the attractive oxford guy had some very good points in the video debate we watched today on the resurrection. his arguements were both solid but rather tentative at the same time. it was as if he was sure he was right, but that he didnt want to be. it was in accordance to how he prefaced his debate, he was not devout atheist, if he found another line of thinking that made sense to him then he would much rather believe that then be an atheist. in other words, he wasnt an atheist as some people are atheists: just to be one.
he however, was sincerely a naturalist. he believes that everything can be explained naturally, and if he believes that, there really is no other line of thinking to follow aside from being an atheist. as most naturalists, his arguments were solid and logical. his reasoning was clear. however, is that where this ends? how would you address the worldview in this situation? i know how my bible class would, they would probably not understand for one, then they would go on and on about the only points they knew were wrong (or thought they knew) and they would just get nowhere. is naturalism even refutable by an completely objective third party view? or are they only wrong because christianity is right?
No comments:
Post a Comment