|
2dce42b
|
Tabii ki Tanri, Laplace'nin (esyanin nasil isledigine dair) matematiksel tarifinde yer almaz, tipki Bay Ford'un icten yanmali motorun bilimsel tarifinde yer almadigi gibi.
|
|
god
john-lennox
tanrı
|
John C. Lennox |
|
3eb8e58
|
Evren, serinkanliligimizi koruyamayacagimiz kadar buyuleyici.
|
|
bilim
god
john-c-lennox
tanrı
|
John C. Lennox |
|
3c0f0dd
|
Society tolerates the practice of the Christian faith in private devotions and in church services, but it increasingly deprecates public witness.
|
|
|
John C. Lennox |
|
0dba872
|
The issue between the atheist and the believer is not whether it makes sense to question ultimate fact, it is rather the question: what fact is ultimate? The atheist's ultimate fact is the universe; the theist's ultimate fact is God."68"
|
|
|
John C. Lennox |
|
8de0437
|
Evrim bir biyolojik mekanizma anlamina gelir ama Tanri'ya inananlar Tanri'yi, diger seylerin yaninda, mekanizmalari tasarlayan ve yaratan bir Zat olarak kabul ederler. Daha once, Ford arabanin calisma mekanizmasini anlamanin Bay Ford'u yok kabul etmeye bir kanit olusturmadigini gormustuk. Dolayisiyla bir mekanizmanin varligi o mekanizmayi tasarlayan bir oznenin olmadigini gostermez.
|
|
god
john-lennox
tanrı
|
John C. Lennox |
|
782869e
|
It is rather ironical that in the sixteenth century some people resisted advances in science because they seemed to threaten belief in God; whereas in the twentieth century scientific ideas of a beginning have been resisted because they threatened to increase the plausibility of belief in God.
|
|
|
John C. Lennox |
|
75e73dd
|
To postulate a trillion-trillion other universes, rather than one God, in order to explain the orderliness of our universe, seems the height of irrationality.
|
|
|
John C. Lennox |
|
2fd7c01
|
One of Richard Dawkins's main God Delusion arguments is that, if God created everything, we would have to ask who created God. But the very asking of this question reveals at once that Dawkins has in mind a created God: "Who created God?" Created gods certainly are a delusion."
|
|
|
John C. Lennox |
|
f5cc0f9
|
He who has a why to live can bear almost any how.
|
|
|
John C. Lennox |
|
ded6151
|
There is a real conflict, but it is not science versus religion. It is theism versus atheism, and there are scientists on both sides.
|
|
|
John C. Lennox |
|
e397030
|
Men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver.' It was this conviction that led Francis Bacon (1561-1626), regarded by many as the father of modern science, to teach that God has provided us with two books - the book of Nature and the Bible -
|
|
|
John C. Lennox |
|
5c2d596
|
A.W. Tozer captured these ideas very well when he wrote: Here is my view: God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should b..
|
|
|
John C Lennox |
|
12ca774
|
I am not postulating a "God of the gaps", a god merely to explain the things that science has not yet explained. I am postulating a God to explain why science explains; I do not deny that science explains, but I postulate God to explain why science explains.' Richard Swinburne"
|
|
|
John C. Lennox |
|
4c0dd36
|
I cannot believe that our existence in this universe is a mere quirk of fate, an accident of history, an incidental blip in the great cosmic drama. Our involvement is too intimate... We are truly meant to be here.
|
|
|
John C. Lennox |
|
cd28c76
|
When Sir Isaac Newton discovered the universal law of gravitation he did not say, 'I have discovered a mechanism that accounts for planetary motion, therefore there is no agent God who designed it.' Quite the opposite: precisely because he understood how it worked, he was moved to increased admiration for the God who had designed it that way.
|
|
|
John C. Lennox |
|
32430c8
|
The heart of monotheism is that God, who is outside history, is the guarantor of meaning.
|
|
|
John C. Lennox |
|
700fa9f
|
The more we get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator God, who designed the universe for a purpose, gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.
|
|
|
John C. Lennox |
|
945683c
|
Here we have the basic ingredients that define human beings as moral beings. God has given them the ability to say "yes" to him by not eating the prohibited tree, and to say "no" to him by eating it. In this way the Bible introduces us to the idea that the humans are moral beings, with all that this implies."
|
|
|
John C. Lennox |
|
262da13
|
Johannes Kepler described his motivation thus: 'The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order which has been imposed on it by God, and which he revealed to us in the language of mathematics.
|
|
|
John C. Lennox |
|
e8ad691
|
We are a product of quantum fluctuations in the very early universe.
|
|
|
John C. Lennox |
|
b1ba6bd
|
The very success of science in showing us how deeply ordered the natural world is provides strong grounds for believing that there is an even deeper cause for that order.
|
|
|
John C. Lennox |
|
8b69dbe
|
Just because a religion has supported science does not prove that the religion is true. Quite so - and the same can, of course, be said of atheism.
|
|
|
John C. Lennox |
|
2eb8b96
|
Far from science abolishing God, it would seem that there is a substantial case for asserting that it is the existence of a Creator that gives to science its fundamental intellectual justification.
|
|
|
John C. Lennox |
|
4ce7456
|
The very success of science in showing us how deeply ordered the natural world is provides strong grounds for believing that there is an even deeper cause for that order.' Swinburne is using inference to the best explanation and saying that God is the best explanation for the explanatory power of science.
|
|
|
John C. Lennox |
|
01dfb75
|
blind faith' turns out, therefore, to be the exact opposite of the biblical one.
|
|
|
John C. Lennox |
|
cceb772
|
Former Director of Kew Gardens, Sir Ghillean Prance FRS, gives equally clear expression to his faith: 'For many years I have believed that God is the great designer behind all nature... All my studies in science since then have confirmed my faith. I regard the Bible as my principal source of authority.
|
|
|
John C. Lennox |
|
31a83c6
|
Furthermore, if Dawkins's question is valid, it can be turned back on him. He believes that the universe created him. Therefore, we are justified in asking him: who created your creator?
|
|
|
John C. Lennox |
|
eb67618
|
Hawking's inadequate view of God could well be linked with his attitude to philosophy in general. He writes: "Philosophy is dead."9 But this itself is a philosophical statement. It is manifestly not a statement of science. Therefore, because it says that philosophy is dead, it contradicts itself. It is a classic example of logical incoherence. Not only that: Hawking's book, insofar as it is interpreting and applying science to ultimate ques..
|
|
|
John C. Lennox |
|
fb35399
|
The ancient world knew as well as we do the law of nature that dead bodies do not get up out of graves. Christianity won its way by dint of the sheer weight of evidence that one man had actually risen from the dead.
|
|
|
John C. Lennox |
|
fb35fc2
|
Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the right conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan.' Arno Penzias, Physics Nobel Prize-winner
|
|
|
John C. Lennox |
|
8a37d9d
|
The fact that we understand some of the mechanisms of the working of the universe or of living systems does not preclude the existence of a designer, any more than the possession of insight into the processes by which a watch has been put together, however automatic these processes may appear, implies there can be no watchmaker.'39
|
|
|
John C. Lennox |
|
1192cc1
|
The existence of laws of physics... strongly implies that there is a God who formulates such laws and ensures that the physical realm conforms to them.
|
|
|
John C. Lennox |
|
f1ac640
|
when we see some examples of a mechanism... do we doubt that it is the creation of a conscious intelligence? So when we see the movement of the heavenly bodies... how can we doubt that these too are not only the works of reason but of a reason which is perfect and divine?
|
|
|
John C. Lennox |
|
0a6abe3
|
Large evolutionary innovations are not well understood. None has ever been observed, and we have no idea whether any may be in progress. There is no good fossil record of any.'23
|
|
|
John C. Lennox |
|
19f8300
|
the laws of nature are written by the hand of God in the language of mathematics' and that the 'human mind is a work of God and one of the most excellent'.
|
|
|
John C. Lennox |
|
b67a9fc
|
So, is naturalism actually demanded by science? Or is it just conceivable that naturalism is a philosophy that is brought to science, more than something that is entailed by science? Could it even be, dare one ask, more like an expression of faith, akin to religious faith? One might at least be forgiven for thinking that from the way in which those who dare ask such questions are sometimes treated. Like religious heretics of a former age th..
|
|
|
John C. Lennox |
|
37f0665
|
The example of the jet engine can help us to clear up another confusion. Science, according to many scientists, concentrates essentially on material causation. It asks the "how" questions: how does the jet engine work? It also asks the "why" question regarding function: why is this pipe here? But it does not ask the "why" question of purpose: why was the jet engine built? What is important here is that Sir Frank Whittle does not appear in t..
|
|
|
John C. Lennox |
|
1fde4ef
|
If life is the result of a purely naturalistic process, what then of morality? Has it, too, evolved? And if so, of what significance are our concepts of right and wrong, justice and truth?
|
|
|
John C. Lennox |
|
26c7e69
|
Perhaps there is a subtle danger today that, in their desire to eliminate the concept of a Creator completely, some scientists and philosophers have been led, albeit unwittingly, to re-deify the universe by endowing matter and energy with creative powers that they cannot be convincingly shown to possess. Banishing the One Creator God they would then end up with what has been described as the ultimate in polytheism - a universe in which ever..
|
|
|
John C. Lennox |
|
8f8a21a
|
we should be humble enough to distinguish between what the Bible says and our interpretations of it.
|
|
|
John C. Lennox |
|
5c4412a
|
In this very brief history of modern cosmological physics, the laws of quantum and relativistic physics represent things to be wondered at but widely accepted: just like biblical miracles. M-theory invokes something different: a prime mover, a begetter, a creative force that is everywhere and nowhere. This force cannot be identified by instruments or examined by comprehensible mathematical prediction, and yet it contains all possibilities. ..
|
|
|
John C. Lennox |
|
6a8ccca
|
Both Genesis and science say that the universe is geared to supporting human life. But Genesis says more. It says that you, as a human being, bear the image of God. The starry heavens show the glory of God, yes; but they are not made in God's image. You are. That makes you unique. It gives you incalculable value. The galaxies are unimaginably large compared with you. However, you know that they exist, but they don't know that you exist. You..
|
|
genesis
god
human-life
|
John C. Lennox |
|
2a26855
|
If the text means that the sun came into existence on day 4, Origen was asking a very reasonable question: "If the sun is not yet there, how are we to understand the first three days with their 'evenings and mornings"
|
|
|
John C. Lennox |
|
1cc82c3
|
Men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver.
|
|
|
John C. Lennox |