OMG Theology

by Luke Muehlhauser on April 19, 2010 in Christian Theology,Funny,Video

Previous post:

Next post:

{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }

Atheist.pig April 19, 2010 at 1:48 pm

Crack me up everytime.

A Dawkins plug in there aswell. Who said the New Atheists failed.

  (Quote)

lukeprog April 19, 2010 at 2:31 pm

I’ll be more clear about what I mean when I give my speech.

  (Quote)

Bill Maher April 19, 2010 at 2:36 pm

lol, check out that cartesiantheist guy posting on it. that guy is a db.

  (Quote)

Bill Maher April 19, 2010 at 3:44 pm

I found a response to the Impossibility of God by a theologian http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdHKq-vRxnE&feature=related. Anyone have an opinion on this? I think its pretty weak.

  (Quote)

The Crocoduck Hunter April 19, 2010 at 7:27 pm

“Oh and don’t be surprised if the judge is a ROMAN!”

Probably the best Mr. Deity moment yet.

  (Quote)

Gimpness April 20, 2010 at 12:17 am

I found this Mr Deity episode to be the funniest yet

BTW Luke on your “Common Sense Atheism” post
( http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=9 )
the link for the milk miracle article and video don’t seem to work any more. I found a website dedicated to it (apparently it has occurred again twice in fact) and a video on youtube showing it
http://www.milkmiracle.com/html/miracle.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exoCi2N2VxA

  (Quote)

lukeprog April 20, 2010 at 4:39 am

Thanks, Gimpness.

  (Quote)

Reginald Selkirk April 20, 2010 at 8:47 am

I found a response to the Impossibility of God by a theologian http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdHKq-vRxnE&feature=related. Anyone have an opinion on this? I think its pretty weak.  

I listened to the linked audio. It is 6:14 long, and is just part 1 of 6. He says you can’t expect his argument to have full impact until the end, when he weaves all the threads together. Part 1 contains no arguments that I could discern, it is merely introductory stuff, laying out Michael Martin’s arguments, etc.

I don’t think I want to spend the time to listen to all 6 parts.

He says philosophy can be useful in service to theology. Well then, the sword cuts both ways. You have to acknowledge philosophy if it is damaging to theology as well.

He emphasizes that the arguments of Martin concentrate on the attributes of God. Well duh. Attributes are part of the definition of God set before the argument. You should clearly define entities before you can discuss and debate them. If the attributes are proven false or contradictory, then that definition of God is proven false. If he is going to say (and since I can’t be bothered to watch the rest of the series, I can’t be sure that he does), “God exists, you just got the attributes wrong,” that would be an improper retreat to outside the boundaries of the discussion. If he thinks that some God exists, he should tell us what defining attributes He has so we can have a proper discussion. The philosophical attributes for of God are usually set as omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence. This is intended not as a complete description, but as a minimum definition.

  (Quote)

Leave a Comment