Podcasts about theistic

The Declaration of Independence uses the words 'God,' 'the Creator,' and 'Divine Providence,' but many of the Founders were highly skeptical of both Christianity and also organized religion, preferring the scientific and rational ideals of the Enlightenment. In this episode, we explore the tensions between religion and reason in the Declaration of Independence. Topics include the following: -Theistic and deistic beliefs in the Founders, including Franklin and Jefferson -The different religious groups in the Colonies, from Baptists and Catholics to Anglicans and Quakers -Biblical and theological arguments for and against revolution as well as submission to the King -Grievance #20 in the Declaration, which references the Quebec Act of 1774, which allowed for the establishment of Catholicism in the Canadian colony of Quebec -Jefferson's Act for Establishing Religious Freedom (1779) -The Establishment Clause in the First Amendment

Suffering & God's Response Pt. 3 Why Am I Suffering? By Louie Marsh, 3-23-2025   Last slide – Don't know what he died of.   1) God ALLOWS  us to experience the consequences of Free Will.   “15And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”” (Joshua 24:15, ESV)   2) Why doesn't God DESTROY evil & suffering?   · The Argument Against God.   ¨ If a good, eternal and all-powerful God exists, He could annihilate evil at will, and thus end all pain and suffering. ¨ A Being who had the power to do this, is cruel and unjust not to exercise this power and thus end all evil and its consequences. ¨ Theism (the belief in one God – Christianity is Theistic) affirms the all-powerful, loving God we have just described; Who never the less does not annihilate evil. ¨ Therefore: He is cruel and unjust, or He does not exist!   · What's Wrong with the Argument? ¨ It places a restriction on the nature of God, something you can NEVER do!   “35all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, “What have you done?”” (Daniel 4:35, ESV)   ¨ It presupposes that our reasoning processes are equal or superior to God's, and that our solution must be the right one!       "My thoughts are completely different from yours," says the Lord. "And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine. For just as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts higher than your thoughts. Isaiah 55:8-9 (NLT)   ¨ It doesn't work when you try and apply it practically.   Tell Dr. Walter Martin Story of being on the radio with an atheist challenging him to do this as a philosophical experiment.   3) How Then Should I Respond to Suffering?   · I need to ACCEPT that suffering will happen to me and mine.   18  “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. 19  If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. John 15:18-19 (ESV)   · I need to REMEMBER that God is active in my suffering.   20  As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today. Genesis 50:20 (ESV)   · I need to EMBRACE suffering as part of my spiritual growth.   8  Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ …10  that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, Philippians 3:8, 10 (ESV)      

The Bible speaks of a New Heavens and Earth. But what will it be like? Will it be some sort of ethereal, spirit-like existence? Or will it be physical? And how do a person’s beliefs about Genesis and origins—for example, belief in evolution and long ages—impact their beliefs about the coming New Creation? Join Gary Bates for a fascinating—and Gospel-centered—discussion of the New Heavens and Earth. Gary compellingly argues that physical resurrection is not only a basic Gospel truth, but that a physical New Creation is the only kind that could suitably restore what was physically lost in the original Creation due to the Fall. He also shows how belief in millions of years of evolution, death, and suffering before Adam sinned is both unnecessary, and ultimately incompatible with the Bible’s big picture of Creation → Fall → Restoration. ✍️ Links and Show Notes New Heavens and New Earth to include death and suffering? The New Earth: Christ's Victory Over the Fall Will the New Heavens and Earth be physical? Theistic evolution and the doctrine of death

Whether you're a solitary practitioner or part of a coven like Magnum Opus, daily dedication to your spiritual path can elevate your rituals, deepen your relationship with Sathanas, and strengthen your magical practice. Here are 5 ways you can enhance your Satanic rituals. More information: https://www.Patreon.com/Satanism

Theistic Satanism is a path of power, wisdom, and profound transformation, but it is not a path for the timid or the weak. More information: https://www.Patreon.com/Satanism

Come let us reason together, says the Lord—Isaiah 1:18 I. The Imperative to Do Apologetics A. Defend Christianity as objective true, compellingly rational, and existentially pertinent to all of life (1 Peter 3:15) B. Consider apologetic method, but don't fixate on it. Know your epistemology! C. Fideism: defense by not engaging in the battle 1. Cannot dispense with logic and keep your head 2. Scripture challenges us to engage apologetically (chapter 2) 3. History is replete with good apologists: Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Pascal, C.S. Lewis, etc. D. Take it to the streets: apologetics without works is dead (James 2) II. The Laws of Logic A. God and logic (John 1:1-2) B. Noncontradiction: A cannot be non-A 1. To deny it, is to affirm it: “The law is false.” 2. Light-particle duality (physics) does not break it 3. Existential conflict is not a violation of the law C. Excluded middle: Either A or non-A 1. Jesus is Lord or not 2. Buddha was enlightened or not 3. Things being “gray” does not refute excluded middle D. Bivalence: statements are true or false; not neither, not bothWhat if sentences have many meanings? That is a matter of interpretation (epistemology), not truth or falsity E. Identity: A=A 1. Used to refute physicalism about mind and brain (more in chapter 17) 2. “I'm not myself today” does not break it F. Forms of argument: induction, deduction, abduction (best explanation); logical fallacies (ad hominem, circular reasoning, false dichotomy, etc.) III. Worldview Hypothesis Evaluation A. Christianity as a hypothesis or worldview B. Build a cumulative case using many lines of argument 1. Biblical basis for apologetics2. Objective truth is real and knowable3. Explain the Christian worldview4. Theistic arguments: cosmological, design, moral, ontological, religious experience5. Reliability of the Bible6. Identity of Jesus Christ: claims, credentials, achievements C. Present the case carefully, point by point 1. Know the Christian worldview (chapter 4) 2. Know what the worldview rivals are: live hypotheses 3. Know the plausibility structure of your culture (Peter Berger, A Rumor of Angels) 4. Present Christian worldview as intellectually superior to other by testing it according to rational, objective criteria 5. Do not make the criteria internal to Christianity; if so, no apologetics is possible, because you can have no common ground. D. Constructive or positive apologetics: Arguments in support of Christian theism E. Two kinds of negative apologetics 1. Rebut, defeat attacks on Christianity 2. Show the rational weaknesses in other worldviews IV. Criteria for Worldview Evaluation: Play Fair, Play Smart A. This is epistemology: our philosophy of knowledge 1. Truth: correspondence view 2. Knowledge: justified true belief (internalism) B. Criteria are applied in other areas of life and are intuitively credible C. The eight criteria for worldview assessment (pages 53-60) 1. Should explain things adequately without excessive opacity 2. Internal logical consistency 3. Coherence: the web of beliefs is consistent4. Factual adequacy: history, science, human experience 5. Existential viability (not pragmatic theory of truth; see chapter 6) 6. Intellectual, cultural fecundity (fruitfulness) 7. No radical ad hoc adjustment of the worldview 8. Simpler explanations are preferred to complex ones, all things being equal V. The Limits of Apologetics A. Bible itself can be difficult to explain and defend; be patient; study well Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction—2 Peter 3:15-16 B. Our weaknesses as sinners: we may hold the truth poorly Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers—1 Timothy 4:16. C. God's providence may convert people with or without the kind of apologetics we can offer Resources 1. Kenneth Boa, Robert Bowman, Faith Has it's Reasons, 2nd ed. (InterVarsity Press, 2006).2. Steven Cowan, ed., Five Views of Apologetics (Zondervan, 2000).3. Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith (InterVarsity Press, 2011). Also translated into Korean, 2015 by Christian Literature Center, Seoul, Korea.4. Douglas Groothuis, Truth Decay: Defending Christianity Against the Challenge of Postmodernism (InterVarsity Press, 2000).5. Os Guinness, Fool's Talk: Recovering the Christian Art of Persuasion (InterVarsity Press, 2015).6. Gordon Lewis, Testing Christianity's Truth Claims (orig. pub., 1976; University Press of America).7. Brian Morely, Mapping Apologetics (InterVarsity Press, 2015).   Discover more Christian podcasts at lifeaudio.com and inquire about advertising opportunities at lifeaudio.com/contact-us.

A new MP3 sermon from Household of Faith in Christ is now available on SermonAudio with the following details: Title: Non-Theistic Religiousness Subtitle: The Faith Debate Speaker: Troy Skinner Broadcaster: Household of Faith in Christ Event: Radio Broadcast Date: 1/21/2007 Length: 27 min.

Christians actually have arguments for God by using scientific evidence. This episode will help you to reason from the Scriptures with atheists as well as agnostics. Discover more Christian podcasts at lifeaudio.com and inquire about advertising opportunities at lifeaudio.com/contact-us.

Episode 256 – Competing Truth Claims About Genesis Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. In John 14:6, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” The goal of Anchored by Truth is to encourage everyone to grow in the Christian faith by anchoring themselves to the secure truth found in the inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God. Script: (Bible quotes from the New Living Translation) “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell me, if you know so much. Who determined its dimensions and stretched out the surveying line? What supports its foundations, and who laid its cornerstone as the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?” Job Chapter 38, verses 4 through 7, New Living Translation “Christ is the visible image of the invisible God. He existed before anything was created and is supreme over all creation, for through him God created everything in the heavenly realms and on earth. He made the things we can see and the things we can’t see... Everything was created through him and for him. He existed before anything else, and he holds all creation together it.” Colossians Chapter 1, verses 15 through 17, New Living Translation ******** VK: Hi! I’m Victoria K. Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. I’m here today with RD Fierro, author, founder of Crystal Sea Books, and part-time interior designer. He arranges the books in the display case in the lobby. And speaking of arranging things, we have arranged a very special series on Anchored by Truth that will begin next week. Starting next week and for several weeks in a row we will doing a very special series and to help us do that we will have a VERY special guest. RD, do you want to tell us about this extra special series that we’re introducing today on Anchored by Truth? RD: I do indeed. Today we’re going to launch a series of shows I’m calling “The Truth in Genesis.” Obviously, Anchored by Truth is all about demonstrating that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God. We start every show with that proclamation. But I think one of the big challenges that most Christians face today who believe that the Bible is the word of God is how to sustain that belief in a relativistic world and culture that bombards us constantly with the message that there is no such thing as absolute truth and that there is no way to know whether any book, including the Bible, can be shown to be the word of God. And certainly for Christians in contemporary culture one of the most immediate challenges that is placed before us is right at the beginning of the Bible in Chapter 1 where the Bible tells us that God created the heavens, the earth, and everything that exists on the earth including all living creatures and most especially, us. Supposedly, that claim is at odds with what contemporary science tells us about the universe and life. So, for a Christian to maintain their faith in the Bible today culture they must immediately confront the cultural challenge to the Bible’s proclamation about creation. VK: And your contention is that it is a cultural challenge more than a scientific one. Your view is that there is substantial scientific evidence that absolutely supports, as you are saying, the truth in Genesis. And that’s what this series of radio episodes is going to be about. We are going to review some of the scientific evidence that pertains to the age of the universe and earth and the origin and development of life. We believe that conducting this review listeners will be able to see how objective, scientific observations fit very well with a proper understanding of the Genesis text. And to help us do that for most of the shows we have a very special, invited guest to help. But before we provide the details about our upcoming special guest or get too much farther into our discussion about the serious stuff, we’d like to start by just reminding the folks about how the Bible tells us that God did go about creating the heavens and earth. To do that we want to play a portion of Crystal Seas’ upcoming poetic series called the Genesis Saga. For today, let’s listen to Part 1 of the Genesis Saga which we call Seven Days of Wonder. ---- SEVEN DAYS OF WONDER VK: I know I’m biased but I just love the simple beauty of the descriptions contained in that piece. The piece is visual and emotional but it also gives us a description of each day of creation that is absolutely faithful to Chapter 1 of Genesis. RD: And that was certainly our goal. In fact it’s always our goal at Crystal Sea and Anchored by Truth. We want people to always be drawn back to the Bible for their own inspiration and edification. Particularly when it comes to creation the best that we can do today is look at to evidence that can be found in the world around us and see where the evidence points insofar as origins are concerned. But the Bible provides us an eyewitness account of creation from the only One who was there when it all took place: God. Because God, in fact, was not only there, He was the One who did the creating. VK: But of course, that’s the part that’s to so much disagreement today or outright disbelief and criticism. Today, a great many people go to science to get their explanation for the origin of the universe, the earth, life, and people. RD: And in a certain sense that’s ok – provided we always remember that it’s the scientific evidence we should look to – as opposed to simply accepting certain interpretations of that evidence. Everyone – including you, me, and scientists approach the world with an established set of axioms, a lens if you will, through which we will view issues or evidence that comes before us. There is a tendency, however, in our day and age to somehow believe that - if someone calls himself or herself a scientist – that they have set aside all preconceptions and are somehow now operating in an objective, dispassionate fashion without such a set of preconceptions or axioms. While I don’t doubt that the vast majority of scientists are genuinely interested in trying to better understand the world and universe it would be a mistake to not understand that scientists are people complete with agendas, aspirations, and viewpoints that will affect how they approach evidence. VK: Can you give us an example of what you’re thinking about? RD: Sure. There are massive fossil beds - graveyards of thousands and even millions of fish, dinosaurs, and mammals that are found in North America, Europe, and Africa. The same is true of plants. From Utah-Colorado north to Alberta-Saskatchewan, Canada, thousands of dinosaurs are found in certain beds such as the Morrison Formation. These sites reveal that great quantities of animals were buried together rapidly. The rapid burial resulted in excellent preservation of the remains and the position of mammals suggests death by drowning. In Brazil there is a large plateau where fish fossils are found with the skin, muscles, organs etc. all preserved. The fish look like they had just been caught but they are petrified and hard as stone. They are abundant and distributed over several thousand square miles. The plateau where these fossils are found is well above sea level and a good 500 miles from the Atlantic Ocean. This is remarkable because experiments with fresh dead fish have shown that dead fish in water will disintegrate and their skeletons will fall apart in less than one week. Only catastrophic conditions would have enabled the preservation of such an extensive collection of animals and plants so exquisitely preserved. A world-wide catastrophe involving water is a very reasonable explanation for these observations. But a geologist or paleontologist who rejects the Biblical flood account will come to the same evidence but will provide a different explanation for the evidence. VK: Such as? RD: Well they might believe there have been catastrophic floods in the past, just not a world-wide one. They might believe in a more localized flood perhaps based on a catastrophe caused by an asteroid strike or an immense undersea volcanic eruption that caused a massive tsunami. VK: So your point is that different people can approach the same body of evidence and arrive at very different conclusions. And a part of their determination will be based on the set of axioms that they use to approach either life in general or in the practice of their profession. And we see that kind of variation in the results of decision making every day in the world around us. Two different financial analysts look at exactly the same set of financial statements or business presentations and one says a company’s stock is a buy and the other says it’s a sell. Two different forensic examiners look at the same evidence and one might say it points to the innocence of a defendant and the other believes it points to guilt. RD: Exactly. And that’s one of the reasons we wanted to do a series on the book of Genesis because so often today the only discussion people hear about the earth’s past is very one sided. Today, almost without exception, we are told that all scientific evidence points to a universe and earth that are billions of years old and that life on earth began without an intelligent cause – or as I would say God. So, we wanted to do a series of Anchored by Truth episodes that examine some of the latest scientific discoveries and see whether or not the only reasonable conclusion is that science contradicts Genesis. That’s the reason we’re calling this series The Truth in Genesis. VK: And to help us do that we’ve invited one of the premier scientists and experts on the question of origins, Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, to be our guest in the studio for the next several weeks. For those who aren’t familiar with Dr. Sarfati’s work we would encourage listeners to check out his impressive body of writing. He’s written a number of widely selling books that challenge the conventional views of what chemistry, geology, and paleontology say about the age of the universe and the origin of life. Dr. Sarfati has sold hundreds of thousands of books such as Refuting Evolution, By Design, and The Greatest Hoax on Earth. Dr. Sarfati will be addressing a wide variety of topics during this series including problems with conventional dating methodologies, affirmative evidence that the universe is actually fairly young, scientific challenges to life arising from non-living chemicals, and evidence that the earth’s surface provides abundant evidence of a world-wide flood. We will even be doing an entire show just on dinosaurs and what the latest dinosaur research actually tells us about the earth’s history. RD: I think this will be a truly amazing series especially for listeners who have never had the chance to do any personal investigation into what science actually reveals about the key questions of the age of the universe and how life on the earth began. And I’d like to emphasize that while we will not be shy about discussing the Bible in connection with these important topics, this series really will be top heavy with science. Dr. Sarfati’s title is the Lead Scientist for Creation Ministries International. He has a Ph.D. in physical chemistry and he is an internationally ranked chess champion. He’s well known for playing up to chess with up to 12 players simultaneously while he is blindfolded. VK: He sounds pretty impressive but what about your earlier warning that scientists are just people and that we shouldn’t necessarily accept their opinions just because they are scientists? RD: And I’m standing by that warning. I don’t think anyone should accept Dr. Sarfati’s analyses just because they come from him any more than I think that we should blindly place our trust in any human source. The point of my earlier observation is that we can and should listen to people who are acknowledged experts in their fields whether it’s a geologist, paleontologist, medical doctor, or auto mechanic. But we should always employ our own reasoning skills to examine what they’re telling us and make our own determination about whether what they’re telling us makes sense, especially if they start telling us that their point of view is the only reasonable or even possible one - which is something that evolutionary adherents have been saying for decades. VK: So what you’re saying is that when someone says, “Evolution is not a theory. It is a fact,” that what they’re really trying to do isn’t to examine the evidence for or against the evolutionary hypothesis. The real intent is shut down debate. They’re trying to avoid any need to consider evidence that doesn’t support their position. RD: Yes. All too often that’s what happens. Conventional science has embraced the evolutionary hypothesis for so long that a great many scientists, as well as their lay followers, are no longer willing to consider any alternatives. But despite these assertions, the truth is that “goo to you,” “particles to people,” “the sea to me” position on evolution is not a proven fact. So, people who believe in believe in Biblical creationism simply want to point out that since it is not a proven fact evolution as the solution for the origin of life should not be promoted dogmatically. But throughout the halls of schools and colleges everywhere as well as in the popular press and media it is. Phillip Johnson in his groundbreaking work Darwin on Trial devoted an entire chapter to discussing what Johnson called the “Darwinist Religion.” In other words, all too often today the scientific problems with evolution are simply dismissed because the evolutionary paradigm is deemed to be so sacrosanct no forms of dissent are tolerable. VK: But one of the ironies that we are going to cover during the series is the fact that some of the evidentiary elements that are often offered in support of evolution actually point in the opposite direction. For instance, the fossil record is often touted as demonstrating that there is empirical evidence for evolutionary development. But even Charles Darwin recognized that the fossil record at his time didn’t support his theory. He famously wrote, “Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.” Darwin hoped that with further exploration gaps in the fossil record would be closed and so called “intermediate species” would be identified. Yet despite the fact that over 100,000 species are now known from the fossil record there are only a handful of truly viable candidates that are known to be possible intermediates. RD: And that’s just one example of the scientific problems that plagues the evolutionary hypothesis and it’s a great example of the kinds of topics we hope to discuss during the series. And since time is running out on this episode of Anchored by Truth I’d like to cover one final point. During this series we are going to be contrasting Biblical creationism vs. “molecules to men” evolution. I am well aware that there are various positions regarding origins and biological development that try to straddle the obvious gaps between those two positions. VK: Such as so-called theistic evolution where God created life but then used evolution to form the species that we see existing today? RD: Yes. Theistic evolution is an attempt to resolve the tension between Biblical creationism and evolution. Just like the Day-Age approach is an attempt to reconcile the differences in the time scales we get from the Bible and from conventional science. I think there are significant problems with both of those approaches and other middle-of-the-road type of strategies. For instance, one of the problems with theistic evolution is that it places death before sin in the chronology of the history and I think that’s problematic given the entirety of scripture. So, because of the limited time we’ll have for addressing a large variety of topics we’re going to concentrate on how science supports the orthodox view of Biblical creationism because that’s the view that gets the least time in most discussions about these issues. VK: And one of the biggest reasons we want to that is that we want to be respectful of our listeners time. All of us have a lot going on so we want to be sure that if listeners are kind enough to tune into the show or the podcast we want their time to be rewarded with information that will help them develop in their own investigation of scripture and development of their faith. Since we’ve begun a focus on the first chapter of Genesis, how about if today we hear a prayer of adoration for the Creator? ---- PRAYER OF ADORATION FOR THE CREATOR (radio version) VK: We’d like to remind our audience that a lot of our radio episodes are linked together in series of topics so if they missed any episodes or if they just want to hear one again, all of these episodes are available on your favorite podcast app. To find them just search on “Anchored by Truth by Crystal Sea Books.” We hope you’ll be with us next time as we are joined by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati to begin our in depth look at the truth in Genesis. If you’d like to hear more, try out crystalseabooks.com where “We’re not famous but our Boss is!” (Bible Quotes from the New Living Translation) The Book of Job, chapter 38, verses 4 through 7 The epistle to the Colossians, chapter 15 verses 1 through 17 https://creation.com/right-perspective-interpreting-data https://creation.com/gods-days https://creation.com/how-did-dinosaurs-grow-so-big https://creation.com/3-rs-of-evolution https://creation.com/divine-engineer-sarfati-by-design-review https://creation.com/the-evolution-trains-a-comin

Are there strong scientific arguments for theism? Is there such a thing as objective morality? How is a worldview built? On this ID The Future, philosopher of science Dr. Stephen Meyer answers these questions and more in the first hour of a new two-hour interview on various topics related to his work and books. Dr. Meyer answers questions related to worldview, consciousness, arguments for theism, objective morality, materialism, the nature of information, and more. This is Part 1 of a two-part interview. Source

Do you have doubts about classical theism? Are you one of those people who finds yourself uncertain if classical theism is true? If you have answered yes, you might be suffering from a multitude of pathologies. At least, that is what Carl Trueman says in a recent podcast lecture. Buckle up for a wild ride today. I will be giving you a sarcastic examination of Credo Magazine's recent podcast episode. Credits Host: R.T. Mullins (PhD, University of St Andrews) is a lecturer and researcher at the University of Lucerne, and a visiting professor of philosophy at Palm Beach Atlantic University. Music by Rockandmetal_domination – Raising-questions. ⁠⁠⁠rtmullins.com⁠⁠⁠ Support the Show: ⁠⁠⁠https://www.patreon.com/user?u=66431474⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠https://ko-fi.com/rtmullins⁠⁠ --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/ryan-mullins/support

I provide six aspects of our moral experience that are best explained by a theistic God. This is the heart of the moral argument for God's existence. Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.comEmail: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.comFacebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believParler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve

I round out my critique of non-theistic explanations for morality, including the view that morality is a brute fact, the view that logic can ground morality, the view that science can explain morality, and the best of all non-theistic explanations: moral Platonism.Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.comEmail: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.comFacebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believParler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve

Spent the entire episode offering 11 critiques against the most popular non-theistic account of morality: Evolutionary Ethics.Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.comEmail: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.comFacebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believParler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve

Accounting for the existence of real morality (the grounding problem) is the biggest challenge facing any moral theory. I talk about this problem in some detail before beginning my critique of non-theistic explanations for morality, starting with the social constructionism and social contract theory.Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.comEmail: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.comFacebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believParler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve

The Christadelphians (; or Christadelphianism) are a restorationist and millenarian Christian group who hold a view of biblical unitarianism. There are approximately 70,000 Christadelphians in around 120 countries. The movement developed in the 1800's and their only authority is the inspired scriptures of Truth (The Bible Extant) they aim to follow it's teachings without compromise and this separates them from other Christian denominations, it is the belief that this is the same truth (same Gospel) that was preached to Abraham and subsequently by Christ and the apostles after christ's death and resurrection. They dismiss outright Heaven going (the exception being Christ himself but who will return (Acts 1:11), The Trinity, the Devil or Satan as a supernatural external force, Theistic evolution and evolution, Holy Spirt gifts and other mainstream doctrines held by popular Christianity. They do acknowledge a literal resurrection and judgement of the faithful dead upon Christ's return to the earth at the appointed time when Christ will establish God's Kingdom upon the earth after subduing the opposing religious and political nations (Armageddon). Leading to a time when God will be all in all' Num 14:21 - But as truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the LORD. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/christadelphians-talk/message

Are there strong scientific arguments for theism? Is there such a thing as objective morality? How is a worldview built? On this ID The Future, philosopher of science Dr. Stephen Meyer answers these questions and more in the first hour of a new two-hour interview on various topics related to his work and books. Dr. Meyer answers questions related to worldview, consciousness, arguments for theism, objective morality, materialism, the nature of information, and more. This is Part 1 of a two-part interview. Source

I read from emergency medical technician to émeute.     Evolution is a fascinating topic. It seems like "Darwinism" is the prevailing thought when it comes to evolution but this first link takes you to alternative theories. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_Darwinian_evolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergent_evolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution     The word of the episode is "emergency room".     Theme music from Tom Maslowski https://zestysol.com/     Merchandising! https://www.teepublic.com/user/spejampar     "The Dictionary - Letter A" on YouTube   "The Dictionary - Letter B" on YouTube   "The Dictionary - Letter C" on YouTube   "The Dictionary - Letter D" on YouTube   "The Dictionary - Letter E" on YouTube     Featured in a Top 10 Dictionary Podcasts list! https://blog.feedspot.com/dictionary_podcasts/     Backwards Talking on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLmIujMwEDbgZUexyR90jaTEEVmAYcCzuq     dictionarypod@gmail.com https://www.facebook.com/thedictionarypod/ https://www.threads.net/@dictionarypod https://twitter.com/dictionarypod https://www.instagram.com/dictionarypod/ https://www.patreon.com/spejampar https://www.tiktok.com/@spejampar 917-727-5757

I hesitate to add yet another voice to the cacophony of cries of agony, suffering, outrage and acrimony emanating out of Israel, Gaza, and surrounding Arab states, exacerbated by the 24/7 chattering class. Not to mention the ongoing carnage in Ukraine, which seems to have slipped under the global radar. But I fear that if we in Zen do not try to address these terrible global realities in the context of Buddhism, it may be taken as an indication, or an admission on our part, that Zen, along with its teachings and practice, have finally faded into irrelevance, in the face of such intractable 21st century problems. But as Katagiri Roshi reminds us, “You have to say something.” And Matsuoka Roshi did not shy from taking on the atrocities of his day. Check out his collected talks. Actually, just the opposite is true. It is not that the Zen Way is a panacea, or that it offers a silver bullet that will somehow “fix” a situation that has been several millennia in the making. But Buddhism points to the fundamental origin of the problem, traditionally defined as “craving” or “thirst.” The difficulty is that we have to individually “abandon” that craving, in order to enable the cessation of suffering, not only for ourselves but for others. But the individuals directly affected by the war seem to have no power over, or protection from, the influence and actions of the masses. So it would seem that our challenge may be to define the actual source of the conflict in the Middle East as originating in some form of craving, one that has been in force since long before the founding of Israel, just after the end of WWII. We must concede that the abandonment of that craving may or may not be possible, given the volatility of the situation, and the likelihood that cooler heads will not prevail for some time. According to my limited understanding of Buddhism, craving begins before birth, innate in the very desire to exist. This idea amounts to a pre-Enlightenment or proto-scientific hypothesis, an attempt to explain Nature's overwhelming fecundity, the irresistible will to life, manifested as the innumerable cascade of seeds, sperm, spores, and other forms of burgeoning life, populating the natural sphere in all corners of the planet. In sentient beings such as humans, this craving is clearly inchoate, beginning before or at conception and continuing in the womb, arising out of basic ignorance of the causes and conditions of our own origins. Whatever level of awareness can be attributed to the developing embryo, it is of a relatively primitive nature, compared to its later stages of maturation. Buddha made a noble attempt to model the process of growth of sentient beings, arising from primordial ignorance under the influence of mental formations, slowly differentiating the senses, and finally segueing through birth, aging, and death; then beginning another round through rebirth, in the teaching known as the “Twelvefold Chain of Interdependent Co-Arising” (Skt: pratityasamutpada). Find the link to the illustration in the show notes for this segment. Note that “mental formations” (#2) comprises the second link in the chain, arising in the womb out of the first link, the primordial sea of ignorance (#1) from which the universe arises. These formations are the motives, intentions and desires that underly all other dimensions of life, and which underpin our natural consciousness (#3) as a sentient being. The growth of the fetus continues, following its DNA blueprint — as we now know from modern genetics — resulting in a particular form (#4) of the organism; which leads to development of the six senses (#5), and contact (#6) with the outer world; which, in the context of the mother's womb, would arise from subtle sensation (#7) and perhaps a level of subliminal perception (#8), such as hunger experienced as craving (#9); which then develops into clinging (#10); leading to “becoming” (#11) — in the most general sense of the word — in modern terms, ontogeny; and finally to birth (#12), which ultimately reverts to aging and death (#13). Then, according to this theory, the cycle begins all over again. Tradition has it that it takes three full cycles through the chain to complete the process. So what does all this have to do with war, let alone the karmic consequences we might associate with war? Modern biology might find this model overly simplified, but I propose that we apply it to the arising of social awareness in the individual. We may find some linkage as to how a chain of conflicts arising between individuals can spread within a community, and between ethnic groups, eventually fueling international strife. One of the guest speakers at a conference we held in collaboration with the Department of Religion of Emory University in 2000, structured around the scholar-practitioner divide and focused on the teachings of Master Dogen, was asked, during the Q&A following his address, whether Christians, Buddhists, and Muslims, could truly engage in a dialog. His answer was “No.” As long as they are Christians, Buddhists, and Muslims, no dialog is possible. At the risk of repeating myself, allow me to take this moment to point out the obvious: Buddha was not a Buddhist, any more than Christ was a Christian. These concepts came into the vernacular following their life and death on Earth. They have now become additional labels for identifying and differentiating the constructed self. During his recent peacemaking trip to Israel, president Joe Biden was quoted as saying something like: “Whether you are Muslim, Jewish, or Christian, if you give up who you are, the terrorists have won.” But Buddhism suggests that we should do precisely that. We are to thoroughly examine the reality of this “who you are” — the imputed or constructed “self” — with a judicious skepticism, particularly in meditation. When we do so, we are told, we will see through the outer appearance of the self, penetrating to the emptiness at its core. This “emptiness” is an inadequate translation of the Sanskrit shunyatta, which points to the dynamic, ever-changing reality underlying all phenomena, and not a vacuous, woeful, or frightening void of nothingness, as it is sometimes interpreted. Perhaps we can draw an analogous parallel between the progress of a single person through these stages of life, as articulated by Buddha, to that of the tribe, or community, a group of individuals united by a common gene pool and shared biological and geographical roots, as well as agreed-upon social mores and norms. When two such groups clash, the knee-jerk reaction is to point fingers and blame the other side for starting the current conflict. The response is always to reflect the blame back on the accuser, in a seemingly endless regress into the fog of history. Observers seem compelled to weigh in on one side or the other. If we look at the suffering in an individual's life, we might entertain the same question: Whose fault is this? Who started this? Whose idea was this? Theistic philosophies have a ready answer — that this life, with all its imperfections, is a reflection of God's will — moving in mysterious ways that we cannot hope to comprehend. Applying this same nostrum to international strife seems largely an evasive maneuver, an avoidance of the responsibility of actually resolving the dispute in human terms. In Zen, we embrace the idea that, if anyone is to blame for our individual life, it is us. The repentance verse expresses this notion concisely: All my past and harmful karmaFrom beginningless greed, hate and delusionBorn of body, mouth, and mind,I now fully avow. “Avow” is a rather archaic term, meaning to assert or confess openly. In other words, we are owning it — assuming responsibility for the unintended consequences of our own behavior — we are not blaming others. We might want to blame our parents, and their parents, another endless regress, as the proximate cause of our own existence. Good luck with that. Even if they are at fault, we cannot hold them accountable, at least not for long. After their demise, we are left to face the same reality, without the scapegoat. Similarly, in international conflicts, which often amount to tribal warfare on steroids, it might be helpful for all sides to own up to their own culpability in what has come to pass, as president Biden did in recalling the overwrought reaction to the 911 crisis. This would amount to a simple recognition and acceptance of one of the seminal marks of dukkha: “imperfection.” Admitting that “mistakes were made” — before the situation accelerates to an irresolvable level of mutually-inflicted violence. One of the black marks on US exceptionalism — that of Hiroshima & Nagasaki — has become the mother of all mistakes that have ever been made on the global stage. The country that first dropped the Big Bomb on civilians is hardly in a position to lecture others on the morality of human decency in following the “laws of war,” the mother of all oxymorons. War is precisely the end of law, in any human sense of the term. Where people — or, for that matter, any sentient beings of the same species — are separated, they tend to evolve in different directions. This principle of Darwin's “Origin of Species” theory can explain a lot, such as the development of varying cuisines, dialects and languages, as well as the susceptibility of isolated populations to propaganda. What if the appropriate authority, such as the United Nations, undertook a program of social exchange in all such closed-border situations as that of Israel and the Gaza strip? What that might look like would be providing safe passage from each side of the border to the other for limited groups of families or age groups, who would spend a limited amount of time in the company or homes of their counterparts in the “other” culture, the designated enemy. This is an old idea whose time may have come around again. If people get to know each other on a personal, more intimate basis, and “break bread” together, they are a lot less likely to turn on each other for no reason, and to find common ground. Wasting the opportunity of a lifetime in the service of a questionable, survival-oriented self finds its analog in following political leaders who are similarly self-striving, finding at the end-of-the-day, or at the end of your life, that not only are they, your titular leaders, unappreciative of your loyalty, but that they even regard you with contempt, as part of the problem, or at best a pawn in their geopolitical chess game. In the personal sphere of meditation, you may fight your own war, and hopefully find your individual salvation. Then, and only then, you may be able to share it with others in, and outside of, your social sphere. Good luck with that. Don't give up.* * * Elliston Roshi is guiding teacher of the Atlanta Soto Zen Center and abbot of the Silent Thunder Order. He is also a gallery-represented fine artist expressing his Zen through visual poetry, or “music to the eyes.”UnMind is a production of the Atlanta Soto Zen Center in Atlanta, Georgia and the Silent Thunder Order. You can support these teachings by PayPal to donate@STorder.org. Gassho.Producer: Shinjin Larry Little

I show how we can get from the generic concept of a "god" creating the universe to the God of Christian theism, and then move on to objections against the conclusion of the Kalam, starting with the most common of all objections: Who caused God?Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.comEmail: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.comFacebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believParler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve

In addition to having the properties of immateriality, spacelessness, eternality, and power, I argue that the First Cause must also possess the properties of intelligence and volition. Since intelligence and volition are features of personal agents, the First Cause must be a personal agent. Only the God of theism fits the bill. Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.comEmail: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.comFacebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believParler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve

Now that we have established that the Kalam successfully demonstrates that the universe has a cause, we need to determine what or who that cause is. Using a logical analysis, I explain the necessary properties of such a cause. I examine each one to determine whether they exhibit the necessary properties of the First Cause and find each one wanting.Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.comEmail: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.comFacebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believParler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve

How to ground truth in reality

In this episode, Brian Auten and Chad Gross interview Christian Philosopher Peter S. Williams about his book An Informed Cosmos: Essays on Intelligent Design Theory. Find his resources at www.peterswilliams.com0:24 - Intro to our guest2:15 - About the book An Informed Cosmos9:25 - Getting clarity on what intelligent design is14:10 - Is I.D. science? And defining “science”19:39 - Truth as the most important approach21:56 - Imposing worldviews on the data?25:01 - Is evolution the means by which God created?29:21 - What role does a Darwinian process play?35:00 - How did Peter go from being a theistic evolutionist to an ID proponent?40:45 - What tipped the balance for Peter?46:52 - What role does information play in design detection?53:21 - Can we recognize non-intelligent design?54:57 - Theistic interpretations?56:22 - Paley's “watchmaker” shows that we can detect design?1:00:13 - Prevailing errors when thinking about design1:05:00 - Is intelligent design “creationism”?1:06:25 - How has intelligent design changed Peter's thinking?1:13:30 - Peter's music - www.peterswilliams.com/composingCheck out a past episode with Peter S. Williams:006 - Outgrowing God? with Peter S. Williams - https://a315.co/4615IYjBooks by Peter S. Williams:An Informed Cosmos: Essays on Intelligent Design Theory - https://a315.co/48ugxUcA Universe From Someone: Essays on Natural Theology - https://a315.co/46GLUtlApologetics in 3D: Essays on Apologetics and Spirituality - https://a315.co/3PtMqUuOutgrowing God? A Beginner's Guide to Richard Dawkins and the God Debate - https://a315.co/3Pww9xPGetting at Jesus: A Comprehensive Critique of Neo-Atheist Nonsense About the Jesus of History - https://a315.co/46pUFriA Faithful Guide to Philosophy: A Christian Introduction to the Love of Wisdom - https://a315.co/3Ptm0C3C.S. Lewis vs the New Atheists - https://a315.co/48ugxUc================================We appreciate your feedback.If you're on TWITTER, you can follow Chad @TBapologetics.You can follow Brian @TheBrianAutenAnd of course, you can follow @Apologetics315If you have a question or comment for the podcast, record it and send it our way using www.speakpipe.com/Apologetics315 or you can email us at podcast@apologetics315.com

Please consider making a donation, however small, to The Thinking Muslim, to receive a share in the reward and to help us make a greater impact. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠You can donate either through a one-time contribution: https://www.thinkingmuslim.com/Donateor join our Patreon to get access to exclusive events: https://www.patreon.com/TheThinkingMuslim/You can now purchase our Thinking Muslim mug here https://www.thinkingmuslim.com/merch Sign up to our newsletter https://jalalayn.substack.com.........................Modernity brings with it the promise that ultimate truth can come through reason – a reason that often excludes believers as outside the realm of thinking. Liberalism places religion in a ‘non-reasoned' bucket, which should be tolerated like all other irrational but ultimately comforting lifestyle choices. This is primarily why there is general animus against anyone who displays an over-exuberance towards belief systems. Such people are described as fundamentalists, unthinking and unable to make their own rational choices. Our guest this week, Jamie Turner is no stranger to these arguments. He is currently pursuing his doctoral research at the University of Birmingham, looking at Ibn Taymiyyah and natural theology.As always, you can comment your thoughts below.Find us on:Twitter: https://twitter.com/thinking_muslimFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/The-Thinking-Muslim-Podcast-105790781361490Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thinkingmuslimpodcast/Telegram: https://t.me/thinkingmuslim Host: https://twitter.com/jalalaynWebsite Archive: https://www.thinkingmuslim.com#TheThinkingMuslimPodcastThe Thinking Muslim Podcast Episode 10900:00 Introduction02:11 The idea of fitra 04:47 Fitra from a cognitive pov05:19 Theistic disposition as natural12:25 Nature of theistic faculty 13:30 The Mu'tazilite view 14:43 The Hadith about fitra18:00 Role of environment 20:36 Our role as agents 22:05 The limits of fitra24:00 Role of revelation25:41 Convert vs. revert 28:42 Moral intuition 30:35 Journey to Islam 33:38 The role of reason 38:48 Obligation to use reason 45:33 Too much thinking?47:52 Learning to reason well 49:27 Studying philosophy 51:50 Fitra and moral judgements 53:42 Dawah 55:37 Evidence for God57:28 Signs in nature and humans 1:00:57 Responding to Stephen Fry Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Romans 1:24-2:1 // Tom NelsonAs thoughtful readers of the text, let's remember that rabbi Paul who wrote the book of Romans writes from a coherent biblical worldview.  A worldview is an attempt to make coherent sense of our lives and the world. All worldviews are built on faith assumptions that cannot be absolutely proven with certainty whether they are atheistic, (there is no god), pantheistic (everything is god or a force), or theistic (There is a God, distinct from us.) Worldviews, we all have them–whether they are carefully thought through or not, all of us wrestle with life's biggest questions and the most challenging experiences of our lives. Questions like where did we come from, is there meaning to our lives, what is wrong with the world, what about suffering and evil, and where are we heading? For Paul, the heart of the problem is the problem of the human heart. Since that fateful day long ago in the Garden of Eden, humans have chosen to embrace a lie, worshiping created things rather than the Creator. The big problem built off the big lie is that while we were created to worship God, we became idol worshippers rather than God worshippers. Sermon Notes: https://www.bible.com/events/49132474 Prayer Requests: https://ccefc.ccbchurch.com/goto/forms/2509/responses/new23.09.10

Alex Strasser (Protestant) and John Buck (Catholic) debate the merits of finite theism, the view that God is limited in power. Theistic finitism is less vulnerable to the problem of evil than perfect being theism, but are there other trade-offs that make the notion of a finite God less defensible overall? John is defending the … Continue reading Debate: Is God Finite? →

Ken explains the Christian view of truth and why it matters

Welcome to another episode of Philosophical Perspectives. In this episode, we explore theistic agnosticism, a unique philosophical view that combines elements of theism and agnosticism. It acknowledges the existence of a higher power, but also recognizes the limitations of human understanding. We discuss the concept of fideism, Christian agnosticism, and the importance of humility and open-mindedness when it comes to matters of faith and spirituality. source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism

#lucifermorningstar #satanism #lucifer CONNECT & SUPPORT

Hören Sie, Hören Sie, die Kinder der Nacht, wie sie schöne Musik machen. Often followers of the LHP seek my advice. I assist whenever possible, as my mission is to further the world-wide message of Theistic Satanism; not to recruit but to inform. YouTube: https://youtu.be/l7FgAyws1U8

This year, Magnum Opus celebrates the Summer Solstice on June 21st with a tailored ritual which exemplifies ritualistic Devil worship and Demonic conjuring. YouTube: https://youtu.be/z02RJqOnH7s

In today's episode, I discuss some listener questions about Hell and Instagram. I give you the gossip on the latest Carolina Analytic Theology workshop. I discuss the alleged debate between Classical Theism vs Theistic Personalism. Then I critique Brian Davies' claim that God is not a moral agent. Credits Host: R.T. Mullins (PhD, University of St Andrews) is a lecturer and researcher at the University of Lucerne. Music by Rockandmetal_domination – Raising-questions. rtmullins.com Support the Show: https://www.patreon.com/user?u=66431474 https://ko-fi.com/rtmullins

Cosmological And Ontological Arguments Cosmological And Ontological Arguments are classic theistic arguments. They are some of the most well-known and oldest in the philosophy field. Frame's approach puts a presuppositional spin to both kinds that bolsters each point better by providing a foundation for the argument. Here, we cover the impossibility of uncaused causes in [...] The post Cosmological And Ontological Arguments – Ep.225 – Apologetics By John Frame – Theistic Argument – Part 4 appeared first on Cave To The Cross Apologetics.

Knowledge And Design Moving from the moral argument for God to one of knowledge and design takes us further into the traditional theistic arguments. Here, Frame presents the epistemological nature of a source that is personal and allows us to know things. The alternative explanation does not give us any reason to justify knowledge or [...] The post Knowledge And Design – Ep.224 – Apologetics By John Frame – Theistic Argument – Part 3 appeared first on Cave To The Cross Apologetics.

Absolute Moral Authority Last week we looked at issues when it comes to thinking moral authority is arbitrary or just happens to be. This week, Frame looks at absolute moral authority and where it comes from. Probably no surprise that God is going to be the source but do we run into circular issues by [...] The post Absolute Moral Authority – Ep.223 – Apologetics By John Frame – Theistic Argument – Part 2 appeared first on Cave To The Cross Apologetics.

The Moral Argument For Theism We jump back into John Frame's Apologetics book by digging into what Frames to be valuable theistic arguments – even for presuppositionalists. After laying the foundation and critiquing agnosticism, Frame provides the start of what he considers one of the best proofs for God – the moral argument for theism. [...] The post The Moral Argument For Theism – Ep.222 – Apologetics By John Frame – Theistic Argument – Part 1 appeared first on Cave To The Cross Apologetics.

Dr. Cindy Ravenmoon is an Occultist, Witch, Ordained Pagan Minister, Reiki Master and Meditation/Yoga teacher. Website: https://ravenmagik.org

Michael Jones of InspiringPhilosophy joins me for Episode 222 of the Parker's Pensées Podcast to discuss theistic idealism, the idea that we live in the mind of God. We discuss quantum physics, simulation hypothesis, philosophy of mind, the doctrine of the Trinity and much more! If you like this podcast, then support it on Patreon for $3, $5 or more a month. Any amount helps, and for $5 you get a Parker's Pensées sticker and instant access to all the episode as I record them instead of waiting for their release date. Check it out here: Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/parkers_pensees If you want to give a one-time gift, you can give at my Paypal: https://paypal.me/ParkersPensees?locale.x=en_US Check out my merchandise at my Teespring store: https://teespring.com/stores/parkers-penses-merch Come talk with the Pensées community on Discord: dsc.gg/parkerspensees Sub to my Substack to read my thoughts on my episodes: https://parknotes.substack.com/ Check out my blog posts: https://parkersettecase.com/ Check out my Parker's Pensées YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYbTRurpFP5q4TpDD_P2JDA Check out my other YouTube channel on my frogs and turtles: https://www.youtube.com/c/ParkerSettecase Check me out on Twitter: https://twitter.com/trendsettercase Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/parkers_pensees/ --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/parkers-pensees/support

How compatible is the biblical creation account and Darwin's theory of evolution? Can we bring the two together?  Most Christians in the sciences are theistic evolutionists but how strong is the support from the bible and science for this position?  Join Pat and Dr. Fazale Rana as they discuss theistic evolution and why they are not theistic evolutionists.

There are three views Christian scientists and theologians hold regarding the age of earth and universe: Young earth creationism, Theistic evolution and Old Earth creationism. Many are familiar with the Young earth creationists view. However, there is some confusion between old earth creationism and theistic evolution.  What are the differences between these two? Join Pat and Dr. Fazale Rana as they discuss the differences and why they are not theistic evolutionists.

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..." Most of us are familiar with the first line of the Book of Genesis. And whether we believe it or not, most of us would agree that when taken literally, it's incompatible with the modern-day scientific worldview. But for the first time, Genesis has been analyzed by dozens of scientists and scholars who provide a reasonable case for Creation. Thomas Purifoy (writer, producer, and director of the film Is Genesis History?) explains. Tune in to explore: What neo-Darwinian evolution can't explain about life and biology (e.g., the complexity of the genome) Theistic evolution – what are the main tenets? A closer look at natural processes believed to occur over millions of years and how ‘catastrophism' provides a different view Is radiocarbon dating a reliable method? Folded rock in the Grand Canyon – the deeper truths it might hold Interested in learning more? Press play to hear the full conversation, and watch Is Genesis History? for free: Is Genesis History? - Watch the Full Film - YouTube. Be on the lookout for Purifoy's new documentary titled Mountains After the Flood Episode also available on Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/38oMlMr

Ted Poston is Professor of Philosophy and Inaugural Director of the McCollough Institute for Pre-Medical Scholars at the University of Alabama. In this interview, we chat about his paper on the intrinsic probability of theism, atheism, and Axiarchism along with what that means for the God debate! The paper: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy/vol37/iss4/3/ Follow Ted ( @tedtalksphilosophy ) -------------------------------- GIVING -------------------------------- Please consider becoming a Patron! Patreon (Thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/AdherentApologetics YouTube Membership: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCO8jj_CQwrRRwwwXBndo6nQ/join

Title: Purusha and Prakriti13th Chapter: Verses 19, 20, 21, 22These verses deal with the Samkhya school of Indian philosophy. There are two main schools of thoughts in Indian philosophy. (1) Theistic schools which accept Vedic testimony and (2) Atheistic schools, which do care much for Vedic testimony. The six theistic schools were the Mimamsakas of Jaimini, Vedanta (Uttara Mimamsa of Badarayana), the Samkhya philosophy of Kapila, the Yoga of Patanjali, the Nyaya school of Gautama, and the Vaisheshika school of Kanada. The six aetheistic schools include the four schools of Buddhism, the Jaina philosophy, and the Indian materialists, called Charvakas. Samkhya school is silent about God. It talks about evolution. Its original exponent was Kapila. Later, a karika was written by Isvara Krishna.There are two fundamental categories in Samkhya. (1) Purusha, which is self-effulgent, eternal and inactive. (2) Prakriti, which is active but non-effulgent. The evolutes of Prakriti are Mahatattvam or cosmic intelligence, Ahamkara or ego-sense, the mind, the five senses of perception, the five senses of action, the five subtle elements and the five gross elements.Patanjali Yoga Sutras are a practical application of Samkhya. When we practice spiritual disciplines such as Yamas and Niyamas, we start our journey backwards (involution) towards our true spiritual identity as Purusha.The main idea of Samkhya is this - the entire universe comes from Prakriti and exists in Prakriti. The moment we understand that we are higher than this psycho-physical mechanism, that our true nature is Purusha, the evolutionary cycle comes to an end for us.Vedanta accepts ideas of Samkhya, such as the evolutes of Prakriti and its wonderful analysis of the human mind. However, it does not accept the conclusions of Samkhya.19th verse: “Know that Purusha and Prakriti are beginningless. All these evolutes and changes come into existence as a result of evolution in Prakriti.”In Indian philosophy, there are two concepts of evolution and change. (1) Apparent change or Vivartavada refers to apparent change that can go back to its original state, such as a clay becoming a pot (2) Parinamavada refers to changes that are irreversible, such as an oil seed becoming oil. Vedanta says that the absolute reality appears to have become this world – it is only an apparent change.20th verse: “Purusha is the self-effulgent reality. It does not undergo any change. It is the presence of the Purusha that allows us to have experiences in this world. What we experience is the evolution of Prakriti in the form of three gunas.”Sattva guna manifests itself as wisdom and serenity. Rajo guna manifests itself as dynamism and ambition. Tamo guna manifests itself as laziness and jealousy.21st and 22nd verses: “Our body, thoughts, emotions are all parts of evolution from Prakriti. Within this psycho-physical mechanism, there is a divine spark, the Purusha, which is the witness – it is eternal and does not change. Our true identity is the Purusha.”In the Kathopanishad, Yama explains the science of realizing our true identity to Nachiketa. Nachiketa asks Yama for three boons: (1) Let my father not scold me when I return (2) Teach me rituals to get to heaven and (3) Teach me the reality beyond death. Yama then teaches Nachiketa how to transcend death. He teaches him how to transcend our physical identity and realize our true nature as the Atman, which is deathless, and which is present everywhere and in everything.Kathopanishad also compares human life to a journey on a chariot. Atman is the traveler on the chariot, body is the chariot, intellect is the driver, mind is the reins, senses are the horses, and the sense objects represent the path. Just as horses should not dictate terms to the rider, so also, sense organs should not dictate the terms to the mind.

For this conversation, I am joined by Jon Perry and Daniel. Together we talk about the scope and limits of science, abiogenesis, evolution and DNA as a language. This was a great dive into the claims often made by theists. Daniel had to drop out halfway through due to a housemate's issue that needed to be addressed. Jon released a video at the same time as our conversation with him went live. In it he is directly addressing a claim that John Lennox made when he came onto our show a few months ago, you can check that out here. You can find/follow Jon: Website YouTube Stated Casually YouTube Stated Clearly Twitter Resources mentioned in this conversation: Lex Fridman Podcast with Nick Lane - Origin of Life, Evolution, Aliens, Biology, and Consciousness We hope you enjoy our show. When Belief Dies aims to honestly reflect on faith, religion and life. Cheers, -Sam ________Giving________ Patreon (monthly giving) PayPal (one-time gift) Bitcoin (one-time gift) As always - a massive ‘Thank You' to all the supporters of When Belief Dies! Without you, this wouldn't be possible. ________Social________ Twitter Website Email: whenbeliefdies@gmail.com ________Gear________ Camera (Sony A6400) Lens (Sigma 16mm F1.4) HDMI Adapter (Cam Link 4K) Microphone (RØDE PodMic) Audio Interface (Focusrite Scarlett 4i4 3rd gen) Microphone Amplifier (Cloudlifter CL-1) Recording & Interview Software (Riverside FM) #evolution #WhenBeliefDies #StatedClearly