Who Would Win?

Ugh, I know the pain all too well >.<

:)

And who are those scholars?

Do you really want me to list them? Or is that a question you pose so you can dismiss offhand any religious or conservative scholars?
Then the liberal scholars who are not religious but do argue for the existence of God you might dismiss offhand since they don't fall into the group think consensus of the naturalistic/anti-supernaturalistic worldview.
I know of one liberal, evolutionist scholar/professor that uses very compelling arguments for the existence of God that you would probably offhandedly dismiss since he has been labeled "ever kind of"-phobe in the media since he won't bow to the consensus of his peers by submitting to compelled speech.
There may be no use in me giving the names of any of these scholars.

I would like to see you list the scholars who primarily argued for God's existence above all else. Whether they are liberal or not, it doesn't matter to me.

There is a glut of theologians both liberal and conservative (politically and theologically since there is a difference) which primarily argue for God's existence.
Here are three names of scholars and professors only one of which I would trust to teach the bible: Greg Bahnsen, William Lane Craig, Jordan Peterson. The fist two specialize in Christian apologetics, one of which teaches philosophy. The last is not even religious, he thinks that the bible is just a collection of stories, albeit with significant cultural and some moral value.

These are well known names, beside every faculty member of the theology and philosophy departments at the school I attended.

By "above all else", I mean give me a list of the ones who mainly focused on convincing people that God was real, and are/were good people; not rich maniacs. In that sense, I wouldn't have added Jordan Peterson because, as you said, he wasn't religios.

I looked both Greg Bahnsen and William Craig up; Greg seemed a bit more preachy than William if anything. However, I wouldn't say they were great scholars because they focused on attacking atheism rather than defending theism.

ur not really getting anywhere

A) nobody cares. this thread is from '18
B) the user who created said thread left a few years ago

why exactly

to expose their ties to the military industrial complex and zionist hysteria

people who actually make sense unlike those delusional atheists

"delusional atheists"

you spelt "zionist" wrong :)

Google For the win, you have access to the largest database on earth use it

Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Albert Einstein

Arthur Compton (1892 – 1962)
Arthur Compton
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Blaise Pascal

Ernst Haeckel (1834 –1919)
Ernst Haeckel

Erwin Schrödinger (1887 –1961)

Erwin Schrödinger

Francis Bacon (1561-1627)

Francis Bacon

Francis Collins (Born 1950)
Francis Collins
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

Galileo Galilei

Gottfried Leibniz (1646 –1716)
Gottfried Leibniz
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
Gregor Mendel

Guglielmo Marconi (1874 –1937)
Guglielmo Marconi

Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
Isaac Newton

James Clerk Maxwell (1831 –1879)
James Clerk Maxwell

Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Johannes Kepler

John Eccles (1903 – 1997)
John Eccles
Louis Pasteur (1822-1895)
Louis Pasteur

Max Planck (1858-1947)
Max Planck

Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Michael Faraday

Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
Nicholas Copernicus

Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Rene Descartes

Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
Robert Boyle

Robert A. Millikan (1868 – 1953)
Robert A. Millikan
Werner Heisenberg (1901 – 1976)
Werner Heisenberg

William Harvey (1578 –1657)
William Harvey

William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
William Thomson Kelvin

Advertisements

bedtime story

what the bible, or the atheistic theories that dont make sense at all but they choose to believe them cuz they dont want to admit the truth?

" choose to believe them cuz they dont want to admit the truth?"

eyyy ISIS member much?

you dont make any sense

the one on the left, not the stoopid trolly boi. you said it man

"Countless" haha countable i assure you

As "countable i assure you" is not to mean simply countable on one hand and is therefore a hyperbole itself, you can be sure i not only understand what a hyperbole is, but that was also a good response

Was it really a good response? All it did was attack the number of people who hold a view, which is no indicator as to whether or not that view is true.

No, actually I attacked the absurd notion of that number of people (the number of believer scholars, philosophers, etc.) being considered countless

Because what's exaggeration?

Fair enough