by ‘Creator’ before we start insisting on it’s non existence? Or are there factions within Atheism? Or would this simply be, technically, Agnosticism not Atheism?
Hmm. I think the bible could, or maybe should, be forgiven that. I mean nobody expects a Rover Montego to have air bags, satnav and an iPod port so why shouldn’t the bible – by a contemporary thinker – be considered to be an ideological work of numerous layers of intersecting symbolic discourse, rather than literal? Isn’t any description of an event, rather than the event itself, by definition, representative, anyway?
It seems a little to me like proclaiming the carbon dating of the Venitian foundations wrong, and thereby dissassembling the nation’s constitutiion, making it’s people homeless, building a giant fence around the place with an empty horizon painted on it and then handing out leaflets insisting to everyone the place never existed.
And if Atheists are not against the theological or philosophical proposal of the existance of a creatory, and are simply trying to argue that The Bible isn’t a literal historical document of fact, why isn’t this made clear? It would appear, generally to me, that they are making the statement over and over again that science proclaims there can be no Creator: which simply isn’t true or even possible (as argued above), and is so therefore just wrong. Shouldn’t we define what we mean by ‘Creator’ before we start insisting on it’s non existence? Or are there factions within Atheism? Or would this simply be, technically, Agnosticism not Atheism?
Hmm. I think the bible could, or maybe should, be forgiven that. I mean nobody expects a Rover Montego to have air bags, satnav and an iPod port so why shouldn’t the bible – by a contemporary thinker – be considered to be an ideological work of numerous layers of intersecting symbolic discourse, rather than literal? Isn’t any description of an event, rather than the event itself, by definition, representative, anyway?
It seems a little to me like proclaiming the carbon dating of the Venitian foundations wrong, and thereby dissassembling the nation’s constitutiion, making it’s people homeless, building a giant fence around the place with an empty horizon painted on it and then handing out leaflets insisting to everyone the place never existed.
And if Atheists are not against the theological or philosophical proposal of the existance of a creatory, and are simply trying to argue that The Bible isn’t a literal historical document of fact, why isn’t this made clear? It would appear, generally to me, that they are making the statement over and over again that science proclaims there can be no Creator: which simply isn’t true or even possible (as argued above), and is so therefore just wrong. Shouldn’t we define what we mean by ‘Creator’ before we start insisting on it’s non existence? Or are there factions within Atheism? Or would this simply be, technically, Agnosticism not Atheism?
Hmm. I think the bible could, or maybe should, be forgiven that. I mean nobody expects a Rover Montego to have air bags, satnav and an iPod port so why shouldn’t the bible – by a contemporary thinker – be considered to be an ideological work of numerous layers of intersecting symbolic discourse, rather than literal? Isn’t any description of an event, rather than the event itself, by definition, representative, anyway?
It seems a little to me like proclaiming the carbon dating of the Venitian foundations wrong, and thereby dissassembling the nation’s constitutiion, making it’s people homeless, building a giant fence around the place with an empty horizon painted on it and then handing out leaflets insisting to everyone the place never existed.
And if Atheists are not against the theological or philosophical proposal of the existance of a creatory, and are simply trying to argue that The Bible isn’t a literal historical document of fact, why isn’t this made clear? It would appear, generally to me, that they are making the statement over and over again that science proclaims there can be no Creator: which simply isn’t true or even possible (as argued above), and is so therefore just wrong. Shouldn’t we define what we mean by ‘Creator’ before we start insisting on it’s non existence? Or are there factions within Atheism? Or would this simply be, technically, Agnosticism not Atheism?
don’t make it so difficult! i have seen the blind get their sight back instantly!! blind from birth… 30 in a row… i have seen legs grow, spines got straitened instant! deaf people from birth hearing and dumb people speaking their first words! God is alive! Search for Him till u drop… don’t stop at fighting if Genesis is true.
I started with a very simple question “where did life come from” don’t go for another question till u solved this one! go search nano-technologie, kwantum fysics U WILL FIND GOD!!
When u find Him pray day and light for a revelation of Jesus! U WILL GET IT!!!
I GOT IT ALL
BUY THIS BOOK: THE LONG WAR AGAINST GOD!
(sorry for my crappy english)
LIFE GET’S AWESOME WHEN U SEE THIS LIGHT
don’t make it so difficult! i have seen the blind get their sight back instantly!! blind from birth… 30 in a row… i have seen legs grow, spines got straitened instant! deaf people from birth hearing and dumb people speaking their first words! God is alive! Search for Him till u drop… don’t stop at fighting if Genesis is true.
I started with a very simple question “where did life come from” don’t go for another question till u solved this one! go search nano-technologie, kwantum fysics U WILL FIND GOD!!
When u find Him pray day and light for a revelation of Jesus! U WILL GET IT!!!
I GOT IT ALL
BUY THIS BOOK: THE LONG WAR AGAINST GOD!
(sorry for my crappy english)
LIFE GET’S AWESOME WHEN U SEE THIS LIGHT
How could I have ever have doubted the truth?
The internet is chock full of garbage, but sometimes, there is a gem – this film is one such gem.
Baruch HaShem indeed!