Philosopher and historian Gary Habermas is interviewed by Michael Licona on the topic: Is God Active in the World Today? Habermas discusses six ways in which God is presently active in the world, including topics like miracles, healing, and near-death experiences. (found at 4truth.net)Full MP3 Audio here.
Enjoy.
9 comments :
Thanks for posting this. I was actually searching for something along these lines.
It got spooky when Mike revealed his dad was a Mason and the strange things that were happening at his house. I was listening to late and got the chills.
Good interview. Loved it.
...like miracles, healing, and near-death experiences.
Miracles?
I take miracles to be an event or observation that breaks currently known and accepted theories of science. Agree?
So what are the examples? And as Hume says, which is more likely :-)
Oh, and is it a miracle when someone wins the lottery? Of course not.
Healing?
Do you know of any amputees that have been healed lately?
http://whydoesgodhateamputees.com/god5.htm
and near-death experiences
And what should we expect to happen when the brain ‘thinks’ it is dieing and/or starved of oxygen?
I wonder why all these so called out of body experience never tell us anything we don’t already know… they report of seeing themselves from above their body but cannot read the secret card on top of the cupboard (yep, many hospitals have these for the sceptical mind)
Lee
Lee, again you comments show that you haven't even listened to the audio.
Thanks for emoting. : )
Hi Brian,
Again, I've downloaded it.
Care to tell me where I am wrong to save me a bit of time?
In these talks I hear the same old, same old.
I don't have the time to listen to every piece of nonsense ever spoken, no one does.
So, please... save me some time
Tell me the good bits, the bits that address my points.
Maybe, without listening, I have shown my power of prophecy? :-)
Sorry about that...
Lee
Care to tell me where I am wrong to save me a bit of time?
Yes -- you are wrong to criticize an argument by using straw men. When you haven't even listened to it and then you think you can make a judgment, it is not being a careful thinker.
Instead of asking others to correct your straw men, why don't you save us some time and point out the exact arguments you have problems with and show us by power of reason why those who accept them are either wrong in their logic or deluded in their thinking.
Until you do that, you are just emoting -- not arguing.
Hi Brian,
you are wrong to criticize an argument by using straw men.
A strawman argument would be poor, but I was questioning what you have written - so where the strawman?
You are right that I am guessing the argument being used here in the lecture, but I was question, where is the crime in that?
I would like to know if this lecture is like all the others that I have heard in the past.
I call it experience, but I have wasted a lot of time hearing the same old, same old :-)
I might have pigeon holed this lecture before listening – but this is an assumption on my part and I am happy to be shown wrong.
So maybe this is the strawman you speak of?
However I think you are wrong – since I raised what seems to me to be valid arguments against each of the points you mentioned AND said I am more than happy to listen.
Just want to know why this one will be any different.
So do you know of a miracle where an amputee grew back a limb? Does this lecture provide examples? Why are these invalid questions to ask?
When you haven't even listened to it and then you think you can make a judgment, it is not being a careful thinker.
Erm… let me think now.
An analogy?
I read this week in a newspaper another ‘expert’ who claims that the moon landing didn’t happen.
All a hoax.
They have evidence they claim – logic and reason is on their side, they claim…
should I have wasted/invested my time reading this evidence and article further?
What do you think?
I think I have done a lot of research on the subject – I could be still be wrong of course, but since the only source of objection is a little article in a newspaper (known to publish stories just to sell newspapers) I feel I am right to be sceptical and ignore it.
After all, if this person’s objections to the moon landing were true – I would soon be reading about it in many, many more sources. I can therefore take that risk I feel.
Same here with this lecture.
If this chap has evidence for miracles from God… real miracles… Every church, every TV channel, every newspaper in the country will be shouting it from the rooftops.
I could not avoid it even IF I wanted to.
Or you think I am wrong on this?
So, yes – I think I can take this risk and not listen to the lecture before passing comment.
I am, however, still more than happy to listen (it is waiting on my ipod for that reason)… I just want to be told it will be worth my while and an example of the evidence is all I ask before I make this investment.
A small price to pay :-)
why don't you save us some time and point out the exact arguments you have problems with and show us by power of reason why those who accept them are either wrong in their logic or deluded in their thinking.
Sorry, what was my claim again?
Is the burden of proof on me to show the miracle claims in the world are wrong? That doesn’t sound quite right?
Until you do that, you are just emoting -- not arguing.
Happy to argue, but I rather discuss.
I went to the website so I could quote some specifics, but couldn’t find any mention of miracles that still happen in the world that are from God – maybe you could quote some examples (or is this too much to ask?).
Strange that they are so hidden from me?
Take care
Lee
A strawman argument would be poor, but I was questioning what you have written - so where the strawman?
All I wrote was topics they talked about. But you went on to criticize your idea of what those things are. For instance, the near-death experiences they talk about aren't the kind you mention - so you have ridiculed the topic based on the particular kinds of near-death experiences that you reject. You hand-wave the other things with the mention of Hume and a link to the amputee web site. Yet you have not even heard what Habermas and Licona say about these things.
You are right that I am guessing the argument being used here in the lecture, but I was question, where is the crime in that?
The problem is that the hand-waving objections are critiques of arguments that you are "guessing" are being made. Then it wastes time because the discussion then revolves around your petty, off-topic complaints instead of the actual arguments being made.
I would like to know if this lecture is like all the others that I have heard in the past.
According to your comment, you think you already know what they are talking about.
I call it experience, but I have wasted a lot of time hearing the same old, same old :-)
And that is why I am saying what I am saying here. I get tired of hearing the same old complaints that don't deal with the substance of the arguments presented in the actual mp3. :-)
So do you know of a miracle where an amputee grew back a limb? Does this lecture provide examples? Why are these invalid questions to ask?
No. And I am not going down that line of discussion.
I am not going to discuss the moon landing either. Although it was very cool that they did it!
Is the burden of proof on me to show the miracle claims in the world are wrong? That doesn’t sound quite right?
I think you are missing my point. I am saying that if you want to criticize something, criticize the actual arguments and actual content of the mp3. Although I would be interested in you trying to prove that of all the miracle claims in the world that they must all be wrong. :-) Of course you couldn't prove that, but you seem to assume that they are all wrong. That doesn't sound quite right... ;-)
Happy to argue, but I rather discuss.
Oh, I agree. I just meant the word argument to mean the use of reasons to form a conclusion.
Hi Brian,
Let's start again.
Hello, good afternoon - how are you this fine winter's day :-)
Lee
Post a Comment
Thanks for taking the time to comment. By posting your comment you are agreeing to the comment policy.