Saying NO God Is An IRRATIONAL ACT | Dr J.P. Moreland

J. P. Moreland, an American Philosopher, Theologian, and Christian Apologist. He is a Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology at Biola University. In addition, he has authored, edited, and contributed papers to ninety-five books, including Does God Exist? Universals, Consciousness and the Existence of God, The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology and many more. He has also published over 85 articles in journals. He was selected in August 2016 by The Best Schools as one of the 50 most influential living philosophers in the world.
WATCH FULL VIDEO HERE • Can a Rational Person ...
Our channel was featured among the Top 10 Indian Christian Podcasts by Feedspot.
Here is the link podcasts.feeds...
Reach out to me via Email at [e-mail]
Follow on SOCIAL MEDIA
Twitter / biblical_dhiman
Facebook / dhiman.biblical
Instagram / irajatism

[@bradleymarshall5489]

Only fools say in their hearts, “There is no God.” -Psalm 14:1. He will use every kind of evil deception to fool those on their way to destruction, because they refuse to love and accept the truth that would save them. -2 Thessalonians 2:10

[@kalords5967]

Why don't you cite the whole psalm? 😂😂😂😂

[@leongkhengneoh6581]

Why can't he see there is no evidence of christian god except his god of the gap argument?

[@philo5227]

Him: "Not believing in god is irrational". Us: "Why" Him: "Because I said so...and look at the trees"

[@zeagias]

Him: "because rational design" You: "Im not smart enough to understand"

[@philo5227]

@@zeagias There's nothing to "understand" - it's just baseless, mindless gobbledygook.

[@philo5227]

@@zeagias Understand what? Its just a bunch of lame, pseudo-intellectual apologetics. It's gobbledygook. You believe in a book with talking animals and talking plants, and you dare to speak to me about rationality?

[@philo5227]

@@zeagias Understand what? It's just hogwash apologetics.

[@ejajafrozarb]

How is this argument supposed to make me believe in the Christian God? At most it can make me a deist

[@conversationsconcerningus973]

That wasn't his point. The only point I think he wanted to make is that he thinks people who say there is no God are irrational. For him, a deist would at bottom be rational ( at least)

[@ejajafrozarb]

@@conversationsconcerningus973 I think that a deist vision of the life is more similar to the atheistic/agnostic one than to that of organized religions. Accepting the idea that an external force created the universe is very different from believing that what is written in the Bible is true.

[@conversationsconcerningus973]

@@ejajafrozarb I'm not sure that I agree. I understand your point. Theres not much different, at bottom, between theists of whatever stripe (mono-type- theists anyhow). There is a massive difference between any type of theism (deism included) from atheism. Agnosticism is kinda the odd man out in the sense they just say I don't know. But I understand the distinction you are attempting to get across....there is a difference between a dedicated theist and one simply acknowledging some sort of creating entity.... However, his point is that a deist, in his view, would be more rational than an atheist since an atheist seems to go against the evidence (again, his argument)

[@kalords5967]

Which God?

[@bradleymarshall5489]

to imply there's more than one is to imply atheism

[@philo5227]

@@bradleymarshall5489 "to imply there's more than one is to imply atheism" WTF? That makes no sense.

[@bradleymarshall5489]

@@philo5227 God as classically understood in the Christian tradition is the infinite, perfect, simple, transcendent source of all reality. Nothing can or does exist without him. To say he's even remotely like a Zeus or Horus or any other finite participant of reality would deny the existence of God altogether.

[@philo5227]

@@bradleymarshall5489 That makes no sense, either. It's just a bunch of unsubstantiated claims that do nothing to address your original claim.

[@bradleymarshall5489]

@@philo5227 the classical proofs for God (as classically understood) include motion, contingency, simplicity etc necessarily lead to only one God. To say that God of scripture is no different from Zeus would be to deny the classical proofs and by extension deny God's existence altogether. Zeus isn't God as classically understood, he's just another creaturely participant.

[@togborne]

J P-ool table Moreland.

[@dane947]

LUL