Philosophical question?

[magnifier661]

work cut out for them? Why? How? to convince you of something? Then you have the same work cut out ahead of you to convince atheists of the existence of god. because William Craig sounds good in a debate does nothing to convince his opponents. The same that hitchens sounding good elsewhere won't convince you. But when one side uses science, and another says it is what I believe, well, there is no work that is going to alter that, IMO.

Also don't see what difference it makes that there were sophisticated individuals who believed there was a god in the audience.

I guess you didn't read what I said, or maybe you didn't watch the debate. If you don't have time, watch the very last question to the sophisticated audience. Then get back to me.

 

[TripTango]

I would really hope that you watched the two debates I posted here. I challenge you to watch them with an open mind. If you think that William Craig is bat crazy; and he doesn't have a leg to stand on; then we can agree to disagree. I know they are both long, but I sat through both of them last night.

What I've learned from Hitchens, is I respect this man very much. He is honest, genuine and will admit or at least not "Bullshit" his way out. The next debates from the three panels of very sophisticated debaters from Philosophy, Biology and Physics all were stumbling against one man and his scientific theory. I also find it compelling that there were sophisticated individuals in the audience, and most of them agree that there is a God.

I guess the Atheists still have a lot of work cut out for them.

I don't think that belief in god is at all a function of intelligence. I've known very intelligent individuals -- scientists even -- who professed a belief in a creator. There's no intrinsic conflict here, since science and religion (in their purest forms) attempt to answer completely different questions. The only conflict that arises is when people try to use one of those two answers (science or religion) to answer the wrong question. Asking the Bible for the age of the earth is like asking a physics textbook what you should have for breakfast -- it's not that the book is wrong, it's just the wrong question!

 

[TripTango]

Okay and why not? If something isn't there, then why wouldn't it be excluded from the laws of Physics? That makes no sense. If, and maybe this isn't what many Christians believe; but let's say the designer isn't bound by the laws of gravity, light, sound, or time or maybe other laws that haven't been discovered; then how could it not happen? Are you saying it's impossible? Do you have proof of this impossibility? And excuse me if I'm not scientifically explaining this. I am not a physicist. But it's great knowing you are. I want to know.

I don't understand your question. Can you rephrase it?

So my question is: Do you have undeniable evidence that supports that a being, cannot break the known laws of physics? And if you do, then I would really like to read this proof.

No evidence at all. Do you have evidence that I don't have a tiny invisible unicorn in my hat? You cannot prove a negative, ever. Not in science, not it faith, not ever.

 

[RR7]

I don't know which video of the 5 or 6 you have posted, or which question you refer. Not going to spend 4 hours watching youtube videos to figure it out. If you'd like to just say your point or what was said, great. I'm not hunting through youtube videos to find it.
You finished the latest post with i guess the atheists have their work cut out for them. Which is what i was responding to. I would say the work is equally as difficult and pointless on both sides to "convert".

 

[magnifier661]

I don't understand your question. Can you rephrase it?

Is it impossible to have a being that isn't bound to the recent data/or research in physics? I hope I made it simple. I kind of ramble on the focus of my question. I apologize.

No evidence at all. Do you have evidence that I don't have a tiny invisible unicorn in my hat? You cannot prove a negative, ever. Not in science, not it faith, not ever.

Okay so there isn't evidence. That's really good to know. And talking about the "unicorn" this same principle can be made about multi-verses, since well; there isn't concrete evidence it exists.

 

[crowTrobot]

What I find even more intriguing is William Craig puts up great arguments; even scientific arguments and in front of the greatest minds of science and I see them stumble for the right answers and Craig seemlessly answering the questions with confidence and scientific and philisophical confidence.

that fact that he sounds confident doesn't make his arguments logically valid. he's a professional and extremely experienced and skilled debater, great at keeping thoughts organized and managing his time in a debate. his goal is to sway the audience by sounding authoritative. but confidently stated bullshit is still bullshit.

and in any case he's firmly an old-earth christian so it's odd that you would defer to him as an authority on scientific topics.

 

[magnifier661]

I don't know which video of the 5 or 6 you have posted, or which question you refer. Not going to spend 4 hours watching youtube videos to figure it out. If you'd like to just say your point or what was said, great. I'm not hunting through youtube videos to find it.
You finished the latest post with i guess the atheists have their work cut out for them. Which is what i was responding to. I would say the work is equally as difficult and pointless on both sides to "convert".

It's a shame then. If you care about truth or science; it's actually worth watching. But no worries look at the last video I posted. The one in England. You don't have to watch the debate; but I really suggest it. But scroll all the way to the end. It's the very last question asked.

[video=youtube;l3HCthi2i_o]

And when I say that they have a lot of work cut out for them; I go back to the great Hitchens and Dawkins and their mission to make Atheism a world view. By the show of hands in a very sophisticated setting; the vast majority believe there is a God. And I saw only one saying he didn't believe in God.

 

[crowTrobot]

Myself; I agree with Craig's ideas. Even if it disapproves young earth.

ok missed this part lol.

 

[magnifier661]

that fact that he sounds confident doesn't make his arguments logically valid. he's a professional and extremely experienced and skilled debater, great at keeping thoughts organized and managing his time in a debate. his goal is to sway the audience by sounding authoritative. but confidently stated bullshit is still bullshit.

and in any case he's firmly an old-earth christian so it's odd that you would defer to him as an authority on scientific topics.

Wow are you that Naive? LOL... He isn't debating someone like you. He is debating arguably the greatest minds in science and philosophy. If he didn't have a scientific point; they would eat him for lunch.

 

[Sedatedfork]

Back to the original topic (sort of), I think this article is very interesting. Although it speaks of evolution, it also discusses a lot of what ORL2 and Mags have been suggesting about innate morals that exist in our DNA.

http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/greatergood/archive/2005fallwinter/FallWinter0506_deWaal.pdf

And I suppose so that my horse in this race is known: I grew up Christian (sort of) but do not consider myself to be any specific religion currently. My current thoughts on religion are very ill defined. I do believe in a creator but I base that belief on faith and not science, and at the end of the day I believe that the creator cares less about whether we believe in the creator or the correct version of the creator and more about how we treat our common man/woman. I have to accept evolution as it appears to me to be difficult to rebut or refute. I try to live my life based on the Golden Rule. And at the end of the day, if I make it into the afterlife (if that even exists) or I don't, or I was completely wrong, I have no regrets. So, I fully expect all to start casting stones. Cast away!!

Edit: Oh yeah and my Creator says that any of you that disagree with me are screwed! Hope you all enjoy hell!

 

[magnifier661]

ok missed this part lol.

I personally had this opinion; but I didn't know if it was false. I battled it in my own head. And who knows; Craig maybe wrong, but he maybe right. I always perceived time in God's eyes is irrelevant. So what is a day for him could be millions of years to minds, physics or basic laws of science.

 

[magnifier661]

ok missed this part lol.

I personally had this opinion; but I didn't know if it was false. I battled it in my own head. And who knows; Craig maybe wrong, but he maybe right. I always perceived time in God's eyes is irrelevant. So what is a day for him could be millions of years to minds, physics or basic laws of science.

 

[MadeFromDust]

Christians follow the Bible because they believe it is the word of God. They believe in God largely because of the Bible. It's a closed loop, logically speaking. The only way on that little merry-go-round of faith is to simply start believing -- something that many of you did as a result of some kind of personal revelation or epiphany.

I follow the Bible because I believe it, yes. Also because it makes much more logical sense to me than man’s theories on how everything originated. And it’s backed by historical and archaeological evidence. Because you think it’s a closed loop doesn’t make it automatically untrue. A simple explanation is sometimes the best and most logical. Not that God or the Bible are simple, I just don’t believe that science will ever without a doubt figure why we’re here and what our meaning is unless they open up the Good Book.

There's a popular conception of atheists as being spiritually apathetic or lazy; they haven't found God because they don't even care to try. That may be true for some, but for many of us the journey was as long and rewarding as any conversion. I was raised Christian, and for years said my prayers every night like a dutiful son, hiding the fact that I never heard a thing in my head at night but the echoes of my own mind rattling around in my brain. I assumed I was "doing it wrong", like there was a secret knock I just had never figured out. For years I lived with that guilt -- why could everyone else hear something that I could not? When I started questioning, as many do, it was again with guilt and trepidation. It's tough to be the black sheep of the family. Some born-again atheists - for we are all born atheist! - report feeling lost and scared when they first let go of their superstition and rituals. For me it was the opposite. I felt clear-eyed and awake for the very first time. I seek truth. I always have. I couldn't be happier to have finally let go of that which kept me from finding it.

That’s fine with me. You had a magical experience that convinced you to start believing in atheism, that’s your business. I don’t doubt the reality of your experience - I cannot, for it is your alone - though of course I do doubt your interpretation of it.

I also hate it when atheists make the claim that all babies are born atheist, like that’s supposed to prove something. Like if they weren’t “indoctrinated” into religion they would intrinsically believe in nothing. You can make the case that they are agnostic, but either way it’s dumb because we’re talking about a freaking baby here.

You ask about morality, and whether it can exist without a mighty god inscribing laws on tablets. But I ask the opposite. How can you consider anything you do to be good if it is done under the threat of punishment? Which is more impressive: the Christian who helps his neighbor because God told him to, always believing in an eventual and eternal reward in heaven, or the atheist who gives of what he has without being told, expecting no reward whatsoever?

I believe atheists do good things because their Creator is good and made them with innate basic moral values written in their DNA. Of course I’m sure you will disagree.

You may answer this by saying that actions are meaningless -- only the love of Jesus matters. But at that point we have left the discussion of morality, and are back on the merry-go-round. You believe that Jesus is the answer because it says so in the Bible. And you follow the Bible because Jesus is the answer... Wheeeee!

I follow Jesus because He is the way, the truth, and the life. And as I mentioned earlier it makes more sense than any other theory or religion I've come across thus far.

 

[crowTrobot]

Wow are you that Naive? LOL... He isn't debating someone like you. He is debating arguably the greatest minds in science and philosophy. If he didn't have a scientific point; they would eat him for lunch.

not if they were poor or unprepared debaters, and WLC was one of the most skilled debaters in the world, which he is. that doesn't make him right. in fact everything he says (5 points etc) is easily refuted by someone with the time to do so.

 

[MadeFromDust]

Done, and done! And I promise to stay out of your god's heaven if you promise to give up your car, computer, cell phone, medicine, and all other benefits of a science-based society. Deal?

Honestly, I would take that deal and run. And I never said I was against science, only science that attempts to explain things it has no business explaining. Enjoy your earthly things.

 

[ABM]

I would say the work is equally as difficult and pointless on both sides to "convert".

That said, I just sold a construction job yesterday. I had already visited their home, went over the parameters of the project, and worked towards selling the gentleman and his wife on the benefits of going with our company. This included sharing some testimonies of our other customers, hitting home our commitment to quality and service, etc., etc.

He called me yesterday afternoon and went on to tell me that, while he had no way of "truly" knowing if we would do what we say we're gonna do, he just had that "gut" feeling that we were all we said we were. He said him and his wife had that same feeling. That's why their pulling the trigger on the deal. In other words, they put their "faith" in us.....pretty much sight unseen.

I guess I said all this to point out that, sometimes, things aren't entirely cut and dried. Sometimes it really does take a faith factor. Without it, it's just another unsolved equation that very well may go spinning into indifference, nothingness, or flat-out rejection. For certain, faith is the basis for any Christian's relationship with Jesus. Without it, there's no relationship at all. Many Christians will respond with a, "I know that I know that I know.." I can related to that. And, nothing will unsettle that......ever.

 

[magnifier661]

not if they were poor or unprepared debaters, and WLC was one of the most skilled debaters in the world, which he is. that doesn't make him right. in fact everything he says (5 points etc) is easily refuted by someone with the time to do so.

Wow you think Hitchens was poor or unprepared? How about Millican, Law, Harris, Kraus, Ally, Carrier, Ludeman, Dayton, Dacey, DeSousa, Drange, Shook, Show, Wilson, Strobel, Dennison, Edwards, Bradley, Cooke, or Parsons?

The Atheists sent the best they got and even Dawkins refuses to debate Craig one on one. And Dawkins is known to be the best debater that Atheism has to offer. If Craig was full of shit; then science would immediately show him for a charlatan. So far, it didn't even come close. And in some cases; jokes were even made to Craig to try and ruffle his feathers. Unfortunately for Atheists; that didn't even work.

You can't discount Craig. He has quite the resumé:

Biographical Sketch

William Lane Craig is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California. He and his wife Jan have two grown children.

At the age of sixteen as a junior in high school, he first heard the message of the Christian gospel and yielded his life to Christ. Dr. Craig pursued his undergraduate studies at Wheaton College (B.A. 1971) and graduate studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (M.A. 1974; M.A. 1975), the University of Birmingham (England) (Ph.D. 1977), and the University of Munich (Germany) (D.Theol. 1984). From 1980-86 he taught Philosophy of Religion at Trinity, during which time he and Jan started their family. In 1987 they moved to Brussels, Belgium, where Dr. Craig pursued research at the University of Louvain until assuming his position at Talbot in 1994.

He has authored or edited over thirty books, including The Kalam Cosmological Argument; Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus; Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom; Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology; and God, Time and Eternity, as well as over a hundred articles in professional journals of philosophy and theology, including The Journal of Philosophy, New Testament Studies, Journal for the Study of the New Testament, American Philosophical Quarterly, Philosophical Studies, Philosophy, and British Journal for Philosophy of Science.

 

[magnifier661]

And let me get this straight. I hold a very high respect for both Hitchen's and Dawkins; because you can honestly believe that they are passionate about their philosophy. They come from a very prestigious background of science. Not a single person would disagree that if you want a scientist go to bat for you; they are the Barry Bonds or Mantles of science. I may not agree with their theories; but at least they try and explain things honestly. And even Dawkins will openly admit that intelligent design is a realistic possibility.

And you can see Craig hold that same respect as well. Watch the debates and see just how much he goes out of his way to never call them out. And he is the first to shake their hand and never get into a pissing match verbally with them. You can say he's just a great debater. I think it's just someone that 100% believes in what he has to say. It's hard to cover your tracks when you aren't confident with your story or data. It's very easy to be extremely open when you are 100% confident in what you believe in.

 

[RR7]

yet how is any of that relevant? Craig debating and defending what he truly believes?

 

[magnifier661]

yet how is any of that relevant? Craig debating and defending what he truly believes?

How is what relevant? I don't know what statement you are replying to since there was no quotes.

 

[TripTango]

Is it impossible to have a being that isn't bound to the recent data/or research in physics? I hope I made it simple. I kind of ramble on the focus of my question. I apologize.

Absolutely possible. If it's invisible, unmeasurable, and unobservable than it falls completely outside the walls of science. This doesn't make it any more or less true, but it does make it 100% unscientific.

Okay so there isn't evidence. That's really good to know. And talking about the "unicorn" this same principle can be made about multi-verses, since well; there isn't concrete evidence it exists.

You're right in that the proposition of multiverses is not even close to being accepted as a supported theory. What's the point? No physicist would stake his/her life on the presence or absence of multiverses.

 

[TripTango]

Honestly, I would take that deal and run. And I never said I was against science, only science that attempts to explain things it has no business explaining. Enjoy your earthly things.

Tsk tsk! Still using that computer, I see!

 

[MadeFromDust]

Tsk tsk! Still using that computer, I see!

Are you trying to make a point here? For the third time, I'm not against science, only stupid pseudo-science that piles on theories in a desperate and futile attempt to eliminate the need for a Creator.

 

[magnifier661]

Absolutely possible. If it's invisible, unmeasurable, and unobservable than it falls completely outside the walls of science. This doesn't make it any more or less true, but it does make it 100% unscientific.

Why is it unscientific? It's only that we don't know; therefor we can't conclude. If science actually used some of the resource material and did scientific studies, focused on creation; we may find answers. Instead science has completely and arrogantly ignored to follow through with a very sound theory. This makes them no better than the charlatans that hunted scientists down in the early years as warlocks and witches. I thought science wasn't supposed to be discriminative. So far, modern science has proven it's extremely discriminative to creation.

You're right in that the proposition of multiverses is not even close to being accepted as a supported theory. What's the point? No physicist would stake his/her life on the presence or absence of multiverses.

Okay how about the big bang; or any other theory for that matter? Are their inconclusive and undeniable evidence supporting those theories? How about recirculating universes? What about black holes making mini-verses? There are holes in everyone of those theories.

 

[crowTrobot]

Wow you think Hitchens was poor or unprepared?

uprepared to respond to the specific arguments WLC makes, absolutely. hitchens didn't put much effort into this confrontation.

How about Millican, Law, Harris, Kraus, Ally, Carrier, Ludeman, Dayton, Dacey, DeSousa, Drange, Shook, Show, Wilson, Strobel, Dennison, Edwards, Bradley, Cooke, or Parson?

The Atheists sent the best they got and even Dawkins refuses to debate Craig one on one.

a few of those names are generally considered to have beated WLC by neutral observers. a few of them are theists by the way.

and even Dawkins refuses to debate Craig one on one.

because he doesn't want to have to fight against all the rhetoric, not because he's afraid he can't refute WLC's arguments.

And Dawkins is known to be the best debater that Atheism has to offer.

no he's not lol. i don't think there is one. maybe sam harris, who debated craig over the origin of morality and won easily IMO.

If Craig was full of shit; then science would immediately show him for a charlatan.

it has. the KCA is easily refuted, and considered silly nonsense by working cosmologists and by most modern philosophers. nobody but hardcore theists trying to sell books takes it seriously.

 

[TripTango]

I follow the Bible because I believe it, yes. Also because it makes much more logical sense to me than man’s theories on how everything originated.

Great!

And it’s backed by historical and archaeological evidence.

Nope.

Because you think it’s a closed loop doesn’t make it automatically untrue.

Agreed.

A simple explanation is sometimes the best and most logical.

SO TRUE! Hence my lack of belief in an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent magic man in the sky.

Not that God or the Bible are simple, I just don’t believe that science will ever without a doubt figure why we’re here and what our meaning is unless they open up the Good Book.

Science will almost certainly never answer the question "why are we here". The fact that your Good Book attempts to do so doesn't make it correct. I can understand why some need to have that unknown answered for them, but it's still just stories in a book.

That’s fine with me. You had a magical experience that convinced you to start believing in atheism, that’s your business. I don’t doubt the reality of your experience - I cannot, for it is your alone - though of course I do doubt your interpretation of it.

Cute, but I had no magical experience. I simply stopped trying to fool myself.

I also hate it when atheists make the claim that all babies are born atheist, like that’s supposed to prove something. Like if they weren’t “indoctrinated” into religion they would intrinsically believe in nothing. You can make the case that they are agnostic, but either way it’s dumb because we’re talking about a freaking baby here.

Hence the wink. Did you catch that part? Atheists can joke too, you know. P.S. You are misusing the term "agnostic". Look up Thomas Huxley's original definition and get back to us.

P.P.S. You are still using your computer! Stop it right now!

I believe atheists do good things because their Creator is good and made them with innate basic moral values written in their DNA. Of course I’m sure you will disagree.

What is this DNA stuff of which you speak? Sounds like scientific hogwash.

 

[TripTango]

Are you trying to make a point here? For the third time, I'm not against science, only stupid pseudo-science that piles on theories in a desperate and futile attempt to eliminate the need for a Creator.

Did you not agree to "take that deal and run"? See post #435. And there's no need to eliminate what isn't there.

 

[MadeFromDust]

Great!

likewise.

Nope.

Yep. Might want to study up.

Agreed.

Great!

SO TRUE! Hence my lack of belief in an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent magic man in the sky.

And for the same reason, I don't believe in a spontaneous, causeless, sourceless, purposeless, meaningless existence.

Science will almost certainly never answer the question "why are we here". The fact that your Good Book attempts to do so doesn't make it correct. I can understand why some need to have that unknown answered for them, but it's still just stories in a book.

Stories in a book to you, reality for billions of others.

Cute, but I had no magical experience. I simply stopped trying to fool myself.

Neither did I. I don't even believe in magic.

P.P.S. You are still using your computer! Stop it right now!

Lol, if you're trying to ruffle my feathers then keep trying. I'm not going to fall for your lame attempts.

What is this DNA stuff of which you speak? Sounds like scientific hogwash.

Yay, four strawmen and counting. I see you lack crucial reading comprehension.

 

[magnifier661]

uprepared to respond to the specific arguments WLC makes, absolutely. hitchens didn't put much effort into this confrontation.

Which explains "Arrogance". And did you see the video of Hitchens giving props to Craig? If Hitchens thought Craig was full of shit; he would have never candidly given Craig praise. You are too deep in your box; step out and see the forest.

a few of those names are generally considered to have beated WLC by neutral observers. a few of them are theists by the way.

I have been doing a lot of digging and I haven't once seen any credit given by a neutral observer that gives a "win" to those that have debated him.

because he doesn't want to have to fight against all the rhetoric, not because he's afraid he can't refute WLC's arguments.

Then why the arrogant ignorance to set aside scientific studies with the focus on creation? If it can be refuted, then it's obviously needing to be tested to prove it wrong. Isn't that science?

no he's not lol. i don't think there is cosidered to be one. maybe sam harris, who debated craig over the origin of morality and won easily IMO.

Okay show me a neutral party that actually agreed more in favor of Harris over Craig.

it has. the KCA is easily refuted, and considered silly nonsense by working cosmologists and by most modern philosophers. nobody but hardcore theists trying to sell books takes it seriously.

You aren't seeing the big picture. Craig has been around since the early 2000's debating the same theories. If there were just a few debates, then I could see your point. There has been ample time to prove Craig to be a Charlatan. I don't see any significant change in his theories for over 5 years. If you don't think a brilliant group of minds can't find holes in his arguments in 5 years; then that says a lot about Craig's iron clad ability.

 

[MadeFromDust]

Did you not agree to "take that deal and run"? See post #435. And there's no need to eliminate what isn't there.

If it came down to worshiping God or holding on to my material things I would worship God 8 days a week. Fortunately it's not. You are grasping at straws.