What happened to the audio at 28.17-28.28? Also, the gain is set too high, distorting the audio throughout. But aside from that, this is well worth listening to and sharing. Thank You for posting this!
As usual Dr. Wright is always cogent and insightful. My own opinion on proof is that powerful deductive arguments (e.g. William Lane Craig) along with evidence for the Resurrection do prove God exists (e.g. Simon Greenleaf or Dr. John Warwick Montgomery).
@MrMal777 I think it helps with my general frustration with proofs for God; none of them are the reason I believe in God and while I understand I have to speak to different hearts different ways, I feel uncomfortable resting on proofs that simply aren't well, mine. Not "not mine" in the sense that I didn't make them, but "not mine" in the sense that they're not the reason I hold God to be something very real.
Nothing is still that which rocks think about. Everything either came from the personal or impersonal. If "Come let us reason together" (per God) is unreasonable then affirming or denying propositions is ungrounded, Existential evidence from "direct experience" is still evidence grounded by something. The Proposition "Jesus can be verified to be no less than God incarnate" is grounded by primary source historical documents which responsible textual critics affirm (Facts then Faith).
I find it interesting that he criticizes making a philosophical case for God after referencing Mere Christianity, which makes a philosophical case for God. I think there's room for both approaches, and bogh will appeal to different sorts of people.
If Wright believes that God is greater than all of our frames of reference, then why does keep talking about God? What can't be said can't be said and it can't be whistled either. I don't think that Wright is right about that claim, but he should at least be consistent.
![ILLSLICK - THE KING'S LANDING [Freestyle]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/feIJJnNkTfk/mqdefault.jpg)
I’m reading this book
I love this guy.
Wonderful thought. Worth listening.
What happened to the audio at 28.17-28.28? Also, the gain is set too high, distorting the audio throughout. But aside from that, this is well worth listening to and sharing. Thank You for posting this!
Dear Veritas
The video misses sound between 28:17-26
I just wanted to let you know :)
As usual Dr. Wright is always cogent and insightful. My own opinion on proof is that powerful deductive arguments (e.g. William Lane Craig) along with evidence for the Resurrection do prove God exists (e.g. Simon Greenleaf or Dr. John Warwick Montgomery).
@MrMal777 Dont know who those references are, but when I listen, it just seems to make sense.
Wright's au courant. I don't always agree with him, but he always seems to speak meaningfully and (horrible word!) relevantly.
@MrMal777
I think it helps with my general frustration with proofs for God; none of them are the reason I believe in God and while I understand I have to speak to different hearts different ways, I feel uncomfortable resting on proofs that simply aren't well, mine. Not "not mine" in the sense that I didn't make them, but "not mine" in the sense that they're not the reason I hold God to be something very real.
N. T. Wright is an Anglican bishop.
Guy's sharp.
Audio really needs to be fixed. Great lecture, otherwise.
Nothing is still that which rocks think about. Everything either came from the personal or impersonal. If "Come let us reason together" (per God) is unreasonable then affirming or denying propositions is ungrounded, Existential evidence from "direct experience" is still evidence grounded by something. The Proposition "Jesus can be verified to be no less than God incarnate" is grounded by primary source historical documents which responsible textual critics affirm (Facts then Faith).
I find it interesting that he criticizes making a philosophical case for God after referencing Mere Christianity, which makes a philosophical case for God. I think there's room for both approaches, and bogh will appeal to different sorts of people.
this guys name is New Testament is right!
@MrMal777
Sorry if I was unclear; "it" being Wright's assessment on the unprovability of God
I'm confused about his views on heaven.
shockedbyjoy if he's a anglican bishop his wings most be 'HUGE' to pick up that god of his belly body!
Brown Deborah Wilson Michelle Martinez Mary
If Wright believes that God is greater than all of our frames of reference, then why does keep talking about God? What can't be said can't be said and it can't be whistled either. I don't think that Wright is right about that claim, but he should at least be consistent.
So he should have just got up to the podium and said "God is greater than all our frames of reference, Good night"
Joseph Wright Either that or don't make the claim.
ortcutt Should we not talk about how many stars are in the universe either?