Dr. Gerald Schroeder Sets Forth A Powerful Argument For A Creator Of The Cosmos That Goes Beyond Intelligent Design Theory To The Radical Rationality In Nature. Dr. Gerald Schroeder holds a dual doctorate in Nuclear Physics and Oceanography from MIT along with high-level research in chemistry and planetary sciences. Dr. Schroeder’s argument was so powerful it played a part in influencing the worlds leading atheist, Antony Flew to accept the existence of an infinitely intelligent Creator.
Absolutely fascinating, but then I love philosophy and science.
Filed under: Astronomy, Philosophy, Science
radicalfilms.wordpress.com 
How did Anthony Flew get to be the ‘worlds leading Antheist’?
And, how does Flew jump to the conclusion that there’s an ‘Infinitely intelligent creator’? That’s not very scientific is it? Are those his actual words? Did he say that?
How does one measure that much intelligence? Does the IQ scale go up to ‘infinite’?
😐
Precisely
Sorry, but you really need to read more. I think because of you I may just have to ban ‘Anon’ posting. Funny thing is, you’re the first one! That’s how much you’ve completely bewildered me with your arrogance and complete lack of insight!!!
I wasn’t being arrogant. I asked several simple, reasonable questions that’s all. How on earth can you interpret that as my being arrogant? Tongue in cheek maybe, but arrogant? No. How can you say I need to read more? Now that, my dear Ed could legitimately be interpretted as arrogance. (You may accuse me of patronizing right there, I’ll give you that)
Oh, and you accuse me of ‘lack of insight? hello? I only pointed out a few logical errors in your short intro text. By definition, that’s insightful. So you’re wrong about that.
And yes, I did watch the whole of the film (and enjoyed it immensely)
On the basis of my lightweight posting you’re considering banning anonymous commenting?
It looks to me like your own posting are fairly anonymous. Ed? Who’s that?
Pot, kettle, black?
Besides, a nice bit of cheeky banter is good for a blog, visitors like a bit of spirit. If you ban anonymous posting you’re censoring free speech. I gathered from the content you post here that you were all in favour of free speech.
If you ban anonymous commenting you’ve just eradicated 75% of discussion on this blog. Now that’s an intelligent thing to do. (patronizing again, right there, with sarcasm, in case you missed it)
red rag? bull?
I kind of want to say “Christ, shut the hell up!!!!” but I’m actually growing (rather immediately, strangely) to like you, “Anon”.
My claims to your arrogance and ignorance are far too complicated (read contextually implicit or “obvious” to the discerning) to be bothered going into: but, fair play, I do value anyone’s opinion: of course. Just do it with a little decorum and respect and intelligent analysis rather than pat and surface emo-reactive lack of diligence.
Please reconsider some of your statements. You appear to have the manners and intelligence to do so.
– Ed. (as in the editor of this site [I feel I am unambiguous enough by letting the films I choose speak for me rather than lame witticisms and contrived diary entries] – and by the way, any intros in quotes are not my words: they are the intros given by those that have posted the video on google/youtube/whatever. I have no desire to become the new Hannity. I try to keep my opinions out of the way and let the films, and their posters, speak for themselves. My comments, generally, unless it’s late or I’ve had a bad day at work and have forgotten, are in italics or otherwise unquoted.)
Frustration dissolved. Please reconsider the films you have, to my mind, thus far inadequately critiqued.
2 lights sparkling…apparently one needs to be brighter than the other.