Hi Bret,

Well, Dragan seemed to be interested in the science approach. I thought he might find it interesting reading. The Case for Christ is a bit more problematic for me to recommend in a case like this. The whole set of concepts of God, man's responsibility to God, God's right to expect certain attitudes & actions, etc all come from the notion that there actually IS a god, which is a sort of 'first step', so to speak. If you can then get someone to at least entertain the notion of the possibility of 'a god' you must then, in the interest of intellectual honesty, show them the philisophical 'connection' and basis in thought if they are again so inclined. And then one needs to discover that this 'god' is a personal god, not impersonal. If you can get there then you need to have a discussion about what constitutes real 'knowing' and how one can really know (experiential & intellectual - gnosis & ouides respectively) this God. Then you need to go through several 'layers' where they sort through the issues of evil and death and so forth that thinking people will always have at this point. And on & on..

What makes me laugh are those who think that Christianity is for non-thinkers. LOL

Sadly, most Christians think the same thing and act that way. *chuckle*

Best,

DD

>I was going to advise him to read a Case for Christ from Stroble, but then his replies to me indicated that he has already looked into Christ and discarded the notion.
>
>>Hey Dragan,
>>
>>So, I wander off for two years and come back and you're still treading the same old ground. *chuckle*
>>
>>1) How the heck are you?
>>
>>2) Get a copy of 'The Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel. Here's a link: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0310241448/102-0533621-6062547?v=glance
>>
>>Best,
>>
>>DD
>>
>>
>>>>>if, instead, science came with proof that makes its existence unplausible, then I would have said that it doesn't exist. And that's exactly what's the case with your God.
>>>>
>>>>There is nothing within science that makes the existence of my God "unplausible."
>>>
>>>Not impossible. Just unplausible. When there's no proof of existence, you can say that the nonexistence is plausible.
>>>
>>>I still admire the idea of a god, as it is presented in Christianity, for its defeat of classical logic. It's such a construct that is actually another proof of Gödel's thesis, that there can't be any complete logical system, because no logical system can contain proof of its completeness. It needs a meta-system (which then needs a meta-system of its own etc - ad infinitum). Now this god idea is supposed to be so big, so all-encompassing, that it can't be proven or disproven. Which is amazing, considering that it was conceived centuries before Gödel.
>>>
>>>>>About your catalyst theory, tell me, who or what created your Creator???????
>>>>
>>>>He wasn't created. He is eternal.
>>>
>>>And the Universe isn't?
>>>
>>>> At some point, you have to come to the conclusion that there is at least something out there that has no creator. Science really cannot deal with that. It follows that there must be something "supernatural."
>>>
>>>How about this: it's the Universe that has no creator. We're in it all the time.