God Isn't Dead?

"It is predicted"? By whom???

 

I saw it on "through the wormhole with Morgan freeman" on the science channel. He really broke down all the statistics and shirt and explained it way better than I could because there was a lot too it.

 

Well, since Morgan Freemen is God, or at least plays Him in the movies, I guess he can't be wrong.

 

The centerpiece of the movie was the classroom showdown between the student and the professor in which the student advances his proofs that God isn't dead. I'm relying on memory and its been awhile since I saw it, but the following stand out in my mind: (1) Cosmology: the student opens with the Big Bang & the argument that it's consistent with the creation account in Genesis, unlike the continuous creation theory that was the accepted alternative for centuries. The professor counters with Stephen Hawking's statement that: "Because there is a law of gravity, the universe will create itself from nothing." To which the student offers in rebuttal an argument from Oxford mathematician/evangelical Christian apologist John Lennox (God and Stephen Hawking: Whose Universe Is It Anyway) concerning the impossibility of getting something out of nothing. This stage of the debate seemed to end in a draw; (2) Theodicy: the problem of how a benevolent, omnipotent God can allow suffering and evil in the world. I believe the student's answer was "free will'; and (3) Morality: the student quoted the statement in Karamazov: "without God, everything is permitted." (4) I think Pascal's wager might have come up, but I'm not positive. There is also the dramatic revelation that the Professor hates God for taking his mother, which the student points out is incongruous, because how can you hate something that doesn't exist. The students vote that God Isn't Dead. And of course, later in the film, the implicit playing of the Hell card when the professor is struck by a car and accepts Jesus just in time. That's all I can remember, so I hope it gives us enough to chew on.

 

god isn't a lot of things, primary among which is god isn't what anyone thinks it is.

i mean, if god is god, why would it have to be?

nor would it have to be at war with anything, nor would there have to be anything for it to be at war with.

nor would it have to be infallible. that's just something people came up with, so they could claim some sort of authority.

and why would it have to have created anything? maybe it had something to do with it, and maybe it didn't.

reality is simply too diverse to be the work of any one awareness, however super dooper anything it might otherwise be.

but there COULD be something big, friendly and invisible, the gives great hugs, does NOT micromanage, and is NOT at war with ANYTHING.

and a lot of other little friendly invisible things too.

 

It was nothing more than an unrealistic ego boost for those who already claim to believe in god.

There was nothing compelling that would make the average rational person believe that god is real.

It offered no evidence that god is real.

 

for the non-physical there is no living or dying. such terms in their context become meaningless.

 

God has always been & will always be. He is the creator of all things. God can never die!!!

 

I liked some of the arguments like the big bang. Other than that, all the atheist characters in the movie were messed up while all the Christians were really good. That's pretty unrealistic.

Also, I agree there was a lot of Evangelical propaganda.

 

i think the movie got the cosmology argument totally wrong. one quick example is in genesis the earth is formed before the sun. also, physicist are now learning the nature of "nothing" and it seems like theres alot of "stuff" there, like dark matter and dark energy for example.

the second argument has been debated alot on this forum and i have concluded that if god has a masterplan, there really isnt free will. god cant know whats going to happen and simultaneously not know what you will choose.

the morality argument is weak.

all in all, great movie because it stupifies christians which in my book, is not a bad thing.

 

life, in the physical sense, is, in the context of discussing none-physical things like gods, a totally meaningless statement.

the existence of gods, has nothing to do with the physical definition of living.

gods do not live or die. they are completely outside the meaning of those terms.

the amount of interest people have in a particular belief, yes that can wax and wane, but has nothing to do with gods living or dying.

 

It was in regard of the God of History; History is a human reality; therefore it is to the human thinking, concerning god or gods, that God died. Thus I believe that we may resurrect God as fellow humans thinking, for instance, about ISIS. What is ISIS? I take it that it is the free election of the historical belonging of a nation. God would be dead if ISIS would exist as stronghold of the threatening violence it is claimed to BE. If ISIS is to heal itself to the international borders it reveres for the true politics, that would again be God's regaining... bla, bla. God is also personal. We sit in our religious temples and beg for Him to tell us what to do. Either HE exists or does not exist. We just need to prove so. Mean feeling I have; I can't sleep at nights.

HE DOESN'T ABOSLUTELY EXIST.

 

For the last 2 reactions: try and remember to read the original post of a thread first. It is about a movie.

 

Why not? It's Catch 22. Those slanted eyes people are always around in politics to hide, and hence suit the west with Contradiction.

 

so then, why are we HERE talking about a movie?

 

Have you read the first post already?

 

Because it's a provoctive movie, with a big impact on evangelical Christians. And it takes positions on science, atheists, Muslims, etc., that are at the very least controversial and I think worth exploring because they reflect how a sgment of movie goers view reality.

 

evangelical christians neither interest nor concern me. nor do i see any difference between them and their islamist equivelants.

science is simply honesty as far as what it covers, and what it doesn't is speculation.

i'm sorry, but the place to discuss movies is in a forum about movies.

reality is not something that gives a dam how anyone views it. neither is it limited by nor to any belief nor lack of it of any kind.

the very definition of reality, is that not even the most powerful tyrant can even touch it.

the very root of hope, for whatever its otherwise annoyance, is that it laughs at all attempts to do so.

 

It is a religious movie so a discussion about it fits here as well. I'm sorry but don't be an antfucker because you didn't read the OP before your first reaction.

 

i'm not trying to be contrary, i just can't make any sense out of what you are saying.

and if the title of a thread can't stand on its own, its mis-titled.

also reading the op, really doesn't make any more sense of it.

i have no desire to watch things that don't interest me and can see no reason why they should.
and that goes for 99% of what passes for mainstream entertainment.