Philosophical question?

[magnifier661]

irrelevant. you wasted your time doing that.



for being a good debater, yes. i've done that.

for making good aruments, no you haven't.



totally irrelevant



i never said anything about his intellect. i don't respect his arguments because they aren't particularly original or convincing.

LMAO! Than everyone in the field of science is irrelevant! Hahahahaha... Okay sorry crow, maybe the scientific field get you in charge to lead the way of our progression! You look like a supreme candidate! But if I misread your post regarding "intellect" then I will concur on that statement.

 

[TripTango]

You are giving very little credit to the sophistication of the audience and debaters he speaks in front of. We aren't living in a world that you can sell snake oil here. They are extremely educated people. If he had no case, he would be ridiculed easily in the science platform. Instead they now see him as an equal. And you not seeing this is just an example of arrogance.

Please, PLEASE tell me you are joking here. We live in a world where snake oil sells better than ever.

 

[TripTango]

And just so you know, Craig believes the universe is 17 billion years old. He also is open to evolution. But since he's a theist, many in here call him a con artist or gullible. I find the arrogance intriguing. That you would have or feel the right to judge others, especially one considered just as sophisticated as some of the greatest minds in science; but ridicule the Christians. Now I have made it perfectly clear I hate those types of Christians.

This is why I find it laughable when I read some of these things. It transcends sophistication and the complete ignorance from both sides.

Careful. ONE person called him a con artist. I see no reason to doubt his earnest, honest belief, even if I think he's mistaken. (Crow may call me naive here.) Intelligence and sophistication (and I agree that Craig has both) do NOT equate to infallibility.

 

[magnifier661]

Careful. ONE person called him a con artist. I see no reason to doubt his earnest, honest belief, even if I think he's mistaken. (Crow may call me naive here.) Intelligence and sophistication (and I agree that Craig has both) do NOT equate to infallibility.

I hold a high respect for you and Denny in these debates. I see you, like Denny wanting to seek truth and believe in the "purism" of science. And I embrace that as well. But remember that this was a response to one poster; maybe a couple others that have a certain arrogance in these threads. Don't think I am generalizing the entire flock. Just like I wouldn't generalize the entire flock of Christians.

 

[magnifier661]

Careful. ONE person called him a con artist. I see no reason to doubt his earnest, honest belief, even if I think he's mistaken. (Crow may call me naive here.) Intelligence and sophistication (and I agree that Craig has both) do NOT equate to infallibility.

I hold a high respect for you and Denny in these debates. I see you, like Denny wanting to seek truth and believe in the "purism" of science. And I embrace that as well. But remember that this was a response to one poster; maybe a couple others that have a certain arrogance in these threads. Don't think I am generalizing the entire flock. Just like I wouldn't generalize the entire flock of Christians.

 

[TripTango]

I'm always right and I never lie? Who are you referring to?

And you kinda set yourself up for this one.

I guess Dawkins lacks sophistication.

"Admits to intelligent design" is VASTLY overstating what Dawkins said.

 

[TripTango]

I hold a high respect for you and Denny in these debates. I see you, like Denny wanting to seek truth and believe in the "purism" of science. And I embrace that as well. But remember that this was a response to one poster; maybe a couple others that have a certain arrogance in these threads. Don't think I am generalizing the entire flock. Just like I wouldn't generalize the entire flock of Christians.

Appreciated. I also think you are an honest believer and honest questioner, and I respect that. I know too many Christians to possibly lump them all into any one basket.

 

[magnifier661]

"Admits to intelligent design" is VASTLY overstating what Dawkins said.

Are you sure? Because this becomes the issue here. If he thinks the probability that our DNA had a program; even if it started with just the single cell type organism; by a being more intelligent than we are; then who made that being? And so on, and so on. Basically, what is God? Can God be someone or something or nothing with supreme intelligence; that breaks the very laws of our known science like light, gravity, relativity, physics, etc. You can't say this is impossible. You maybe able to say it's "improbable", and if future science can manipulate actual DNA, or even find ways to "synthesize" it; then couldn't we play God? <--- This statement doesn't agree with my Christian Faith by the way.

This isn't the question that "My Hebrew God is God" as the one you must believe in. It's the question of "Can God exist"?

 

[magnifier661]

Appreciated. I also think you are an honest believer and honest questioner, and I respect that. I know too many Christians to possibly lump them all into any one basket.

Thank you too. That means a lot to me.

 

[TripTango]

Are you sure? Because this becomes the issue here. If he thinks the probability that our DNA had a program; even if it started with just the single cell type organism; by a being more intelligent than we are; then who made that being? And so on, and so on. Basically, what is God? Can God be someone or something or nothing with supreme intelligence; that breaks the very laws of our known science like light, gravity, relativity, physics, etc. You can't say this is impossible. You maybe able to say it's "improbable", and if future science can manipulate actual DNA, or even find ways to "synthesize" it; then couldn't we play God? <--- This statement doesn't agree with my Christian Faith by the way.

This isn't the question that "My Hebrew God is God" is the one you must believe in. It's the question of "Can God exist"?

What Dawkins said, repeatedly, was "nobody knows how life started". This is the only honest answer an atheist can give. He acknowledged that yes, it is POSSIBLE that life on earth was "seeded" by some extraterrestrial super-species, which was itself spontaneously created and shaped through evolutionary processes. It's also possible that life originated with petri dish of bacteria sent backwards in time with Scott Bakula. That's not saying that either one of these is the most likely scenario, or even likely at all -- it's just saying that nobody knows. Twisting this into "Dawkins admits to intelligent design" is a pretty big stretch.

 

[magnifier661]

What Dawkins said, repeatedly, was "nobody knows how life started". This is the only honest answer an atheist can give. He acknowledged that yes, it is POSSIBLE that life on earth was "seeded" by some extraterrestrial super-species, which was itself spontaneously created and shaped through evolutionary processes. It's also possible that life originated with petri dish of bacteria sent backwards in time with Scott Bakula. That's not saying that either one of these is the most likely scenario, or even likely at all -- it's just saying that nobody knows. Twisting this into "Dawkins admits to intelligent design" is a pretty big stretch.

I didn't say he admitted to it. I'm saying he said it's possible. And this was to a reply that crow said "Anyone that thinks this isn't sophisticated". You gotta see where I replied it. I didn't say Dawkins admits, therefor he believes. But since Dawkins is a "realist" and "rational"; he can't discredit it; which is why he is "sophisticated". This is the very same reason why Craig can say he is open to "evolution" even though it isn't a popular belief of "Christians". This is another reason why Craig is sophisticated. He also believes the Universe is 17 billion years old. Once again not very popular in the Christian sector.

Please read why I posted this and who I responded to.

 

[TripTango]

I didn't say he admitted to it. I'm saying he said it's possible. And this was to a reply that crow said "Anyone that thinks this isn't sophisticated". You gotta see where I replied it. I didn't say Dawkins admits, therefor he believes. But since Dawkins is a "realist" and "rational"; he can't discredit it; which is why he is "sophisticated". This is the very same reason why Craig can say he is open to "evolution" even though it isn't a popular belief of "Christians". This is another reason why Craig is sophisticated. He also believes the Universe is 17 billion years old. Once again not very popular in the Christian sector.

Please read why I posted this and who I responded to.

Sorry - I wasn't originally commenting on your argument specifically, but on the title of the YouTube video (which is "Richard Dawkins admits to intelligent design").

And by "Christian sector" you mean SOME in the Christian sector, right? I know plenty of Christians who have no problem whatsoever incorporating evolution into their religious views -- probably shouldn't generalize them.

 

[magnifier661]

Sorry - I wasn't originally commenting on your argument specifically, but on the title of the YouTube video (which is "Richard Dawkins admits to intelligent design").

And by "Christian sector" you mean SOME in the Christian sector, right? I know plenty of Christians who have no problem whatsoever incorporating evolution into their religious views -- probably shouldn't generalize them.

LOL yep! I stand corrected... But I wouldn't say some, but majority if people in the Christian sector. Trust me, I've talked about similar theories regarding the Earth life, and even evolution.

My theory trips people out a little. And I will be honest and candid in this place. What really goes on in my head; or what I truly battle is this.

Can it be possible that a being "God" doesn't need to worry about time because, well he made time. 1 billion years ago is just as relevant as the present or 1 trillion years in the future. If this is the case; one day to him could mean millions of years and still be accurate because; well it's nothing (If you know what I mean). And, this is completely my opinion; but what if there was some sort of evolution. Something like God enjoying the masterpiece come to finalization. The imperfections become perfections. Life from nothing becomes something amazing? This is why I don't discount "some sort of evolution". I discount "The reason why so many embrace evolution". And again, it's not like I believe in it or disbelieve in it; if you know what I mean.

Then comes the Bible; which I do truly believe is the inspiration of God "God's basic words". But then think about how we speak to children. Because we know their vocabulary is small; we talk in a way they can understand. Could you imagine seeing Heaven or even God for that matter? Think about being simple and seeing such a marvelous, supernatural being right before your eyes. And try explaining 100,000,000 years to people with no true history. I mean lets even think about the history of written word. What maybe 1,000 years? They live on average of 30? 30 years is a fucking HUGE number to them. So talk simply and tell them 1 day. Because in reality 1 day is billions to God. Man my thinking goes even farther, but I think I've said too much already. LOL!

Okay maybe I'm rambling, but whatever.

 

[crowTrobot]

I didn't say he admitted to it. I'm saying he said it's possible. And this was to a reply that crow said "Anyone that thinks this isn't sophisticated".

maris said that, not me lol. i don't think the belief of any individual is necessarily tied to intelligence or sophistication.

WLC is obviously a very smart and well-educated man. that's not the problem. my issue with him is he seemingly deliberately misrepresents the positions of atheists, facts of what is claimed by scientists, and the consensus position of the biblical scholarly community in order to shoehorn those things into his arguments.

for example he typically starts out his first point by misdefining atheism as necessarily "strong" (belief that god DOES NOT exist, not belief that god is unproven or improbable based on evidence) so he can conflate any form of athiesm with faith. he claims scientists have shown that it's likely the universe had an absolute beginning, which is bullshit, claims the majority of biblical scholars agree that the gospels are historically accurate about intricate details of the resurrection, which is bullshit, etc. given the scope of his debate career i have no reason to doubt that he knows better about these things, but chooses to maintain this type of tactic because it sounds great, and most of his audience doesn't know any better.

 

[crowTrobot]

LOL yep! I stand corrected... But I wouldn't say some, but majority if people in the Christian sector.

it's pretty close to 50/50 in the USA based on recent polls. even if it's not a majority obviously tens of millions of christians believe in evolution.

 

[crowTrobot]

Can it be possible that a being "God" doesn't need to worry about time because, well he made time. 1 billion years ago is just as relevant as the present or 1 trillion years in the future. If this is the case; one day to him could mean millions of years and still be accurate because; well it's nothing (If you know what I mean). And, this is completely my opinion; but what if there was some sort of evolution. Something like God enjoying the masterpiece come to finalization. The imperfections become perfections. Life from nothing becomes something amazing? This is why I don't discount "some sort of evolution". I discount "The reason why so many embrace evolution". And again, it's not like I believe in it or disbelieve in it; if you know what I mean.

Then comes the Bible; which I do truly believe is the inspiration of God "God's basic words". But then think about how we speak to children. Because we know their vocabulary is small; we talk in a way they can understand. Could you imagine seeing Heaven or even God for that matter? Think about being simple and seeing such a marvelous, supernatural being right before your eyes. And try explaining 100,000,000 years to people with no true history. I mean lets even think about the history of written word. What maybe 1,000 years? They live on average of 30? 30 years is a fucking HUGE number to them. So talk simply and tell them 1 day. Because in reality 1 day is billions to God. Man my thinking goes even farther, but I think I've said too much already. LOL

why think that hard when you can just say maybe genesis 1 was meant to be poetic or allegorical.

 

[magnifier661]

maris said that, not me lol. i don't think the belief of any individual is necessarily tied to intelligence or sophistication.

Oops, you are right, my apologies. But reading back, you pretty much said the same thing. In fact, throughout this thread; you have made comments that anyone in the modern science fields; don't being in God.

WLC is obviously a very smart and well-educated man. that's not the problem. my issue with him is he seemingly deliberately misrepresents the positions of atheists, facts of what is claimed by scientists, and the consensus position of the biblical scholarly community in order to shoehorn those things into his arguments.

for example he typically starts out his first point by misdefining atheism as necessarily "strong" (belief that god DOES NOT exist, not belief that god is unproven or improbable based on evidence) so he can conflate any form of athiesm with faith. he claims scientists have shown that it's likely the universe had an absolute beginning, which is bullshit, claims the majority of biblical scholars agree that the gospels are historically accurate about intricate details of the resurrection, which is bullshit, etc. given the scope of his debate career i have no reason to doubt that he knows better about these things, but chooses to maintain this type of tactic because it sounds great, and most of his audience doesn't know any better.

The Big Bang is a theory that the universe had an absolute beginning. Is that wrong? And he debates about moral aptitude being placed or programed into us; and most atheists believed that these "moral aptitudes" are evolved through our DNA naturally. Both can happen; but none has proven more than the other, IMO. If you find or prove there maybe a designer; then it only brings up the possibility that eventually you will reach the Grand Designer.

But if you call it bullshit, then that's your opinion. I think it's actually pretty cool!

 

[magnifier661]

it's pretty close to 50/50 in the USA based on recent polls. even if it's not a majority obviously tens of millions of christians believe in evolution.

I would like to see this census. I haven't seen such a poll.

 

[TripTango]

LOL yep! I stand corrected... But I wouldn't say some, but majority if people in the Christian sector. Trust me, I've talked about similar theories regarding the Earth life, and even evolution.

My theory trips people out a little. And I will be honest and candid in this place. What really goes on in my head; or what I truly battle is this.

Can it be possible that a being "God" doesn't need to worry about time because, well he made time. 1 billion years ago is just as relevant as the present or 1 trillion years in the future. If this is the case; one day to him could mean millions of years and still be accurate because; well it's nothing (If you know what I mean). And, this is completely my opinion; but what if there was some sort of evolution. Something like God enjoying the masterpiece come to finalization. The imperfections become perfections. Life from nothing becomes something amazing? This is why I don't discount "some sort of evolution". I discount "The reason why so many embrace evolution". And again, it's not like I believe in it or disbelieve in it; if you know what I mean.

Then comes the Bible; which I do truly believe is the inspiration of God "God's basic words". But then think about how we speak to children. Because we know their vocabulary is small; we talk in a way they can understand. Could you imagine seeing Heaven or even God for that matter? Think about being simple and seeing such a marvelous, supernatural being right before your eyes. And try explaining 100,000,000 years to people with no true history. I mean lets even think about the history of written word. What maybe 1,000 years? They live on average of 30? 30 years is a fucking HUGE number to them. So talk simply and tell them 1 day. Because in reality 1 day is billions to God. Man my thinking goes even farther, but I think I've said too much already. LOL!

Okay maybe I'm rambling, but whatever.

Nah, I think you are investigating some important consequences of belief in a timeless deity. But that's again where things get dicey for us and free will. You and I are not timeless. We live our lives bound up in a steady, one-way flow of events following one after another. If someone (like God) were to see our lives in their entirety, start to finish, laid out like a painting, what does this imply about our free will? How can an all-knowing, timeless god be compatible with the concept of free will? ABM punted on this question, and I don't blame him -- it kept me up at night as a kid.

 

[crowTrobot]

Oops, you are right, my apologies. But reading back, you pretty much said the same thing. In fact, throughout this thread; you have made comments that anyone in the modern science fields; don't being in God.

no, i said working scientists don't believe in a young earth. polls show 40% of scientists in the USA are theists.

The Big Bang is a theory that the universe had an absolute beginning. Is that wrong?

yes. the big bang theory doesn't address where the matter/energy that "banged" came from. it makes no claims about that.

And he debates about moral aptitude being placed or programed into us

i don't think his moral argument misprepresents anyone's position.

 

[crowTrobot]

I would like to see this census. I haven't seen such a poll.

Here's a chart of gallup polls on the subject through 2010. most recently of those polled "god created man in present form" is 40%, "evolution happened but was guided by god" is 38%, so belief in evolution among religious people is at least getting really close to 50%

http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-Americans-Believe-Strict-Creationism.aspx

 

[magnifier661]

Nah, I think you are investigating some important consequences of belief in a timeless deity. But that's again where things get dicey for us and free will. You and I are not timeless. We live our lives bound up in a steady, one-way flow of events following one after another. If someone (like God) were to see our lives in their entirety, start to finish, laid out like a painting, what does this imply about our free will? How can an all-knowing, timeless god be compatible with the concept of free will? ABM punted on this question, and I don't blame him -- it kept me up at night as a kid.

I'll choose to go for it. Just because god knows what you did, done and will do; doesn't stop use from having free will. It just means he allows it to happen, good or bad. And I think that's pretty cool.

 

[TripTango]

I'll choose to go for it. Just because god knows what you did, done and will do; doesn't stop use from having free will. It just means he allows it to happen, good or bad. And I think that's pretty cool.

But take that conclusion further. If God is both timeless and your creator, he knew what you would do before you were even a speck in your father's eye. Before he even set your life in motion. He's not just allowing you to do whatever you want -- he knew where your life would go before you even started going there. That's not free will -- that's following a preordained script!

 

[magnifier661]

But take that conclusion further. If God is both timeless and your creator, he knew what you would do before you were even a speck in your father's eye. Before he even set your life in motion. He's not just allowing you to do whatever you want -- he knew where your life would go before you even started going there. That's not free will -- that's following a preordained script!

Yes if you are in mans eyes. But let's say u have an ant farm. They are doing their thing and you watch it objectively without prejudice. And u won't interfere which still allows them do whatever. You still know they will die at a specific time and how they will reproduce, build, etc. now if they didn't have free will, you would be their queen giving them orders and they just do without question, like robots.

God has a script, but our free will is his masterpiece. He is so great that everything was planned, even with free will. The ultimate scientist!

 

[TripTango]

Yes if you are in mans eyes. But let's say u have an ant farm. They are doing their thing and you watch it objectively without prejudice. And u won't interfere which still allows them do whatever. You still know they will die at a specific time and how they will reproduce, build, etc. now if they didn't have free will, you would be their queen giving them orders and they just do without question, like robots.

God has a script, but our free will is his masterpiece. He is so great that everything was planned, even with free will. The ultimate scientist!

Your metaphor includes two very important differences: I did not create the ants from scratch, and I am not omniscient. These two differences make it unusable for this situation, unless you are proposing that God is a) not the creator of man, and b) does not know whether any individual's actions will lead them to heaven or hell in the long run.

But I'm guessing you are NOT proposing those things, so my dilemma still stands.

 

[magnifier661]

Your metaphor includes two very important differences: I did not create the ants from scratch, and I am not omniscient. These two differences make it unusable for this situation, unless you are proposing that God is a) not the creator of man, and b) does not know whether any individual's actions will lead them to heaven or hell in the long run.

But I'm guessing you are NOT proposing those things, so my dilemma still stands.

No I'm using the ant farm as a metaphor. What I mean is that ou created the situation and will know the outcome and actually can alter outcome any way you choose. Yet you don't control them. You just know what they will do.

 

[RR7]

you don't know what the ants are going to do specifically. And the only way you know how they might build or reproduce is by having read of others studying the patterns of ants. So the metaphor again fails. Unless god wasable to look at a different planet, that a different god made, to judge how humans would act.

 

[TripTango]

No I'm using the ant farm as a metaphor. What I mean is that ou created the situation and will know the outcome and actually can alter outcome any way you choose. Yet you don't control them. You just know what they will do.

If you know what they will do BEFORE you create them, their eventual fate is completely on your shoulders.

 

[magnifier661]

If you know what they will do BEFORE you create them, their eventual fate is completely on your shoulders.

Alright, I will not concur yet because i want to think about this one. I do understand your question; but I really want to think of the right answer. I know what I feel, but I don't know how to explain it yet.

Good question btw.

 

[magnifier661]

Hey I found Craig's answer to free will. Wanna read it?

Take assumption (1). If free will is possible then it’s false that an omnipotent God can create just any world that he desires. God’s being omnipotent does not imply that he can do logical impossibilities (such as, make a round square or a married bachelor). But it is logically impossible to make someone freely choose to do something. Thus if God grants people genuine freedom, to choose as they like, then it’s impossible for him to determine what their choices will be. All he can do is create the circumstances, in which a person is able to make a free choice, and then - so to speak - “stand back” and let him make that choice.

There is more, but I took out a little just to give his interpretation to Omnipotent.