The comments are interesting. What kind of an article is it that has the purpose to muse about the lack of purpose in the universe followed by comments with the purpose of somewhat debunking this proposition where if naturalism is true then all this is merely a result of physical determinism anyway? There's no point in all these naturalists talking about it at all except to reassure themselves that they are yet justified in denying God. Why would they need such assurance? If any are predisposed to believe in God, according to naturalist presuppositions, even if they themselves are predisposed to believe, then why wouldn't they simply accept this as a matter of natural selection and let it go? They are blind to their true motives.
The comments are interesting. What kind of an article is it that has the purpose to muse about the lack of purpose in the universe followed by comments with the purpose of somewhat debunking this proposition where if naturalism is true then all this is merely a result of physical determinism anyway? There's no point in all these naturalists talking about it at all except to reassure themselves that they are yet justified in denying God. Why would they need such assurance? If any are predisposed to believe in God, according to naturalist presuppositions, even if they themselves are predisposed to believe, then why wouldn't they simply accept this as a matter of natural selection and let it go? They are blind to their true motives.
ReplyDeleteComment has been blocked.