It is Irrational to argue that Intelligence exists now, under these present conditions , but claim to know that before the Big Bang or after the end of this world that Intelligence would not yet be existing as a meaningful thing . To believe we are aware of an intelligent repose under isolated conditions , and that those conditions mean nothing with respect to the origins of the world, is to say Intelligence is happenstance and offers no clues to the whole value of Eternity, but only one time
@Mathenaut I would like to point out that #6 is a problem with anyone arguing on either side of the debate. This is why it is a debate that continues to exist. However, your statement in #3 is incorrect. What evidence can you reveal that supports #3?
God bless William Lane Craig. I really don't mean to boast personally about myself, but as someone who has been very successful academically and in work, I simply thank God for these gifts and the ability to understand Craig. I know comment sections are notorious, but just looking below how truly sad, a bunch of no doubt bitter people, unhappy with things in their life, take very false and sorry but very ignorant pot shots at a man far far ahead of them intellectually.
None of these things are backed up by factual evidence. Even the "evidence" for design, that being that a lot of different variables are just right for life explain nothing. If the variables weren't conducive to life, no one would be here to ask the questions. It's like saying someone/thing handpicked the exact sperm for each and every one of us, cause it it was one of the other sperms, we would not be here, someone else would. It's chance. Luck, in our case.
Is this video serious? Best explanations? Hardly! They are just opinions, not explanations. Dreams. Wishes. I cannot believe in a god when that very god is nothing more than a wishful creation of mankind, an easily corruptible species. How arrogant mankind is to think we could have the slightest idea of what a creator thinks or feels. If there IS a creator of some kind out there, we couldn't possibly understand their mind. Get over yourselves, people. It's okay NOT to know where we came from.
Take, for example, the Laws of Logic. The Laws of Logic are; 1) Immaterial 2) Unchanging 3)Universal The Laws of Logic are not physical, they don't change from day to day, and everyone must adhere to them, they are absolute. Wouldn't you say, perhaps, that these "Laws" are reflective of "God's" qualities? Human senses are, by definition, an infinite regress. The only way out of an infinite regress is to 1) Know everything 2) Have revelation from something that does. Sounds Christian. :)
1. There is absolutely no reason to assume that the default would be non-existence or nothingness. You do not have the vantage point of observing the nature of possibility itself and infer from it what is more likely or less likely to be.
2. There is no reason to assume the past is either finite or trivial in the sense of a human chronological narrative. Our intuition of time is limited by how our brains organize a sequential narrative.
Can't the universe be God? IT necessitates regularity. Or if something did allow the universe to begin, why can't it be an abstract thing, why does it need a personality. He seems to be reaching
@johnnyM809 So you think God planted all those fossils and patterns in DNA to deceive us into thinking evolution occurred? Do you also believe the Earth is flat?
Same old tired arguments. If something had to create the universe, then who created god and then who created that god and so forth? It's something I figured out in grade school. duh. It is so much easier to accept that the universe has always existed in some form or other.
@rosshetrick Only things that have a beginning need a creator, god has no beginning he has always been and forever has been, therefore he has no creator he IS the creator. If you dont agree with me just tell me something that has a beginning that wasn't caused by something else.
@tublet13 Special pleading... how convient that god holds such properties... Can you prove that god has no beginning? (beyond the one sentence in the bible, i am the alpha and the omega)
@tublet13 Why can't the UNIVERSE not have a beginnig? How I see it the Universe has always been and will always be, it IS the creator of humankind, so technically The Cosmos IS God. You just give your God a special case by saying he doesn't need a creator, but why? He HAS to have been created.
@GiubileiFernando God is being itself. Energy, which I gather you'd accept as eternal, flows from God's being. Space and time also flow from his being. Not a huge fan of W.L.C., btw.
@megaead69 Energy in the universe is finite. The total energy level of the universe is 0. That comment seems to define God as an abstract way of talking about the universe, which would be a misuse of the word. None of your statements are provable to be true. Not a single one.
argument 1 to 3 are bassicly the same argument. And how is he sure it is a 'god' and not some other even that set things in motion. And how is he sure it is his god? And how is he sure that there can't be other explanations than:a god did it?
and 4? objective moral valua? yeah, that argument flew out the window before i was born.
and 5? you got to be kidding me? if it possible it is true? thats idiotic
and 6? that very nice for his personal life, but not toward other people.
I'm hearing apples and oranges in the faith/science discussion - I don't want to call it a debate. Empirical evidence is the domain of science. Ethics, philosophy, and abstract reasoning the domain of philosophy, ethics and religion. Scientists have rightly protested the religious crowd trying to muscle in on science. Science ought to inform the religious conversation, not replace or refute it.
Atheist hate this guy....he points out obvious logical inconsistancies in atheist thinking as well as giving as giving sound arguments for the Almighty.
Athesit hate this guy....he points out obvious logical inconsistancies in atheist thinking as well as giving as giving sound arguments for the Almighty.
If the Christian God actually existed, the Bible would be a much better book.
Killing people for gathering firewood on the wrong day of the week? Killing Job's daughters as part of a bet between God and the Devil? Drowning most of the world? God having to stop the tower of Babel--but the much taller Empire State Building is acceptable?
The best _Untestable_ explanation is still completely pointless in a scientific framework, which is the framework you are in if you are trying to explain the fine tuning of cosmological constants. You can't follow rigorous empriricism to the very end and then say "And for the next step a guess is sufficient!".
How can you support the Contigency argument? Why do you have to choose an easy answer rather then searching for the TRUE one, not just the BETTER one. So with this logic I could say something like this: I want to find true love and I meet 3 girls. I dont love any of them, but 1 is really pretty so I marry her?
I would like to thank Dr.Craig for compiling these "best arguments" for believing in god.
Having looked into them and weighed their validity and relevance, I can now rest easy knowing that I looked at the best arguments and found them wanting.
So I can now lay my doubts aside with a light heart knowing I haven't been mistaken in my choice not to beleive.
So his whole argument seems to hinge on "God is the best explanation", even though he provides no evidence. If we are basing this purely on wishful thinking then i don't want to believe in an onipotent being who lets children die and advocates slavery, gender inequality, intolerance and genocide. Not very moral really.
You say that he doesn't provide evidence for his God. Can you provide empirical evidence that the big bang happened? Where did the cosmic gases and energy come from to explode into a universe with a planet capable of supporting life?
He's stating arguements based on the work of scienctists. Anyone who can't understand that, must have mush for brains. And a 1 minute, 52 sec. video doesn't cover all there is, in support for the belief in God, and Jesus. Seriously, people.
I myself know there is another universe where ufos are dreaming our existence so the best explanation of our existence are the ufos dreaming our existence. That s why we are so intelligent and so moral it hurts to say....So can I establish a cult on the basis of human sacrifice of the son of the great dreamer the son is dreaming about so that if I kill people he forgives my sins in the case I believe in the father who sacrified his son?That sounds so real I see the father is still dreaming.
Not a single one of these arguments hasn't been refuted one way or the other. Just because there are "many" bad arguments for God's existence doesn't mean that together they add up to make one good case for God's existence. Your odds of hitting a jackpot on a slot machine are just as bad the next turn as they were the last. When people say "I'm due to hit" that's what's known as the Gambler's Fallacy.
It is very sad that most of you on here have posted against the "weak" nature of Dr. Craig's arguments, as well as resulted to ad hominem remarks and statements that are untrue of his work. You must become familiar with his work, instead of thinking that the overview he presents here is all-encompassing and delineated in detail.
the best "argument" for God? it is not an argument at all. Jesus said "Father make them one THAT THE WORLD WOULD KNOW you have sent the Son"
a love that men cannot otherwise see would have them either repenting or raging at us. But this requires what we do not have, instead we prefer talk; reasoned argumenst that in fact skirt the issue.
the kingdom is not words but power. we are powerless. all apologists offer is another philosophy
All of his arguments fail to prop up the Christian Gods existence. No where in his "best" arguments for God can any inference be made for Yahweh. If "Professor" Craig uses personal experience for evidence of God then what of the other personal experiences people have had for other "gods"?
@metalsusa1 He's not making an argument for Yahweh. He's making an argument for theism - a timeless, changeless, spaceless, immaterial, powerful personal mind that created the universe.
All of these arguments have been refuted time and time again, but he doesn't care. Atheism has been explained to him time and time again, but he doesn't care enough to correct his straw men. This is somewhat typical.
What the hell is fine tuning of the initial conditions? That does not exist. The oldest glaxies nearest the expansion certainly do not look "fine-tuned". But alas, he doesnt think there were galaxies 10 billion years ago.
there is a higher energy force so stop touching little kids and wanking over youre mothers photos thinking you have no one to answer to because you have .
Science does not remove the need for faith. Religion is in decline because it's so easy and so accepted to explain the world using science, and never actually seek God. What if God is real? Just what if? What are you doing with the life he has given you? Seek Him and you'll have your own evidence.
@rachillo And what if God (actually which god?) is not real. Just what if? What are you doing wasting your life believing something that does not exist? Start rationally thinking about things, think for yourself instead of others brainwashing you and you'll have your own evidence.
All very weak arguments that have been refuted many times over. Give me a break the theists appologists are getting boring and scared. Religion is in decline.
You can make the ontological argument (it's a bit more complicated than he explains it here) in two ways. If you say as its premise "it's possbile that God exists", it logically follows that he exists. If you say "It's impossbile", it follows that he doesn't. Important is how God is defined in the argument.
The steps between the premise and the conclusion are actually quite invulnerable, they are logically sound. You have to decide whether there could possbily be being like God or not.
All of these probably stem from #6. And actually, I can sympathize - whether or not God is real is difficult to tackle objectively for those who have had the experience of God - which is a real experience that occurs for those who go through tough times. Its a wonderful experience, which is very personal. The mistake, I think, is to interpret it in a non-personal way and try to convert others.
He basically makes a model of the universe, then uses the god of the gaps argument to assert that god is the best explanation. He does this without showing evidence for the model he presented. How can he expect his specific model of the universe to be called the "best" explanation if it has no more evidence than the multiverse or universe-building pixies?
It's silly to start making up explanations in a field that is unknown. It's like saying that Zeus once *best* explained lightning in the past.
@Nosajj12345..My comment is alluding to the layman postulating the impotents of dr.craigs reaffirmation of these arguments. moreover it should be said, that if you genuinely don't find these arguments convincing there should atleast be evidential grounds for your objecting.
It really says something when a highly educated philosopher has to come forward to defend the Christian god. It suggests a high degree of fear and desperation on the part of the Christian Right. And judging by how deep the pockets of the Christian Right are, I would not be a bit surprised if Slick Willie, here, is on the payroll.
I'm ashamed at the opprobrious argumentation that is being used here online. This is just a horrid emotional outpour fit for that of a umbraged infant, rather than so called adults. Even worse is the illogical assertions being made. I suggest more study on the part of the atheist whom wishes to be taken seriously about there objections to these arguments.
@DeandresPerez1991 "I'm ashamed at the opprobrious argumentation that is being used here online. This is just a horrid emotional outpour fit for that of a umbraged infant, rather than so called adults. I suggest more study on the part of the atheist whom wishes to be taken seriously....."
Impressive vocabulary! Too bad its wasted on an ignorant statement.
Since when must one be an erudite philosopher in order to question and challenge the supernatural, as it pertains to Christianity? LOL
Apart from the arguments all being REALLY similar and all crap, this man uses such flowery language it makes him look stupid when his arguments can be condensed into about a quarter of the time it took him to say it.
[Facepalm]...and this guy has a degree in theology? All of these arguments basically say that God is the best reason, because he IS the best reason. Why is that again? Well God is the best reason. Don't you love circular reasoning?
this is such bullshit lmao. God existing is better than nothing so he exists, this guy proved nothing, fuckin opinions. lmao this is so funny bcuz these arguments are so poorly constructed. he hasnt proved anything.
I like the fact that christians feel like they have to defend their faith. This just shows that people are (getting) aware of the silliness of this story...
I just laughed out loud. The ontological argument for the existence of god is the single most ludicrous thing I have ever heard in my life. "It is possible that someone somewhere is currently shooting laser beams from his eyes, Isn't that proof that someone is shooting lasers from their eyes?" I'm sorry. The answer to that is no.
His five points hes defended are all wrong right from the get go. God will NEVER be the best explanation for anything because there is no quantifiable proof to support his claim to existence in the first place. A good explanation would at least be provable as real, The BEST explanation would have so much more then that.
@PaulinaPaulino Straw man, assuming the antecendent, ad hominems. And YOU are criticizing HIM? Where did you get your degree? I will write the president of your school and demand he take yours back.
@steve0281 Hardly: I am quoting him. "There is no evidence, so therefore god did it". If you think that is a 'Strawman" argument, as in "misrepresentation of an opponent's position", it is NOT.
It is EXACTLY what he is saying.
"assuming the antecedent" is what HE is doing.
So, thank you for agreeing with me, that this is the saddest excuse for "What is the Best Argument for Belief in God"? I have ever seen.
WLC is exceptionally fluent in his tone and use of phylosophical terms. Another one of his distinctive styles is bombarding the audience with famous names (fallacy of name dropping). Overall I thing is he is a good example of a 'philosophist' and yet he continously emphasises that he is a philospher - "As a philosopher.." he keeps saying. All of the arguments he presnts here have been refuted before. He's, howerer, a great comfor to those theists who lack critical mind.
@steve0281 1. anything supernatural I would think would be magic, a transcendent being that's immaterial, all powerful, spaceless, and timeless with no explanation of where it's power comes from.
2. A universe from nothing by lawrence krauss look it up
3.I would think it would matter since he says the universe was fine tuned with us in mind, when clearly the universe could wipe us out in an instant.
4. How so? you don't need a god to be moral or to be the crafter of them.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence 1. There is a difference between what you think you understand as nature and what it actually is. You cannot make the claim of omniscience ergo you do not know what the word "supernatural" actually means.
2. Looked up and read. Still a Genetic Fallacy.
3. The fine tuning argument to me is irrelevent. God could make us fit any conditions. Then again, if it could, why hasn't it?
4. True. But then morals come down to matters of opinion. God provides an absolute morality.
@steve0281 1. supernatural: spells, curses, ghosts and anything that exists outside our universe. God is supernatural, a spiritual being effecting the natural world. God by definition is supernatural.
2. it's a lecture, not a piece of literature
3. How does craig specifically know his god created the fine tuned universe? How can craig know all the specifications for a fine tuned universe?
4. Is slavery absolutely moral? yahweh thought so, yet we determined it wasn't.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence 1. Word games. Language is far too limited to even begin to address all that humans can experience.
2. What difference does that make? It is still a Genetic Fallacy.
3. He doesn't nor does he claim that this is absolutely true. He just claims that it is the best explanation.
4. Yet we work 40% of the time for the government which presumes that it can deprive us of our lives, liberty and property whenever it wants. Reconsider your definition of slavery.
@steve0281 1. so we can experience magic spells now? Please show me some of this magic. Why not let god perform some amazing tricks by stopping a few natural disasters.
2. So this universe was made for us? Sounds a bit self fish, especially when we know the world we live on could be eradicated at any moment. when dark matter and energy take up more space in this universe as well.
3. true, but wouldn't you go on the best explanation until better info arises?
@Requiemxtoxinnocence 1. Who says he hasn't? Not enough proof? Prove to a man blind from birth that there are stars in the sky.
2. Or it could be the other way around. It's irrelevent to me.
3. Sure, but that depends on one's personal definition of a "best explanation." All evidence is personal on whether they accept it or not. Some people believe there was a moon landing, some don't. Both have good reasons for thinking the way they do.
@steve0281 1. You can prove the stars with other senses, you don't always have to see to know. You can still play music and hear the notes with the sight of them so why not the stars with a different sense?
2. There could be other universes, whose to say we aren't in the wrong one?
3. that's a horrible retort. Especially since we've established technology that can reach those places and even bring back rocks from the moon. Yet you say it's a valid belief?
@Requiemxtoxinnocence 1. Right, and there have been personal experiences in my life that I have concluded are of Divine origin. Still, if a blind man did not want to believe in stars nothing you can, say or do will convince him It is like debating a non-believer.
2. You can believe in "other" universes and not God? Can't you see the inconsistancy here?
3. Personally, I believe there was a moon landing. How do you know where the rocks came from? Someone told you? They have their reasons.
@steve0281 1. I doubt that, it really depends on how willing the person is. If I was blind i'd be willing to know the stars were there from the heat of the sun.
2. Not really, if our universe is possible why not more? We at least know our universe exists, yet people still debate on god.
3. Well you can see the ship, probably get the rocks verified, numerous other reasons.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence 1. I deal in concepts that are very real all the time and there are those that adamantly refuse to believe in them. What can be done? You can tell the sun is there, and indirectly the moon. Not so with stars. That is why I use that example.
2. What is the definition of "universe"? You are claiming that something exists outside our own, yet reject the same claim for God.
3. What ship where? What is unique about moon rocks vis-a-vis earth rocks? This is faith.
2. I told you i'm agnostic, I just reject the idea of any certain faiths bringing us any closer to telling us which god it is.
3. You could meet the very people who went to the moon, you could see the ship at a museum, the rocks could definitely be verified by a geologist, there is actual evidence you just want to bring in faith.
3. I have seen a ship, I have met some people that claim to have been to the moon. I haven't been there so I have a rational basis to not believe it. That is essentially what you are doing.
@steve0281 1. Until we got evidence, in which case our faith vanished once we found proof.
2. I'd rather be neutral than claim to know that my certain god is real. Because you can't positively tell me you know 100% true that your god made this universe. Choose one religion out of the thousands, you may as well play the lottery.
3. No evidence is good enough for you. Would sending you to the moon be good enough? probably not.
@steve0281 1. Science has come a long way, and if you think scientists are lying to the public for some conspiracy or personal gain well by all means go ahead. I sincerely doubt that they would lie when they dedicate their lives to gaining new knowledge.
2. Yeah with me or against me, believe or burn. How kind of him to extort people.
@steve0281 going by your logic we should either all become nihillists and believe nothing, or become christians and serve a bloodthirsty god. I don't think faith is a bad thing to have but sometimes you can't go on faith alone, and believing mythical stories is where you should be the most critical. I'd rather be agnostic, and be perfectly balanced in both spirituality and science and perhaps my existentialism will lead me to new places.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Straw man and assuming the antecedent. Those are logical fallacies. I agree that one needs an educated and rational faith. I am advocating nothing less.
@steve0281 Well that did appear to be what you were saying. You in fact made a better case for nihilism than christianity with all your previous statements too. But i'm glad we agree that there must be a balance between the two sides. I wasn't making a strawman or logical fallacies just presenting you what I probably will end up doing in life. There could be god or gods, but saying it is them complicates things more and leaves us with more questions.
@steve0281 Which god? what form of power is gods power made of? Where did he come from? when and why create an existence? what dimension does god live in? why allow evil if it can be prevented? are there other gods or were there former ones? Is god simple or complex? did god have a designer? how do we know if any of our gods are correct? why don't animals have gods like we do? how can god cause time if he's timeless? These are but a few questions if your premise is true.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence That is like trying to do quantum physics when you are three years old and have a two digit IQ. No, I am not calling you that. One needs to determine for oneself that there is a God (or that the likelihood is sufficient) and start crawling first, walk later, and then begin to learn to trot. Essentially those questions are not relevent for us now. Having a complete knowledge is not required. I don't have one of my car, but what I have is good enough to start.
@steve0281 So your giving an answer to one of the biggest questions ever and then not even going to bother answering in the details required to prove or evaluate that. Don't you see a big problem in that kind of thinking? It's like not showing your work on a complex mathematical equation and declaring it correct. Comparing god to a car is a bad example, at least you can find information on that and talk to people that know everything about it, even visit a plant. Not with god though.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence The thing is that you are correct, it IS the biggest question ever and man in his current state may not even be capable of comprehending God. As the saying goes, "The universe is not only stranger than you think. It is stranger than you CAN think." The car analogy is trifling, yes, but why aren't you applying the same criteria to the study of God? Visit a church, talk with a priest, study the subject formally. In the end it is your life. You will do with it what you will.
@steve0281 True understanding the universe can be mind boggling but just imagine what we'll know in a few thousand years or where we might go. No religion has the answers to god only their preferred concept of what god should be like, a truth for one is false for the other. I see us humans as much a part of the universe as the stars. carl sagan once said, " we are a way for the universe to know itself."
@steve0281 going by your logic we should either all become nihillists and believe nothing, or become christians and serve a bloodthirsty god. I don't think faith is a bad thing to have but sometimes you can't go on faith alone, and believing mythical stories is where you should be the most critical. I'd rather be agnostic, and be perfectly balanced in both spirituality and science and perhaps my existentialism will lead me to new places.
@steve0281 4. Working in a job is different than slavery. slaves are held against their will, given very few rights, purchased from birth, beaten to death, and are not compensated for their work. Much different than working for a company where you get paid, have vacations, time off, and are not beaten or killed like biblical slavery.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence 4. You are correct. But that is not what I was saying. When government lays claim to your life, income and property without due process you are a slave. When government officials can arrest you for whatever reason they want, you're a slave. When they have you handcuffed, on the ground, not resisting and they still insist on tasering and using pepper spray, that is torture. They are most effective when the slaves don't realize they're slaves. It seems to be working.
@steve0281 Depends on the government. I know that in america even in court you still have rights, and even the president is subject to those laws. We also have laws in place so that, that doesn't happen. Do you think america is now turning into a dystopian place where people have no rights or get payed?
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Take a look at offerings on YouTube where police all over the nation are engaged in activities that are blatantly illegal. Arresting people who are filming them when they have the right to film them? There are those who would contend that the President breaks laws all the time. Bush, Obama, Clinton, Nixon. Probably more. Currently the prevailing attitude (at least held by too many IMO) is that all money belongs to the government and it only allows us to use some of it.
@steve0281 I agree that our government does do a lot of illegal things and that yes presidents do get away with many things on both sides republican and democrat but that doesn't mean they can't be brought to justice through one way or another. Yeah I do agree the federal reserve is a bunch of bollocks but what solution would you propose?
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments to the Constitution, reduce government by about 80%, institute allodial title to property, abolish the Fed put the country back on the gold standard and permit competing currencies. That's just for starters.
5. You might ask what else might be possible if a god is possible? Are unicorns? What makes god so possible compared to the various other fantasy concepts? How can craig tell?
6. No it's not. Even if it was it couldn't be validated, because numerous people have different experiences with their idea of god but it never points to one specifically. So it's a placebo effect with chemicals reacting in the brain, that's not god it's dopamine.
6. Yes it is the Genetic Fallacy. How do you know that you have a body? How do you know that reality exists? You don't have absolute knowledge of anything. I don't believe that you exist. I think that this is my mind playing tricks on me or you're a Touring Machine. Even then THAT can be a figment of the imagination.
@steve0281 5.We were talking about supernatural beings or creatures, so why would a unicorn not be relevant? God defined is supernatural, you say what is natural for god is not magic. What makes it natural? Are supernatural beings now considered natural in your view? Let's say an elidricht abomination created the universe, you say a god yet both are powerful beyond measure.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence 5. Just because man can imagine something doesn't mean that it exists, has existed, or will exist. Just because unicorns do not seem to exist does not mean that God doesn't either. Guys like you spend so much time playing word games trying to convince yourselves or others and end up deliberately trying to obfuscate what is going on. You need to get off the fence. I would like to help but time is running out. Ultimately one has to help himself. I pray for you.
@steve0281 Your asking me to believe with all my thoughts that a personal god exists. That's wishful thinking, because it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside. By your own words you can't even tell me for sure if god does exist or ever existed. So you may be praying to something that's not there.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence You are projecting. You have no idea what my experiences have been and what they have illustrated to me. That is a form of Genetic Fallacy. I can't make you believe anything. That is not the object of this exercise. God could appear to you in Person and you would still, in all probabiltiy, credit George Lucas or James Cameron.
@steve0281 Why would I credit two directors? I think If a god was present he would've made himself present to all not just me. A personal experience however is still more a psychological function than anything else, since god can apparently effect the physical world as you say why not some real deal miracles. Let's see the red sea split again, or a donkey talk, or some angels. Is that too much to ask for instead of a mind induced delusion?
@Requiemxtoxinnocence It has been my observation that people would credit any source rather than the Divine when faced with it. You may not. You may not want to see an angel. But still, others have. They have written about their multiple witness experiences.
@steve0281 I think most people would look for a better explanation first before calling anything divine, it's only logical to do so. I'll take any divine sign, anything supernatural, but I just want to see some explanation for it. Not some apologetics words, there must be some kind of science behind it right?
@Requiemxtoxinnocence First, I agree to a point. I love science, but the idea that it can prove everything is an irrational notion. I don't believe in the "supernatural." There is what we understand and there is what we don't understand. For instance, if ghosts exist, it is because it is natural for them to exist. Some things cannot be answered by any discipline based in a strict materialism.
@steve0281 I was simply saying if ghosts or supernatural things exists that they might better be explained scientifically, i'm aware I can't rely on it for everything. If ghosts are natural then we should be able to find some way to detect them. In the end your essentially calling supernatural things natural. I also think if anything is transcendent that you wouldn't automatically assume god, merely different dimensions.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence I have no objection to other dimensions and/or universes. But neither possibility means that there is no God. To me, this concept of the "multi-verse" smacks of grasping at straws. Any mental gymnastics are preferable to having a God it would seem.
@steve0281 Perhaps once we better know about our own universe we can come to better conclusions, until then relying on either faith or reason won't tell us anything nor will our biases. In the end we can only say we don't truly know, or at least know with absolute certainty what lies in our mysterious past.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence How much do we have to know? I would contend that we will not know a percentage greater than 1% of that which is knowable in the universe before mankind runs his mortal course. When the house is on fire it matters little at the moment what caused it, it is just time to take action.
@steve0281 You can't predict how long mankind will survive for. Who knows how advanced we might be in the future, or how much more we'll know. In any case the future is uncertain.
@steve0281 one last thing i'm an agnostic, god could be possible but I don't think a particular religion can claim it knows what god it is. I'm not against the idea of one, but I think we need some better proof of the supernatural before claiming it outright. Sorry if i've come off as hostile but I, like anyone else want truth not excuses and false solutions.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Theoretically agnosticism is more tenable/rational than atheism. My only criticism is that, in my experience, agnostics will never have enough evidence. They are always looking for a plausible loop hole to carry on with whatever may be questionable if there is a God. I'm not saying that you are that way. I'm just citing my experience. I want the same things. I don't think either of us are unique in that respect.
@steve0281 I'd convert to any real god if I knew which one it was. I'll take any real evidence for it but I think if god wants to prove himself he should be able to give it to more than one individual at a time. I don't really see religious books as evidence either, because they could easily be mixed in with historical fiction and no one could tell the difference. Not to mention the fact that making up myths was not uncommon back then.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Are you even looking? Seriously, theoretically a lot is riding on this. I have lived all over the world and people and people have entirely different perspectives on history. Take the ROK v the DPRK versions of the Korean War for instance. As for religious texts, Josephus, a secular historian, acknowledged that Christ lived. Also look up Euhemerus. "Myths" have their basis in fact. The Israelites had God right there for 40 years and still had trouble believing.
@steve0281 josephus is unreliable, his texts have been altered to the point where they bear no weight. If jesus did exist he is no different than the mythical hercules who existed but his badassery was exaggerated. Besides the bible has been subject to massive edits over the years, second hand accounts of jesus, not to mention the stuff written fifty years later by people who didn't even see him. Besides jesus was kind of jerk, and yahweh is a god of war and death. I'd rather be buddhist.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence All histories are unreliable to a degree. Still, we have four readily accepted accounts of the life of Christ and only one for Ceasar's conquest of Gaul. Christ was a "jerk" because he challenged the authorities of his day. All this "love God and your neighbour as yourself" nonsense threatened the priestcraft. That notion of God is not accurate and is a straw man.
@steve0281 are you talking about matthew,mark,luke,and john? If so you should be able see the inconsistencies and contradictions in those passages. Christ was a jerk because he threatened people with hell, told people to let the dead bury their dead, and said he'd bring the sword not peace. He may have said some nice things but he certainly wasn't pleasant.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Sure, there are some problems with consistancy with the Gospels, but they all agree that He lived, claimed to be God and proved it by performing miracles. There are other writings as well. I think a Divine Being would have a broader perspective on things and know much that we mere mortals don't. Part of the message is that there is a war going on and that we play a part in that. If we choose wrong there are consequences. I think this bears an exploration.
@steve0281 Some problems? There are numerous problems in the bible, not to mention the writing isn't exactly the greatest thing i've ever read. Anyone can claim to be the son of god, especially in myths it's not uncommon. You know how many other religions have those same ideas? I think you should be more skeptical on your faith.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence I'm not arguing that. One of the Articles of Faith of my Church is that the Bible is incomplete and is inaccurate. You're right, that is why eye witnesses are important. FYI, I am very skeptical. We are admonished to test all things and hold fast to what is true.
@steve0281 Your bible doesn't seem reliable. I don't see how you see it as real and other fiction as false. what makes adam and eve more believable than the apple of discord? Why believe in Noah's flood when it is literally impossible?
@steve0281 a short look at darkmatter2525 on Noah's flood is good for laughs on that myth. Not to mention having 7 of each animal would cause birth defects. Noah's family himself producing people through incest. Gathering all the animals there oh and dinosaurs. Where did all the flood water go? Freezing to death from the height of the water. Face it, it's just not possible.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence I will review that. Second, if we look at modern biology there seems to be a net loss of data in genes. Creationists would say that in the Beginning all life was more perfect and has begun a slow degeneration since. Also, since Darwinists look up such mutations as the engine of evolution they are neither good nor bad. In addition, if all life has a common ancestor (only one) then wouldn't that make us all the result of a long line of "birth defects"?
@steve0281 Life perfect back in the ice age? Our species nearly died if we hadn't migrated, not to mention all the disease and hard work just to survive back then. That sounds like a watered down and poor example of what evolution is to say the least. As for the last question look up mitochondrial eve.
@steve0281 we are all connected biologically, to the earth chemically, and to the universe atomically. We are the very meaning of universe, all in one. So the more we find out about the universe the more we may find out about ourselves. In a way I feel more connected to the planets, animals, and other life forms than to a god.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence That is pure speculation. Atheists like the big 4 do not subscribe to that theory. You are making a philosophical statement that is not supported by anything. You're welcome to believe it. The basic formula is that there is either a Deity or there isn't. At this juncture "which" one (or more) it is isn't important. It is an either or dichotomy. Try reading some Aquinas or Merton and see what they have to say. I think you may be impressed.
@steve0281 Actually it's a well known fact, if you look into what we know about astrophysics and how the elements came about you wouldn't have said that. So it's more of a mix between philosophy and science than anything. No deity was required to intervene to make that happen as it was a part of nature. I'll look into them if not just to learn more about how they think, but I think we shouldn't limit ourselves to two options.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence If you are saying that there is a chemical commonality between the earth and the creatures that inhabit it I think that is correct. If you are saying that there is some sort of metaphysical connection then that is a philosophical conjecture. Science needs philosophy in order to interpret it vis-a-vis Man. Certain things have to be assumed (a prioris) in order to make sense of them, but even then some things cannot be proven yet are never-the-less true.
6. Reality is defined as anything that is not imagined. You sound delusional if you think actual people are just your mind playing tricks on you. Besides do you know anything about psychology or neurology? they've done studies on religious experiences all it is, is in acting a part of the mind. Do some research before calling out genetic fallacy.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence 6. Reread Descartes' "First Meditation" and get back to me after you reconsider your comment.
I have done quite a bit of reading on these subjects. You're presuming a materialistic explanation for everything. Could this not be the reaction of the mind by interacting with the spiritual? Again, you are still presenting a Genetic Fallacy.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence 6. Your point? All of them get criticism as well. I can't believe you actually brought up Nietzche. I saw through him when I was seventeen. He is even more juvenile now.
When you experience it for yourself, you will know it. At the very least it will become more difficult to rationalize it away.
@steve0281 So perhaps they are all wrong? Nietzshe is by no means juvenile, especially when you consider his perspective on things. Existentialism itself is definitely a better way of understanding why people act as they do as well even though that's more a part of satre and kierkgard.
If I do experience it how will I not know it's a delusion? a figment of my imagination as you say? If you can't be critical on your own beliefs then how would you know it was ever true? or even wrong?
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Read Nitzsche again after about forty years. Trust me. He's juvenile. He was also insane. So-called existentialists are so diverse and all over the philosophical landscape that to credit with anything approaching coherency is wishful thinking indeed.
You can only answer that for yourself. The experience will be singularly unique. It depends how you will allow yourself to interpret it.
@steve0281 I think you dislike nietszhe because of your religious bias. He brought new views into philosophy such as perspectivism and was against nihilism. He only went mad later on in life. So diversity with existentialism is a bad thing?
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Not at all. I reject him because he is juvenile. The older I get, the more juvenile his thinking is. Just because someone comes up with a unique perspective doesn't make it worthwhile merely by it being unique.
@steve0281 From your perspective you see him as juvenile based on whatever experience you have with him and bias you associate with him. Most likely from his criticism of religion. I'm sure you could name a few philosophers that many could object with based on bias. I doubt that, new ways of thought give us a better view and project us further. I see it as innovation and evolution of thought by building ideas and changing them throughout time.
It is Irrational to argue that Intelligence exists now, under these present conditions , but claim to know that before the Big Bang or after the end of this world that Intelligence would not yet be existing as a meaningful thing . To believe we are aware of an intelligent repose under isolated conditions , and that those conditions mean nothing with respect to the origins of the world, is to say Intelligence is happenstance and offers no clues to the whole value of Eternity, but only one time
CarmineFragione 2 weeks ago
Not only that, but we base every Non-God argument on what WE know; LOL what do WE know?
codylawl 4 weeks ago 2
This guy is a necromancer.
1.) Invents a problem unique to Christian Theism, irrelevant outside of it.
2.) It's called the Kalam Cosmological Fallacy for a reason.
3.) Intelligent Design has been dead for a long time now.
4.) So many baseless assumptions in his Moral Argument, it's absurd.
5.) This isn't an argument, it's an exercise in circular reasoning.
6.) This is what WLC believes. He's a fundie who has admitted that arguments and evidence demonstrating him wrong will not change his mind.
Mathenaut 1 month ago
@Mathenaut I would like to point out that #6 is a problem with anyone arguing on either side of the debate. This is why it is a debate that continues to exist. However, your statement in #3 is incorrect. What evidence can you reveal that supports #3?
quanahblaine 2 weeks ago
God bless William Lane Craig. I really don't mean to boast personally about myself, but as someone who has been very successful academically and in work, I simply thank God for these gifts and the ability to understand Craig. I know comment sections are notorious, but just looking below how truly sad, a bunch of no doubt bitter people, unhappy with things in their life, take very false and sorry but very ignorant pot shots at a man far far ahead of them intellectually.
cmottes 2 months ago 2
@cmottes Someone feels insecure and has to pet his/her ego by stating how academically successful he/she is. =)
swisscheesepotatochi 1 month ago
ontological argument?!? Even for a logical featherweight like craig that's a pathetic argument.
And the others are not much better, riddled with logical fallacies and factual errors.
dlandon2000 2 months ago
None of these things are backed up by factual evidence. Even the "evidence" for design, that being that a lot of different variables are just right for life explain nothing. If the variables weren't conducive to life, no one would be here to ask the questions. It's like saying someone/thing handpicked the exact sperm for each and every one of us, cause it it was one of the other sperms, we would not be here, someone else would. It's chance. Luck, in our case.
ronnysoeberg 3 months ago
Improvables need idiots masking as academics to argue their point.
bcollignon 3 months ago
How can he possibly think personal experience is a "sound and persuasive" argument?
DickJohnson3434 3 months ago
Is this video serious? Best explanations? Hardly! They are just opinions, not explanations. Dreams. Wishes. I cannot believe in a god when that very god is nothing more than a wishful creation of mankind, an easily corruptible species. How arrogant mankind is to think we could have the slightest idea of what a creator thinks or feels. If there IS a creator of some kind out there, we couldn't possibly understand their mind. Get over yourselves, people. It's okay NOT to know where we came from.
Michael55443 3 months ago 2
lookinfotrouble 3 months ago 2
you statement start "in my experience i think ...." , show me one prove that GOd Exists , no your experience , noone cares about your experiences.
EdyMar77 3 months ago
Preposterous in every sense.
1. There is absolutely no reason to assume that the default would be non-existence or nothingness. You do not have the vantage point of observing the nature of possibility itself and infer from it what is more likely or less likely to be.
2. There is no reason to assume the past is either finite or trivial in the sense of a human chronological narrative. Our intuition of time is limited by how our brains organize a sequential narrative.
LeySun 4 months ago
Can't the universe be God? IT necessitates regularity. Or if something did allow the universe to begin, why can't it be an abstract thing, why does it need a personality. He seems to be reaching
moroney1 4 months ago
I have no doubts whatsoever that God existsand that he created heaven and earth and all life within it.
johnnyM809 5 months ago
@johnnyM809 So you think God planted all those fossils and patterns in DNA to deceive us into thinking evolution occurred? Do you also believe the Earth is flat?
nightvidcole 5 months ago
Same old tired arguments. If something had to create the universe, then who created god and then who created that god and so forth? It's something I figured out in grade school. duh. It is so much easier to accept that the universe has always existed in some form or other.
rosshetrick 5 months ago
@rosshetrick Only things that have a beginning need a creator, god has no beginning he has always been and forever has been, therefore he has no creator he IS the creator. If you dont agree with me just tell me something that has a beginning that wasn't caused by something else.
tublet13 4 months ago
@tublet13 Special pleading... how convient that god holds such properties... Can you prove that god has no beginning? (beyond the one sentence in the bible, i am the alpha and the omega)
kickboxer1987 4 months ago
@tublet13 Why can't the UNIVERSE not have a beginnig? How I see it the Universe has always been and will always be, it IS the creator of humankind, so technically The Cosmos IS God. You just give your God a special case by saying he doesn't need a creator, but why? He HAS to have been created.
GiubileiFernando 4 months ago
@GiubileiFernando God is being itself. Energy, which I gather you'd accept as eternal, flows from God's being. Space and time also flow from his being. Not a huge fan of W.L.C., btw.
megaead69 4 months ago
@megaead69 Energy in the universe is finite. The total energy level of the universe is 0. That comment seems to define God as an abstract way of talking about the universe, which would be a misuse of the word. None of your statements are provable to be true. Not a single one.
bryanhaw1 4 months ago
finetuning????? HAHAHAHAHAHA
CyrusJV 5 months ago
@CyrusJV I know, right? If it's fine-tuned for anything, it's DEATH, not life.
drumrnva 4 months ago
pending comments for approval, weak dude, this is your idea of free will.
if this argument are so good and god exist without question, surely theist can handle some comments and questions?
jakiedark 5 months ago
what ever happend to free speech?
jakiedark 5 months ago
argument 1 to 3 are bassicly the same argument. And how is he sure it is a 'god' and not some other even that set things in motion. And how is he sure it is his god? And how is he sure that there can't be other explanations than:a god did it?
and 4? objective moral valua? yeah, that argument flew out the window before i was born.
and 5? you got to be kidding me? if it possible it is true? thats idiotic
and 6? that very nice for his personal life, but not toward other people.
jakiedark 5 months ago
I'm hearing apples and oranges in the faith/science discussion - I don't want to call it a debate. Empirical evidence is the domain of science. Ethics, philosophy, and abstract reasoning the domain of philosophy, ethics and religion. Scientists have rightly protested the religious crowd trying to muscle in on science. Science ought to inform the religious conversation, not replace or refute it.
mowriter 5 months ago
Atheist hate this guy....he points out obvious logical inconsistancies in atheist thinking as well as giving as giving sound arguments for the Almighty.
HalleluyahMAtt 5 months ago
Athesit hate this guy....he points out obvious logical inconsistancies in atheist thinking as well as giving as giving sound arguments for the Almighty.
HalleluyahMAtt 5 months ago
So, not a single argument supported by evidence. Just illogical presupposition.
alianchild 5 months ago
If the Christian God actually existed, the Bible would be a much better book.
Killing people for gathering firewood on the wrong day of the week? Killing Job's daughters as part of a bet between God and the Devil? Drowning most of the world? God having to stop the tower of Babel--but the much taller Empire State Building is acceptable?
onlylettersand0to9 5 months ago
The best _Untestable_ explanation is still completely pointless in a scientific framework, which is the framework you are in if you are trying to explain the fine tuning of cosmological constants. You can't follow rigorous empriricism to the very end and then say "And for the next step a guess is sufficient!".
niffehermansson 5 months ago
How can you support the Contigency argument? Why do you have to choose an easy answer rather then searching for the TRUE one, not just the BETTER one. So with this logic I could say something like this: I want to find true love and I meet 3 girls. I dont love any of them, but 1 is really pretty so I marry her?
SujinHitoshi 5 months ago
I would like to thank Dr.Craig for compiling these "best arguments" for believing in god.
Having looked into them and weighed their validity and relevance, I can now rest easy knowing that I looked at the best arguments and found them wanting.
So I can now lay my doubts aside with a light heart knowing I haven't been mistaken in my choice not to beleive.
A heartfelt thanks.
Brgds
onlyeyeno 5 months ago
Arguments? You don't need arguments, you need evidence. Empirical evidence.
peanutaxis 5 months ago
@peanutaxis How exactly do you "test" a transcendent being?
TheAxis456 5 months ago
@peanutaxis you need evidence to support this claim or it's moot
emdtb2001 5 months ago
So his whole argument seems to hinge on "God is the best explanation", even though he provides no evidence. If we are basing this purely on wishful thinking then i don't want to believe in an onipotent being who lets children die and advocates slavery, gender inequality, intolerance and genocide. Not very moral really.
linkmymuffin 5 months ago
@linkmymuffin
You say that he doesn't provide evidence for his God. Can you provide empirical evidence that the big bang happened? Where did the cosmic gases and energy come from to explode into a universe with a planet capable of supporting life?
xlleighx7 5 months ago
I still believe Zeus is the best explanation for lightening. I'm glad WLC and I think alike.
mrjholland1 6 months ago
He's stating arguements based on the work of scienctists. Anyone who can't understand that, must have mush for brains. And a 1 minute, 52 sec. video doesn't cover all there is, in support for the belief in God, and Jesus. Seriously, people.
vbirdieb 6 months ago
I myself know there is another universe where ufos are dreaming our existence so the best explanation of our existence are the ufos dreaming our existence. That s why we are so intelligent and so moral it hurts to say....So can I establish a cult on the basis of human sacrifice of the son of the great dreamer the son is dreaming about so that if I kill people he forgives my sins in the case I believe in the father who sacrified his son?That sounds so real I see the father is still dreaming.
jan09842 6 months ago
Not a single one of these arguments hasn't been refuted one way or the other. Just because there are "many" bad arguments for God's existence doesn't mean that together they add up to make one good case for God's existence. Your odds of hitting a jackpot on a slot machine are just as bad the next turn as they were the last. When people say "I'm due to hit" that's what's known as the Gambler's Fallacy.
msuders 6 months ago
It is very sad that most of you on here have posted against the "weak" nature of Dr. Craig's arguments, as well as resulted to ad hominem remarks and statements that are untrue of his work. You must become familiar with his work, instead of thinking that the overview he presents here is all-encompassing and delineated in detail.
skymcm 6 months ago
1. Contingency argument? How do you explain why god exists?... FAIL!
JesusSatanAllah 6 months ago
I think vampires exist. They possibly exist. Therefore, ontologically, they do exist. Put in any fantasy word where vampires is, then argue soundly.
verklompen 6 months ago
the best "argument" for God? it is not an argument at all. Jesus said "Father make them one THAT THE WORLD WOULD KNOW you have sent the Son"
a love that men cannot otherwise see would have them either repenting or raging at us. But this requires what we do not have, instead we prefer talk; reasoned argumenst that in fact skirt the issue.
the kingdom is not words but power. we are powerless. all apologists offer is another philosophy
Strefanasha 6 months ago
I could eat this guy's philosophy for breakfast. I was looking for the best argument, not the weakest. Purgh....
MusicStudyMan 6 months ago
All of his arguments fail to prop up the Christian Gods existence. No where in his "best" arguments for God can any inference be made for Yahweh. If "Professor" Craig uses personal experience for evidence of God then what of the other personal experiences people have had for other "gods"?
Massive failure!
metalsusa1 6 months ago
@metalsusa1 He's not making an argument for Yahweh. He's making an argument for theism - a timeless, changeless, spaceless, immaterial, powerful personal mind that created the universe.
123456chagrty06 6 months ago
All of these arguments have been refuted time and time again, but he doesn't care. Atheism has been explained to him time and time again, but he doesn't care enough to correct his straw men. This is somewhat typical.
buttface112211 6 months ago
What the hell is fine tuning of the initial conditions? That does not exist. The oldest glaxies nearest the expansion certainly do not look "fine-tuned". But alas, he doesnt think there were galaxies 10 billion years ago.
skydome29 6 months ago
@skydome29 he does actually.
musevash 5 months ago
@skydome29 Yes he does, Craig is an old-earth creationist.
iknorock23 5 months ago
there is a higher energy force so stop touching little kids and wanking over youre mothers photos thinking you have no one to answer to because you have .
mrricksta30 6 months ago
All of his arguments are incredibly weak...
Hornadayfan 6 months ago 2
@Hornadayfan
Not as weak as the Atheist arguments....
tjobv 6 months ago
Science does not remove the need for faith. Religion is in decline because it's so easy and so accepted to explain the world using science, and never actually seek God. What if God is real? Just what if? What are you doing with the life he has given you? Seek Him and you'll have your own evidence.
rachillo 6 months ago
@rachillo Good try at pascal's wager, but it's good for everything. What if other gods are real are you going to pray to them too?
kokofan50 6 months ago
@rachillo And what if God (actually which god?) is not real. Just what if? What are you doing wasting your life believing something that does not exist? Start rationally thinking about things, think for yourself instead of others brainwashing you and you'll have your own evidence.
Uberlaser 6 months ago
All very weak arguments that have been refuted many times over. Give me a break the theists appologists are getting boring and scared. Religion is in decline.
peterb1968 6 months ago
So if God is even possible it follows that he exists...
Does that only work in the positive sense?
So if God is even remotely implosable does that prove that God most certainly does NOT exist?
auritone 6 months ago
You can make the ontological argument (it's a bit more complicated than he explains it here) in two ways. If you say as its premise "it's possbile that God exists", it logically follows that he exists. If you say "It's impossbile", it follows that he doesn't. Important is how God is defined in the argument.
The steps between the premise and the conclusion are actually quite invulnerable, they are logically sound. You have to decide whether there could possbily be being like God or not.
mawa89g 6 months ago
All of the reasons he provided are rather meaningless.
goldensunwhiz92 7 months ago
All of these probably stem from #6. And actually, I can sympathize - whether or not God is real is difficult to tackle objectively for those who have had the experience of God - which is a real experience that occurs for those who go through tough times. Its a wonderful experience, which is very personal. The mistake, I think, is to interpret it in a non-personal way and try to convert others.
vdizhoor 7 months ago
He basically makes a model of the universe, then uses the god of the gaps argument to assert that god is the best explanation. He does this without showing evidence for the model he presented. How can he expect his specific model of the universe to be called the "best" explanation if it has no more evidence than the multiverse or universe-building pixies?
It's silly to start making up explanations in a field that is unknown. It's like saying that Zeus once *best* explained lightning in the past.
WitchHunter93 7 months ago
@Nosajj12345..My comment is alluding to the layman postulating the impotents of dr.craigs reaffirmation of these arguments. moreover it should be said, that if you genuinely don't find these arguments convincing there should atleast be evidential grounds for your objecting.
DeandresPerez1991 7 months ago
@DeandresPerez1991 Why should there be evidential grounds for an objection when the arguments themselves are not built on evidence?
mehico33 6 months ago
It really says something when a highly educated philosopher has to come forward to defend the Christian god. It suggests a high degree of fear and desperation on the part of the Christian Right. And judging by how deep the pockets of the Christian Right are, I would not be a bit surprised if Slick Willie, here, is on the payroll.
nosajj12345 7 months ago
I'm ashamed at the opprobrious argumentation that is being used here online. This is just a horrid emotional outpour fit for that of a umbraged infant, rather than so called adults. Even worse is the illogical assertions being made. I suggest more study on the part of the atheist whom wishes to be taken seriously about there objections to these arguments.
DeandresPerez1991 7 months ago
@DeandresPerez1991 "I'm ashamed at the opprobrious argumentation that is being used here online. This is just a horrid emotional outpour fit for that of a umbraged infant, rather than so called adults. I suggest more study on the part of the atheist whom wishes to be taken seriously....."
Impressive vocabulary! Too bad its wasted on an ignorant statement.
Since when must one be an erudite philosopher in order to question and challenge the supernatural, as it pertains to Christianity? LOL
nosajj12345 7 months ago
Apart from the arguments all being REALLY similar and all crap, this man uses such flowery language it makes him look stupid when his arguments can be condensed into about a quarter of the time it took him to say it.
JonnyPxN 7 months ago
[Facepalm]...and this guy has a degree in theology? All of these arguments basically say that God is the best reason, because he IS the best reason. Why is that again? Well God is the best reason. Don't you love circular reasoning?
TheBlackPhilosophy 7 months ago
Comment removed
nosajj12345 7 months ago
this is such bullshit lmao. God existing is better than nothing so he exists, this guy proved nothing, fuckin opinions. lmao this is so funny bcuz these arguments are so poorly constructed. he hasnt proved anything.
P0W3RH0U53 7 months ago
All have which have been throughly refuted. NEXT!!!!!
huntmatuk 7 months ago
I like the fact that christians feel like they have to defend their faith. This just shows that people are (getting) aware of the silliness of this story...
smisL 7 months ago
I just laughed out loud. The ontological argument for the existence of god is the single most ludicrous thing I have ever heard in my life. "It is possible that someone somewhere is currently shooting laser beams from his eyes, Isn't that proof that someone is shooting lasers from their eyes?" I'm sorry. The answer to that is no.
FrendoMessor 7 months ago
His five points hes defended are all wrong right from the get go. God will NEVER be the best explanation for anything because there is no quantifiable proof to support his claim to existence in the first place. A good explanation would at least be provable as real, The BEST explanation would have so much more then that.
FrendoMessor 7 months ago
1) Fail. "I cannot explain it, so I will say goddidit, and stop looking."
2) Fail. "I cannot explain it, so I will say goddidit, and stop looking."
3) Fail. "I cannot explain it, so I will say goddidit, and stop looking."
This has got to be the saddest excuse for "What is the Best Argument for Belief in God"? I have ever seen.
This guy is a Doctor of Philosophy?
If I were President of the school he went to, I would demand the degree back.
PaulinaPaulino 7 months ago
@PaulinaPaulino Straw man, assuming the antecendent, ad hominems. And YOU are criticizing HIM? Where did you get your degree? I will write the president of your school and demand he take yours back.
steve0281 7 months ago
@steve0281 Hardly: I am quoting him. "There is no evidence, so therefore god did it". If you think that is a 'Strawman" argument, as in "misrepresentation of an opponent's position", it is NOT.
It is EXACTLY what he is saying.
"assuming the antecedent" is what HE is doing.
So, thank you for agreeing with me, that this is the saddest excuse for "What is the Best Argument for Belief in God"? I have ever seen.
PaulinaPaulino 7 months ago
Yeah, all those are great...except for that pesky burden of proof thing..
doksekko 7 months ago
WLC is exceptionally fluent in his tone and use of phylosophical terms. Another one of his distinctive styles is bombarding the audience with famous names (fallacy of name dropping). Overall I thing is he is a good example of a 'philosophist' and yet he continously emphasises that he is a philospher - "As a philosopher.." he keeps saying. All of the arguments he presnts here have been refuted before. He's, howerer, a great comfor to those theists who lack critical mind.
Parsayan 7 months ago
1. God is the best reason because I say so, there are other ways that don't invoke magic
2. the kalam argument has been dealt with by lawrence krauss and well explained
3. Our universe was fine tuned? what about all of that entropy that will cause a heat death? Or the lack of fresh water on our planet?
4. god is immoral, morals can be explained better through psychology
5. if god is possible, which god out of the thousands made up are true?
6. personal experience is placebo effect
Requiemxtoxinnocence 7 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence 1. Define magic. What is natural for God is not magic.
2. Genetic fallacy. Nice try.
3. Is this an absolute? Can you prove it. No. Does it matter? No.
4. Genetic Fallacy yet again.
5. How many have to exist for the concept to be calid?
6.STILL the Genetic Fallacy.
steve0281 7 months ago
@steve0281 1. anything supernatural I would think would be magic, a transcendent being that's immaterial, all powerful, spaceless, and timeless with no explanation of where it's power comes from.
2. A universe from nothing by lawrence krauss look it up
3.I would think it would matter since he says the universe was fine tuned with us in mind, when clearly the universe could wipe us out in an instant.
4. How so? you don't need a god to be moral or to be the crafter of them.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 7 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence 1. There is a difference between what you think you understand as nature and what it actually is. You cannot make the claim of omniscience ergo you do not know what the word "supernatural" actually means.
2. Looked up and read. Still a Genetic Fallacy.
3. The fine tuning argument to me is irrelevent. God could make us fit any conditions. Then again, if it could, why hasn't it?
4. True. But then morals come down to matters of opinion. God provides an absolute morality.
steve0281 7 months ago
@steve0281 1. supernatural: spells, curses, ghosts and anything that exists outside our universe. God is supernatural, a spiritual being effecting the natural world. God by definition is supernatural.
2. it's a lecture, not a piece of literature
3. How does craig specifically know his god created the fine tuned universe? How can craig know all the specifications for a fine tuned universe?
4. Is slavery absolutely moral? yahweh thought so, yet we determined it wasn't.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 7 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence 1. Word games. Language is far too limited to even begin to address all that humans can experience.
2. What difference does that make? It is still a Genetic Fallacy.
3. He doesn't nor does he claim that this is absolutely true. He just claims that it is the best explanation.
4. Yet we work 40% of the time for the government which presumes that it can deprive us of our lives, liberty and property whenever it wants. Reconsider your definition of slavery.
steve0281 7 months ago
@steve0281 1. so we can experience magic spells now? Please show me some of this magic. Why not let god perform some amazing tricks by stopping a few natural disasters.
2. So this universe was made for us? Sounds a bit self fish, especially when we know the world we live on could be eradicated at any moment. when dark matter and energy take up more space in this universe as well.
3. true, but wouldn't you go on the best explanation until better info arises?
Requiemxtoxinnocence 7 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence 1. Who says he hasn't? Not enough proof? Prove to a man blind from birth that there are stars in the sky.
2. Or it could be the other way around. It's irrelevent to me.
3. Sure, but that depends on one's personal definition of a "best explanation." All evidence is personal on whether they accept it or not. Some people believe there was a moon landing, some don't. Both have good reasons for thinking the way they do.
steve0281 7 months ago
@steve0281 1. You can prove the stars with other senses, you don't always have to see to know. You can still play music and hear the notes with the sight of them so why not the stars with a different sense?
2. There could be other universes, whose to say we aren't in the wrong one?
3. that's a horrible retort. Especially since we've established technology that can reach those places and even bring back rocks from the moon. Yet you say it's a valid belief?
Requiemxtoxinnocence 7 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence 1. Right, and there have been personal experiences in my life that I have concluded are of Divine origin. Still, if a blind man did not want to believe in stars nothing you can, say or do will convince him It is like debating a non-believer.
2. You can believe in "other" universes and not God? Can't you see the inconsistancy here?
3. Personally, I believe there was a moon landing. How do you know where the rocks came from? Someone told you? They have their reasons.
steve0281 7 months ago
@steve0281 1. I doubt that, it really depends on how willing the person is. If I was blind i'd be willing to know the stars were there from the heat of the sun.
2. Not really, if our universe is possible why not more? We at least know our universe exists, yet people still debate on god.
3. Well you can see the ship, probably get the rocks verified, numerous other reasons.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 7 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence 1. I deal in concepts that are very real all the time and there are those that adamantly refuse to believe in them. What can be done? You can tell the sun is there, and indirectly the moon. Not so with stars. That is why I use that example.
2. What is the definition of "universe"? You are claiming that something exists outside our own, yet reject the same claim for God.
3. What ship where? What is unique about moon rocks vis-a-vis earth rocks? This is faith.
steve0281 7 months ago
@steve0281 1. The sun is a star.
2. I told you i'm agnostic, I just reject the idea of any certain faiths bringing us any closer to telling us which god it is.
3. You could meet the very people who went to the moon, you could see the ship at a museum, the rocks could definitely be verified by a geologist, there is actual evidence you just want to bring in faith.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 7 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence 1. Your point? We weren't sure there were planets circling other stars, so thinking there were was a matter of faith.
2. Again, fence sitting isn't taking positive action.
3. I have seen a ship, I have met some people that claim to have been to the moon. I haven't been there so I have a rational basis to not believe it. That is essentially what you are doing.
steve0281 7 months ago
@steve0281 1. Until we got evidence, in which case our faith vanished once we found proof.
2. I'd rather be neutral than claim to know that my certain god is real. Because you can't positively tell me you know 100% true that your god made this universe. Choose one religion out of the thousands, you may as well play the lottery.
3. No evidence is good enough for you. Would sending you to the moon be good enough? probably not.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 7 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence 1. Again, how do we know the "proof" was not fabricated. FTR, I believe there are planets around other stars.
2. Then you'll be caught holding the bag. Christ had something to say about lukewarm water.
3. EXACTLY! That is the very same thing I have been dealing with individuals like you. Again, I think man went to the moon.
steve0281 7 months ago
@steve0281 1. Science has come a long way, and if you think scientists are lying to the public for some conspiracy or personal gain well by all means go ahead. I sincerely doubt that they would lie when they dedicate their lives to gaining new knowledge.
2. Yeah with me or against me, believe or burn. How kind of him to extort people.
3. Duh, we also have robots landing on mars now.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 7 months ago
@steve0281 going by your logic we should either all become nihillists and believe nothing, or become christians and serve a bloodthirsty god. I don't think faith is a bad thing to have but sometimes you can't go on faith alone, and believing mythical stories is where you should be the most critical. I'd rather be agnostic, and be perfectly balanced in both spirituality and science and perhaps my existentialism will lead me to new places.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 7 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Straw man and assuming the antecedent. Those are logical fallacies. I agree that one needs an educated and rational faith. I am advocating nothing less.
steve0281 7 months ago
@steve0281 Well that did appear to be what you were saying. You in fact made a better case for nihilism than christianity with all your previous statements too. But i'm glad we agree that there must be a balance between the two sides. I wasn't making a strawman or logical fallacies just presenting you what I probably will end up doing in life. There could be god or gods, but saying it is them complicates things more and leaves us with more questions.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 7 months ago
@steve0281 Which god? what form of power is gods power made of? Where did he come from? when and why create an existence? what dimension does god live in? why allow evil if it can be prevented? are there other gods or were there former ones? Is god simple or complex? did god have a designer? how do we know if any of our gods are correct? why don't animals have gods like we do? how can god cause time if he's timeless? These are but a few questions if your premise is true.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 7 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence That is like trying to do quantum physics when you are three years old and have a two digit IQ. No, I am not calling you that. One needs to determine for oneself that there is a God (or that the likelihood is sufficient) and start crawling first, walk later, and then begin to learn to trot. Essentially those questions are not relevent for us now. Having a complete knowledge is not required. I don't have one of my car, but what I have is good enough to start.
steve0281 7 months ago
@steve0281 So your giving an answer to one of the biggest questions ever and then not even going to bother answering in the details required to prove or evaluate that. Don't you see a big problem in that kind of thinking? It's like not showing your work on a complex mathematical equation and declaring it correct. Comparing god to a car is a bad example, at least you can find information on that and talk to people that know everything about it, even visit a plant. Not with god though.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 7 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence The thing is that you are correct, it IS the biggest question ever and man in his current state may not even be capable of comprehending God. As the saying goes, "The universe is not only stranger than you think. It is stranger than you CAN think." The car analogy is trifling, yes, but why aren't you applying the same criteria to the study of God? Visit a church, talk with a priest, study the subject formally. In the end it is your life. You will do with it what you will.
steve0281 7 months ago
@steve0281 True understanding the universe can be mind boggling but just imagine what we'll know in a few thousand years or where we might go. No religion has the answers to god only their preferred concept of what god should be like, a truth for one is false for the other. I see us humans as much a part of the universe as the stars. carl sagan once said, " we are a way for the universe to know itself."
Requiemxtoxinnocence 7 months ago
@steve0281 going by your logic we should either all become nihillists and believe nothing, or become christians and serve a bloodthirsty god. I don't think faith is a bad thing to have but sometimes you can't go on faith alone, and believing mythical stories is where you should be the most critical. I'd rather be agnostic, and be perfectly balanced in both spirituality and science and perhaps my existentialism will lead me to new places.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 7 months ago
@steve0281 4. Working in a job is different than slavery. slaves are held against their will, given very few rights, purchased from birth, beaten to death, and are not compensated for their work. Much different than working for a company where you get paid, have vacations, time off, and are not beaten or killed like biblical slavery.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 7 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence 4. You are correct. But that is not what I was saying. When government lays claim to your life, income and property without due process you are a slave. When government officials can arrest you for whatever reason they want, you're a slave. When they have you handcuffed, on the ground, not resisting and they still insist on tasering and using pepper spray, that is torture. They are most effective when the slaves don't realize they're slaves. It seems to be working.
steve0281 7 months ago
@steve0281 Depends on the government. I know that in america even in court you still have rights, and even the president is subject to those laws. We also have laws in place so that, that doesn't happen. Do you think america is now turning into a dystopian place where people have no rights or get payed?
Requiemxtoxinnocence 7 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Take a look at offerings on YouTube where police all over the nation are engaged in activities that are blatantly illegal. Arresting people who are filming them when they have the right to film them? There are those who would contend that the President breaks laws all the time. Bush, Obama, Clinton, Nixon. Probably more. Currently the prevailing attitude (at least held by too many IMO) is that all money belongs to the government and it only allows us to use some of it.
steve0281 7 months ago
@steve0281 I agree that our government does do a lot of illegal things and that yes presidents do get away with many things on both sides republican and democrat but that doesn't mean they can't be brought to justice through one way or another. Yeah I do agree the federal reserve is a bunch of bollocks but what solution would you propose?
Requiemxtoxinnocence 7 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments to the Constitution, reduce government by about 80%, institute allodial title to property, abolish the Fed put the country back on the gold standard and permit competing currencies. That's just for starters.
steve0281 7 months ago
5. You might ask what else might be possible if a god is possible? Are unicorns? What makes god so possible compared to the various other fantasy concepts? How can craig tell?
6. No it's not. Even if it was it couldn't be validated, because numerous people have different experiences with their idea of god but it never points to one specifically. So it's a placebo effect with chemicals reacting in the brain, that's not god it's dopamine.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 7 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence 5. Red Herring. This is too easy.
6. Yes it is the Genetic Fallacy. How do you know that you have a body? How do you know that reality exists? You don't have absolute knowledge of anything. I don't believe that you exist. I think that this is my mind playing tricks on me or you're a Touring Machine. Even then THAT can be a figment of the imagination.
steve0281 7 months ago
@steve0281 5.We were talking about supernatural beings or creatures, so why would a unicorn not be relevant? God defined is supernatural, you say what is natural for god is not magic. What makes it natural? Are supernatural beings now considered natural in your view? Let's say an elidricht abomination created the universe, you say a god yet both are powerful beyond measure.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 7 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence 5. Just because man can imagine something doesn't mean that it exists, has existed, or will exist. Just because unicorns do not seem to exist does not mean that God doesn't either. Guys like you spend so much time playing word games trying to convince yourselves or others and end up deliberately trying to obfuscate what is going on. You need to get off the fence. I would like to help but time is running out. Ultimately one has to help himself. I pray for you.
steve0281 7 months ago
@steve0281 Your asking me to believe with all my thoughts that a personal god exists. That's wishful thinking, because it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside. By your own words you can't even tell me for sure if god does exist or ever existed. So you may be praying to something that's not there.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 7 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence You are projecting. You have no idea what my experiences have been and what they have illustrated to me. That is a form of Genetic Fallacy. I can't make you believe anything. That is not the object of this exercise. God could appear to you in Person and you would still, in all probabiltiy, credit George Lucas or James Cameron.
steve0281 7 months ago
@steve0281 Why would I credit two directors? I think If a god was present he would've made himself present to all not just me. A personal experience however is still more a psychological function than anything else, since god can apparently effect the physical world as you say why not some real deal miracles. Let's see the red sea split again, or a donkey talk, or some angels. Is that too much to ask for instead of a mind induced delusion?
Requiemxtoxinnocence 7 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence It has been my observation that people would credit any source rather than the Divine when faced with it. You may not. You may not want to see an angel. But still, others have. They have written about their multiple witness experiences.
steve0281 7 months ago
@steve0281 I think most people would look for a better explanation first before calling anything divine, it's only logical to do so. I'll take any divine sign, anything supernatural, but I just want to see some explanation for it. Not some apologetics words, there must be some kind of science behind it right?
Requiemxtoxinnocence 7 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence First, I agree to a point. I love science, but the idea that it can prove everything is an irrational notion. I don't believe in the "supernatural." There is what we understand and there is what we don't understand. For instance, if ghosts exist, it is because it is natural for them to exist. Some things cannot be answered by any discipline based in a strict materialism.
steve0281 7 months ago
@steve0281 I was simply saying if ghosts or supernatural things exists that they might better be explained scientifically, i'm aware I can't rely on it for everything. If ghosts are natural then we should be able to find some way to detect them. In the end your essentially calling supernatural things natural. I also think if anything is transcendent that you wouldn't automatically assume god, merely different dimensions.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 7 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence I have no objection to other dimensions and/or universes. But neither possibility means that there is no God. To me, this concept of the "multi-verse" smacks of grasping at straws. Any mental gymnastics are preferable to having a God it would seem.
steve0281 7 months ago
@steve0281 Perhaps once we better know about our own universe we can come to better conclusions, until then relying on either faith or reason won't tell us anything nor will our biases. In the end we can only say we don't truly know, or at least know with absolute certainty what lies in our mysterious past.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 7 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence How much do we have to know? I would contend that we will not know a percentage greater than 1% of that which is knowable in the universe before mankind runs his mortal course. When the house is on fire it matters little at the moment what caused it, it is just time to take action.
steve0281 7 months ago
@steve0281 You can't predict how long mankind will survive for. Who knows how advanced we might be in the future, or how much more we'll know. In any case the future is uncertain.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 7 months ago
@steve0281 one last thing i'm an agnostic, god could be possible but I don't think a particular religion can claim it knows what god it is. I'm not against the idea of one, but I think we need some better proof of the supernatural before claiming it outright. Sorry if i've come off as hostile but I, like anyone else want truth not excuses and false solutions.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 7 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Theoretically agnosticism is more tenable/rational than atheism. My only criticism is that, in my experience, agnostics will never have enough evidence. They are always looking for a plausible loop hole to carry on with whatever may be questionable if there is a God. I'm not saying that you are that way. I'm just citing my experience. I want the same things. I don't think either of us are unique in that respect.
steve0281 7 months ago
@steve0281 I'd convert to any real god if I knew which one it was. I'll take any real evidence for it but I think if god wants to prove himself he should be able to give it to more than one individual at a time. I don't really see religious books as evidence either, because they could easily be mixed in with historical fiction and no one could tell the difference. Not to mention the fact that making up myths was not uncommon back then.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 7 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Are you even looking? Seriously, theoretically a lot is riding on this. I have lived all over the world and people and people have entirely different perspectives on history. Take the ROK v the DPRK versions of the Korean War for instance. As for religious texts, Josephus, a secular historian, acknowledged that Christ lived. Also look up Euhemerus. "Myths" have their basis in fact. The Israelites had God right there for 40 years and still had trouble believing.
steve0281 7 months ago
@steve0281 josephus is unreliable, his texts have been altered to the point where they bear no weight. If jesus did exist he is no different than the mythical hercules who existed but his badassery was exaggerated. Besides the bible has been subject to massive edits over the years, second hand accounts of jesus, not to mention the stuff written fifty years later by people who didn't even see him. Besides jesus was kind of jerk, and yahweh is a god of war and death. I'd rather be buddhist.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 7 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence All histories are unreliable to a degree. Still, we have four readily accepted accounts of the life of Christ and only one for Ceasar's conquest of Gaul. Christ was a "jerk" because he challenged the authorities of his day. All this "love God and your neighbour as yourself" nonsense threatened the priestcraft. That notion of God is not accurate and is a straw man.
steve0281 7 months ago
@steve0281 are you talking about matthew,mark,luke,and john? If so you should be able see the inconsistencies and contradictions in those passages. Christ was a jerk because he threatened people with hell, told people to let the dead bury their dead, and said he'd bring the sword not peace. He may have said some nice things but he certainly wasn't pleasant.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 7 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Sure, there are some problems with consistancy with the Gospels, but they all agree that He lived, claimed to be God and proved it by performing miracles. There are other writings as well. I think a Divine Being would have a broader perspective on things and know much that we mere mortals don't. Part of the message is that there is a war going on and that we play a part in that. If we choose wrong there are consequences. I think this bears an exploration.
steve0281 7 months ago
@steve0281 Some problems? There are numerous problems in the bible, not to mention the writing isn't exactly the greatest thing i've ever read. Anyone can claim to be the son of god, especially in myths it's not uncommon. You know how many other religions have those same ideas? I think you should be more skeptical on your faith.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 7 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence I'm not arguing that. One of the Articles of Faith of my Church is that the Bible is incomplete and is inaccurate. You're right, that is why eye witnesses are important. FYI, I am very skeptical. We are admonished to test all things and hold fast to what is true.
steve0281 7 months ago
@steve0281 Your bible doesn't seem reliable. I don't see how you see it as real and other fiction as false. what makes adam and eve more believable than the apple of discord? Why believe in Noah's flood when it is literally impossible?
Requiemxtoxinnocence 7 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence How so? It gets vindicated all the time. Who said that Noah's flood was impossible and how did they prove it?
steve0281 7 months ago
@steve0281 a short look at darkmatter2525 on Noah's flood is good for laughs on that myth. Not to mention having 7 of each animal would cause birth defects. Noah's family himself producing people through incest. Gathering all the animals there oh and dinosaurs. Where did all the flood water go? Freezing to death from the height of the water. Face it, it's just not possible.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 7 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence I will review that. Second, if we look at modern biology there seems to be a net loss of data in genes. Creationists would say that in the Beginning all life was more perfect and has begun a slow degeneration since. Also, since Darwinists look up such mutations as the engine of evolution they are neither good nor bad. In addition, if all life has a common ancestor (only one) then wouldn't that make us all the result of a long line of "birth defects"?
steve0281 7 months ago
@steve0281 Life perfect back in the ice age? Our species nearly died if we hadn't migrated, not to mention all the disease and hard work just to survive back then. That sounds like a watered down and poor example of what evolution is to say the least. As for the last question look up mitochondrial eve.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 7 months ago
@steve0281 we are all connected biologically, to the earth chemically, and to the universe atomically. We are the very meaning of universe, all in one. So the more we find out about the universe the more we may find out about ourselves. In a way I feel more connected to the planets, animals, and other life forms than to a god.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 7 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence That is pure speculation. Atheists like the big 4 do not subscribe to that theory. You are making a philosophical statement that is not supported by anything. You're welcome to believe it. The basic formula is that there is either a Deity or there isn't. At this juncture "which" one (or more) it is isn't important. It is an either or dichotomy. Try reading some Aquinas or Merton and see what they have to say. I think you may be impressed.
steve0281 7 months ago
@steve0281 Actually it's a well known fact, if you look into what we know about astrophysics and how the elements came about you wouldn't have said that. So it's more of a mix between philosophy and science than anything. No deity was required to intervene to make that happen as it was a part of nature. I'll look into them if not just to learn more about how they think, but I think we shouldn't limit ourselves to two options.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 7 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence If you are saying that there is a chemical commonality between the earth and the creatures that inhabit it I think that is correct. If you are saying that there is some sort of metaphysical connection then that is a philosophical conjecture. Science needs philosophy in order to interpret it vis-a-vis Man. Certain things have to be assumed (a prioris) in order to make sense of them, but even then some things cannot be proven yet are never-the-less true.
steve0281 7 months ago
6. Reality is defined as anything that is not imagined. You sound delusional if you think actual people are just your mind playing tricks on you. Besides do you know anything about psychology or neurology? they've done studies on religious experiences all it is, is in acting a part of the mind. Do some research before calling out genetic fallacy.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 7 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence 6. Reread Descartes' "First Meditation" and get back to me after you reconsider your comment.
I have done quite a bit of reading on these subjects. You're presuming a materialistic explanation for everything. Could this not be the reaction of the mind by interacting with the spiritual? Again, you are still presenting a Genetic Fallacy.
steve0281 7 months ago
@steve0281 6. even descartes gets criticism from people like nietzsche, david hume, bernard williams, pierre gassendi.
It could be spiritual or it could be delusion, what makes something spiritual as opposed to something that was completely made up?
Requiemxtoxinnocence 7 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence 6. Your point? All of them get criticism as well. I can't believe you actually brought up Nietzche. I saw through him when I was seventeen. He is even more juvenile now.
When you experience it for yourself, you will know it. At the very least it will become more difficult to rationalize it away.
steve0281 7 months ago
@steve0281 So perhaps they are all wrong? Nietzshe is by no means juvenile, especially when you consider his perspective on things. Existentialism itself is definitely a better way of understanding why people act as they do as well even though that's more a part of satre and kierkgard.
If I do experience it how will I not know it's a delusion? a figment of my imagination as you say? If you can't be critical on your own beliefs then how would you know it was ever true? or even wrong?
Requiemxtoxinnocence 7 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Read Nitzsche again after about forty years. Trust me. He's juvenile. He was also insane. So-called existentialists are so diverse and all over the philosophical landscape that to credit with anything approaching coherency is wishful thinking indeed.
You can only answer that for yourself. The experience will be singularly unique. It depends how you will allow yourself to interpret it.
steve0281 7 months ago
@steve0281 I think you dislike nietszhe because of your religious bias. He brought new views into philosophy such as perspectivism and was against nihilism. He only went mad later on in life. So diversity with existentialism is a bad thing?
Requiemxtoxinnocence 7 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Not at all. I reject him because he is juvenile. The older I get, the more juvenile his thinking is. Just because someone comes up with a unique perspective doesn't make it worthwhile merely by it being unique.
steve0281 7 months ago
@steve0281 From your perspective you see him as juvenile based on whatever experience you have with him and bias you associate with him. Most likely from his criticism of religion. I'm sure you could name a few philosophers that many could object with based on bias. I doubt that, new ways of thought give us a better view and project us further. I see it as innovation and evolution of thought by building ideas and changing them throughout time.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 7 months ago