CreedFeed Community - View Single Post

Lunar Shadow · 06-20-2005, 07:00 AM

http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369

an extensive article regaurding Anthony Flew's doubt of atheism with quotes from flew himself

by richard carrier

quote from the article

Quote: I also heard a rumor that Flew claimed in a private letter that the kalam cosmological argument proved the existence of God (see relevant entries in Cosmological Arguments). But he assures me that is not what he believes. He said that, at best, the kalam is an argument for a first cause in the Aristotelian sense, and nothing more--and he maintains that, kalam or not, it is still not logically necessary that the universe had a cause at all, much less a "personal" cause. Flew's tentative, mechanistic Deism is not based on any logical proofs, but solely on physical, scientific evidence, or the lack thereof, and is therefore subject to change with more information--and he confesses he has not been able to keep up with the relevant literature in science and theology, which means we should no longer treat him as an expert on this subject (as Moreland apparently did).

06-20-2005, 07:00 AM	#1
Lunar Shadow USER INFO » Status: Wound Up Posts: 1,244 Joined: Jun 2005 Currently: Offline	the truth about atheist Anthony Flew http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369 an extensive article regaurding Anthony Flew's doubt of atheism with quotes from flew himself by richard carrier quote from the article Quote: I also heard a rumor that Flew claimed in a private letter that the kalam cosmological argument proved the existence of God (see relevant entries in Cosmological Arguments). But he assures me that is not what he believes. He said that, at best, the kalam is an argument for a first cause in the Aristotelian sense, and nothing more--and he maintains that, kalam or not, it is still not logically necessary that the universe had a cause at all, much less a "personal" cause. Flew's tentative, mechanistic Deism is not based on any logical proofs, but solely on physical, scientific evidence, or the lack thereof, and is therefore subject to change with more information--and he confesses he has not been able to keep up with the relevant literature in science and theology, which means we should no longer treat him as an expert on this subject (as Moreland apparently did). __________________ Lunar Shadow Last edited by Lunar Shadow : 06-20-2005 at 07:07 AM.