Dawkins has claimed, “As for religion … nobody wields a sharper bayonet than Sam Harris.” Harris debated Craig on 7th April. In his opening statement in that debate, Harris declared that Dr Craig is “the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists.” After that debate, the atheist website Debunking Christianity reported: “Bill (Craig) has once again showed himself as the best debater of this generation.” ROFL LMFAO
@StupidTheist The uploader of this video, Christianjr4, taught me several importing points about sharing my ideas with others especially those whose ideas differ. "We're all in agreement here, all sound minds agree". What he was saying is that all sound minds definitely don't agree, but by being disagreeable we accomplish nothing. People change when they get ready to not when we try and get them to. What do YOU hope to gain? I do this because piano practice is difficult. Peace
Has anyone ever seen a debate with WLC where he goes second?
I never have... he always uses the same format (leading the debate and outlining what his opponent must say) - a format which simply wouldn't work if he spoke second.
I wonder if this is one of his conditions to agreeing to a debate?
Is there a single example on youtube of him being the second speaker?
@SAHBfan In formal debate settings, the person providing the evidence goes first. Just like the US Justice System. It's not a demand Craig makes, it's an age old debate format.
@209vaughn "In formal debate settings, the person providing the evidence goes first. "
Yes, this is a formal 'Oxford Style' debate, where one side proposes a motion and the other side opposes it.
But what is the motion, here? There isn't one. The debate is actually in the form of a question, with a yes or no answer, so there is no formal motion, either party could equally be said to be proposing or defending depending on whether the answer is yes or no.
Change in environment which leads to random mutation, and non random natural selection. The issue of a personal god,.. Although i must admit that it's possible for it to exist, in the same category i'd say that anything is possible to exist including unicorns,.ghosts, imaginary little pixies,.. It's impossible to disprove anything. you also said " Give it a few more days and maybe I'll get you clear around to believing in God." I want empirical evidence,..not philosophical nonsense
Whereas before you said that a personal god was easy to disprove. Should I take this as a concession of defeat?
"I want empirical evidence,..not philosophical nonsense"
So you want the sort of evidence that is neither claimed for God, nor needed for most facets of your existence? What sort of empirical evidence do you want (or reasonably expect) for an entity that transcends the physical universe and therefore transcends science?
yay so I couldn't disprove that your imaginary friend doesn't exist, so what? you won. it's not that you defeated me,.I just made a mistake with my statement,..idk what i was thinking, but whatever...The empirical evidence that I would accept as real evidence for god for a personal god for example pray that he can cure amputees if he can create the whole universe, and tlk to every creature in it,..he can grow someone's limb easily.also
@simw7 So if suddenly everyone regrew limbs and things like that, you would take that as empirical evidence of a personal deity? How would you know it is evidence of a personal deity though?
You said something about everyone reaching a consensus on the identity of God, but that's not empirical so I'm not sure why that matters.
@simw7 ...I get a distinct impression that you're treating a personal god like it is some sort of vending machine: that it operates by understandable principles in uniform, reliable and repeatable ways. That is, you're treating it like it would be some kind of natural law that could be investigated scientifically. But that's not even what is claimed for God. A personal god, being personal, has intention and choice. The kind of evidence you're asking for would be proof against a personal god.
@CoryTheRaven see is what exactly what i'm saying,..There's no actual real definition of a god. you have yours, someone else got a definition of what a god is, and would surely disagree with you,. what I just told you was just one example of a god who cure people from disease like jesus etc.. your denying this saying that if he can cure amputees it would disprove the idea. Fair enough give me your definition of a god, and then I'll show u what would take you to convince that such thing exists
@simw7 "your denying this saying that if he can cure amputees it would disprove the idea."
I said that if there was a direct, uniform, reliable, repeatable cause-and-effect relationship between prayer and the curing of illnesses, that would be evidence against prayer being a form of communication with a personal deity. The strong implication is that we would be dealing with some kind of heretofore unknown natural law, not a sentient entity with its own will...
@CoryTheRaven ".As for the question of which god, I'm not particularly partial. Any of them. All of them. Multiple claims would require multiple arguments, so knock yourself out." So you don't believe in any god? I thought u believed in a personal god. Then you must know the characteristic of ur god since he's personal. tell his/her characteristics then i'll tell you what kind of evidence would convince me that ur personal god is in fact something to take seriously,
@simw7@simw7 As I recall, I haven't been advocating for any particular deity. You were the one to initiate our conversation by saying that the existence of a personal god was easy to disprove, to which I replied with "okay, go for it." The onus is on you to disprove, not on me to convince you of anything. If you want to go through, one-by-one, disproving Jesus, YHWH, Brahman, Zeus, Japanese kami and whatever all else, go for it. Don't let me stop you.
@simw7 But one can debate the logical consistency of a claim, which is what you attempted to do when I invited you to say your proof against the existence of a personal god. You could not, however, poke any holes in the consistency of belief in a personal god. You tried to use an argument from unanswered prayer that didn't work, then an argument from the limitations of an unlimited being and that didn't work, and then from theodicy and that didn't work either. Only then did you retreat to this.
@simw7 ...As for the question of which god, I'm not particularly partial. Any of them. All of them. Multiple claims would require multiple arguments, so knock yourself out.
I mean there are many version of god(s) since the beginning everyone define "supposedly" one thing differently, everyone has a different idea of what god is to them, or what he wants. The empirical evidence, since he's personal and all powerful god he can actually go to everyone and prove to everyone that he's real so everyone can have an idea of how their "creator" is like. if everyone agree on which god is real, and what he/she wants then that'd be something to look into. if appears to me too
WLC is a professional apologist; WL is a biological scientist. Having a delusion is demonstrable. WLC provided not one peice of evidence, just assertions and bad arguments that there is something outside space/time. I will believe the scientist when it comes to what is demonstrable. WLC doesn't believe in macro-evolution because what he says is the lack of evidence, yet he believes there is reasonable evidence for something that is outside of space/time. I like LW 'double-take' moments.
Is God a Delusion all I know he is able to have some of us see him while leaving rest blind. In effect this makes our faith all the stronger. It truly is Amazing!
I have to say, though I disagree with some things craig does and says. I respect him for accepting scientific Chronology, and other factual discoveries.
@mehldau125 indeed, i said that because so many christians i talk to deny even the possibilty of science being right at all (ie my parents) and think that evolution is wrong and the earth is like 6000 years old. Craig accepts whats real and answers the real question, which is how it BEGAN, not whether religion is true or not. I really like how he braves this question which is dodged with the bible all the time.
@psychedellic420 yup I agree....just be careful when you say "is dodged with the bible all the time" NOWHERE in the bible does it say the world is 6000 years. Don't know where that idea came from....
@mehldau125 indeed, but following the bibles timeframe of adam and eve down to abraham and such, unless there is a massive gap in which the bible does not tell us who was being born and what was going on, it would be about that old. it can be inferred, but what is an infered fact but an interpretation or an opinion?
@psychedellic420 He could only go against his own dogmas by accepting evolution if his dogma was Creationist. It evidently is not, since he accepts evolution. It is worth keeping in mind that the majority of mainline Christian denominations officially accept evolution. If that is a point of distinction between "spiritual" and "religious", then the Roman Catholic Church is "spiritual".
@psychedellic420 ?! It very explicitly contradicts both Young and Old Earth Creationism. It does not disprove the idea that God created the universe, but Creationism is a specific religious doctrine positing a literal interpretation of the Genesis Creation myths.
@CoryTheRaven Thats the point, it does nothing to disprove the idea that god created the universe, but it does disprove the creationism coupled with the dogma of religious doctrine. i never said it disproves religious creationism, because it clearly does. i agree with you that the opposition to evolution all stems from biblical or religious literalists.
@Cisser It is only a paradox if you consider the proposition "there are no open minded religious people" true. If you do not consider it to be a true porposition, then there is no paradox. Any apparent paradox, in fact, would demonstrate that the proposition "there are no open minded religious people" is not true.
@CoryTheRaven beliving in god meens, having faith! faith is beliving without evidence!! Open minded people dont belive things for faith, coz they like them or think they should be true, but becouse there is scientefic evidence that show us a hypothesis! So if someone belives in god becouse the bible says so sorry but you can be a a inteligent person but you are not a OPEn MINDED PErson!
@Cisser Faith does not mean belief without evidence. As used in Christian theology (since we're discussing a debate with a Christian apologist), faith is a relational term denoting trust and reliability. Trust is usually founded on what the person who holds it considers to be good and sufficient reasons. Those reasons may or may not be scientific, but to say they are bad reasons because they are not scientific would obligate you to prove that science is the ONLY reliable epistemological method.
@Cisser This demonstration puts your argument in a difficult place. First of all, it is a faith-based argument. Science is based on a set of fundamental, undemonstrable assumptions about the way the world works that are nonetheless considered trustworthy. That would be compounded by the argument that science is the ONLY way to know anything, which is a claim that cannot itself be demonstrated by science. You are essentially arguing for absolute faith in science.
@Cisser Secondly, arguing for absolute faith in science (what is called Scientism) does not come across as particularly open minded. It isn't open minded by how most people define the term, nor is it open minded by your OWN definition.
All in all, you haven't demonstrated anything about whether or not religious people are, as a class, open minded.
@CoryTheRaven i have, but you are blinded." Science is based on a set of fundamental, undemonstrable " lol? no thats wrong, Science can be proven tested and demostrated. You are so wrong, I see you dont understan science...And i think you have demostrated better than me why people like you are not open minded. Just giving wrong definitios!. So you TRUST A MAN WHO WROTE A BOOK TELLING THAT IS TRUE....(btw bible was written by lot of different people in a time period of 2000 years.
@Cisser Resisting the urge to correct your attrocious grammar, I will attempt to correct your misunderstandings of science. Science does rest on a set of untestable fundamental assumptions, such as the reality of the world outside of the human mind, the reliability of sense experience and human reason, and the continuity of the natural world. These cannot be tested scientifically, nor can you prove scientifically that science is the only epistemological method...
@Cisser ...To say that science proves that only science is right is circular reasoning. Science has only demonstrated itself as a useful methodology when addressing questions of the physical universe and its laws, but has nothing to say in questions of ethics, aesthetics, or relationships, just as three examples. There is not a person alive who bases their entire existence on either empiricism or reason. To do so would be neuro-atypical...
@CoryTheRaven all depends of what kind of god your talking about. a personal god that 80 percent of people believe in or just a primer mover of the universe which in that case could be anything. It doesn't have to be an intelligent being,..it doesn't have to be supernatural,..doesn't intervene in any affairs in the universe in that case it's a useless to us if it exist. Though it's hard to disprove it. But when you tlk about the personal god, tat one is so easy to disprove
@simw7 Okay, disprove it. I cross my fingers that you're going to use an argument that hasn't already been counterargued by Aquinas, Origen or someone else over the last 2000 years.
@CoryTheRaven a personal god that answers prayers and listen to everyone etc.. First of all there's enough evidence to show that prayers doesn't wrk. second, there have been so many gods worshiped and prayed to. There is over 100 billions gallaxies which each might contain over 100 billions of stars i mean c'mon,..it's too big for a all powerful, all knowing god caring about u cares about what u eat, drink, and who u have sex with.
@simw7 The efficacy of prayer is a difficult subject because it involves the intentionality of a sentient entity. It's not a cause and effect activity. God could just as easily answer a prayer with "no", and I know many people who do claim to have had their prayers answered. There's no way to systematize it.
As for the universe being too big for an ALL-powerful, ALL-knowing, EVER-present God to care about, that is an oxymoron. You're ascribing limitations to this being.
"As for the universe being too big for an ALL-powerful, ALL-knowing, EVER-present God to care about, that is an oxymoron. You're ascribing limitations to this being." the evidence actually disagree with you given that 98 to 99 percent of all life that ever existed have went extinct. Also the suffering of little children, innoncent children who die of starvation, all this shows that there isn't any merciful being anywhere. prayers don't, if it didn't y don't people pray for a cure to cancer
@simw7 "the evidence actually disagree with you given that 98 to 99 percent of all life that ever existed have went extinct."
How does that reflect at all on the question of whether an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being is capable of concerning itself with the morality of sentient beings throughout the universe?...
@simw7 "Also the suffering of little children, innoncent children who die of starvation, all this shows that there isn't any merciful being anywhere."
Arguments from theodicy prove nothing, as that debate has been going on for a LONG time without any conclusive proofs against the existence of a caring personal deity. Many quite sufficient answers have been given by the theistic side, the most convincing to me being that the question is nonsensical in a still-evolving universe...
@simw7 "prayers don't, if it didn't y don't people pray for a cure to cancer."
How do you know that people aren't? How do you know that "miraculous" remissions of cancer aren't actual miracles? How do you know that God is not at work through researchers to develop cures for cancer? How do you know that God does not have a reason for not simply blinking all cancer out of existence? How do you know that anthropogenic cancer is not some form of "judgement" on our society?
"How do you know that people aren't" i kno fo a fact people are but guess what nothing, no cure has come from anywhere. god isn't working through researches to find cure lol..they've been doing research to find cure for cancer to decades and nothing came about. us humans are fortunate that we evolve to be so clever that we can manipulate nature to help ourselves. what about other animals? they surfer beyond anything,.starvation, disease, extinctions,..why is god punishing them too?
@simw7 "god isn't working through researches to find cure lol."
Again, how do you know? You're drawing a conclusion where one isn't warranted. All you can say is that a cure hasn't been developed YET.
I also noticed that you said we were "fortunate that we evolve". Invoking Fortune is itself a metaphysical claim. How do you know that our evolution was simply luck? Or maybe you're an ancient Roman and you think that Fortune is an actual god, I dunno'...
Evolution is luck,...cause it's driving by random mutation in genes, and natural selection which no one can predict the outcome. that's why i used the word "fortunate" which i meant lucky for us. Even though you can't technically disprove it, well you really can't disprove anything I mean i can claim that an alien civilization that hated humans was working through hitler to kill all Jews in the world,..How do we know this isn't true? but there's no evidence that such civilization exist.
@simw7 Evolution is not a random process. On the contrary, its highly structured and has provided enough repetition to allow scientists like Simon Conway Morris to go "hmmmm..." Philosophers like Ken Wilbur have observed that evolution is the universe's striving of order against randomness and chaos. But "random" is itself a metaphysical claim and in evolution can only apply to mutation. Natural selection is not random at all...
@CoryTheRaven "random" is itself a metaphysical claim and in evolution can only apply to mutation. Natural selection is not random at all"
that's exactly what i said,..random mutation, i never claimed that natural selection is random. but Evolution is not predictably given that you can't predict change in environment which is also what plays role in evolution. I mean it wasn't structured that one day humans will occupie the earth,..rather it was mostly random chance which includes (continue)
@simw7 "How do we know this isn't true? but there's no evidence that such civilization exist."
Now you've gone very far from your initial claim. You started by saying that a personal god was easy to disprove. I've been puncturing those arguments and now you're trying to seek refuge in an absense of evidence (which is not evidence of absense). Give it a few more days and maybe I'll get you clear around to believing in God.
@simw7 ...As for animals, I assume you mean that they suffer, not that they surf. So now we've gone from discussing a personal god's concern for our morals to a personal god's concern for suffering in general.
And again, this is a weak argument because it denies both the intentionality of a sentient deity and the fact of evolution. Perhaps God is currently in the process of doing something about the suffering of life and has reasons for going about it in this way. You don't know.
@Cisser ...The claim that only science is right (because science proves it is right!) is far less open-minded than accepting that there are categories of inquiry that fall outside of science, empricism and strict rationality. To admit the possibility of a deity is far more open minded than saying "NO GODZ ECXIST COZ RELIGOUS PPL ONLY BELIEF DUMB BOOK LOL"
@CoryTheRaven So, beliving in the bible, its demostrable to be stupid, unmature, and no open minded. So please, open your eyes and realize that the bible is not diferent from the lord of the rings. SOMETHING IS NOT TRUE COZ YOU WANT IT TO BE TRUE! AND LIFE ITS NOT FAIR GET USED TO IT!
And FAITH is beliving without evidence, becouse if you belived with evidence it wouldnt be called faith, it would be called reason! (something you lack of)
"Tonight I'm going to defend two basic contentions[..]"
Yeah, you can stop right there, you've already read the same script a hundred times to us and there's no reason to think you're going to change it to accommodate valid objections that were brought up.
Just skipping your parts to see what the opposition has to say. kthxbye
@pantherfanatic7 Too many to fit in a YT comment. However, the most basic one is how he sets up the debates he's in. WLC makes sure he goes first so that he can both establish his straw man of atheism and his 5 verbose bullshit arguments. He defines his opponent's position for them and ignores all attempts to correct that. This way he can always use the same script (because he's essentially debating himself) and constantly whine about how they refuse to refute his straw man/all of his arguments.
@lenoka Haha. Craig doesn't set up debates so he can go first. It is traditional for the affirmative side to go first. Craig affirms that God does exist, so he goes first.
What strawmen does he erect of atheism?
His arguments are very sound, which explains why atheists can rarely refute them very well.
@pantherfanatic7 If WLC is the affirmative, then why is the core trick to his script to ask for proof of the falsehood of an infalsifiable claim? Which is also the straw man. And which of his arguments are you talking about? Cosmological? Circular. Teleological? Argument from ignorance. Moral argument? Pointless semantics. Resurrection? Yeah, because the most elegant explanation for an empty tomb is that its former inhabitant must be the risen son of a god. Or the "I just feel it's true" one?
@lenoka That doesn't mean he rigs the debates so he can go first. That's a baseless claim. And it's not a strawman to ask someone prove their assertion.
Let's take these one at a time. Please explain to me how the Kalam Cosmological Argument is at all circular.
@pantherfanatic7 According to Sam Harris, WLC worked together closely with the people organising the debate to make sure he went first. Atheism isn't an assertion, it is the rejection of an assertion. Hence the negative proof fallacy on which WLCs script rests. The cosmological argument is circular because God is already implied in the first premise. The Kalam version simply adds an ad hoc "that begin to exist", which doesn't really change anything.
@lenoka An atheist he debated saying that doesn't count as proof. It's very likely just a smear.
In the Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy, atheism is defined as, "‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God." That is a claim. The lack of belief in God is agnosticism.
That's not circular reasoning. You act as if God is the only thing which doesn't begin to exist. What about numbers? They never begin to exist, and they don't have a reason for their existence.
You're misinterpreting what you quoted. As you said, atheism is the negation of theism, i.e. exactly what I said it was. Or in other words, "Atheism is a religion like turning off the television is a channel."
Numbers are concepts. They didn't exist before a mind created them. Just like gods. Oh, the irony.
@lenoka No I'm not. Atheism makes the explicit claim that there is no God. Richard Dawkins makes a positive argument against God's existence in the God Delusion for a reason. (The argument is, however, rather weak.)
I think that's false. I don't think there is a possible world where numbers don't exist. I don't think someone has to postulate an idea before it can exist. If there is a world with no intelligent life, and there are 3 melons, there are still 3 melons, regardless of intelligence.
@pantherfanatic7 So you believe in everything hat hasn't been or can't be disproven? If the answer is no, your point is completely moot. You're doing the exact same thing WLC is, i.e. straw man + negative proof fallacy.
You're conflating the thing and it's description. In this world there would be something we would describe as 3 melons, but neither the concept "melon" nor the concept "3" would exist, because those require minds.
@lenoka I'm not saying that he has to believe in God because he can't disprove His existence. But atheism makes the claim that there is no God. That's a stance which must be defended. "There is not enough evidence" does not mean it's not true. In WLC's debate with John Shook, Shook used an example of a stock market, and Craig just demolished it. Craig said that just because your friend doesn't give you enough evidence that the stock market is going up, doesn't mean that the stock market isn't
@pantherfanatic7 Atheism doesn't make that claim. You don't get to define our position. We do.
The stock market analogy fails because the stock market is not a supernatural entity that cannot be tested in any way, like gods. "There is not sufficient evidence." means that it's unreasonable to believe it to be true. To demand proof of the nonexistence of something, especially something infalsifiable, is silly.
We're not going to agree on whether numbers exist outside of minds, but I'll say this. I think your definition of circular reasoning is skewed. Craig saying something that excludes God from a premise is not circular reasoning, because it doesn't assume God exists. You could argue that it is special pleading, but I don't think that's the case. Something which has always existed has no cause. That's just basic logic. If the universe had always existed, it would have no cause.
@pantherfanatic7 The whole problem is that WLC uses logic backwards, like most theologians/apologetics do. They have a conclusion, e.g. "My specific version of a god exists." and then they try to construct an argument leading to that conclusion. Kalam is the best example of this. It's merely an attempt to make the failed cosmological argument more obfuscated. And since the existence of this god is part of their job description they don't have the option of conceding this.
@lenoka I'm not defining your position. I let the philosophy dictionary do that for me.
To claim that you cannot prove something untrue is ridiculous. All you have to do is prove that it's logically incoherent. For example, I can prove that there are no round squares.
That's an ad hominem attack with no evidence. You have no idea whether WLC is being intellectually dishonest with his arguments, and it's fallacious to act as if that changes the validity of his arguments, anyways.
@pantherfanatic7 Dictionaries do not define terms. They merely explain usage(s). And especially if the meaning of a term can be ambiguous, I have to define it if my argument relies on it. Neither you nor WLC get to define my terms for me. I specifically said that infalsifiable claims cannot be disproven, which is true by definition. And just like a square circle is implausible, an omniscient and omnipotent god is impossible as well. Oh, right, he's just "almost" omnipotent, huh?
@pantherfanatic7 An agnostic is someone who holds that one cannot understand the supernatural. Or someone who doesn't claim knowledge about the supernatural. Agnosticism as some kind of on-the-fence position between theism and atheism is simply incoherent; because it allows no room for Gnosticism. Omnipotence on its own is already contradictory: can God create a sword that pierces through everything and a shield that cannot be pierced by anything?
@pantherfanatic7 Once we add omniscience it gets even more ridiculous. If God is omniscient, he knows his own decisions in advance, which means that all of his actions, thoughts etc. are absolutely predetermined, rendering him completely impotent.
A few thousand years ago, gods were responsible for everything. Natural disasters, disease, whatever... every time we come up with a natural explanation, naturalism is vindicated a bit more, and supernaturalism becomes more silly.
@lenoka That commits a logical fallacy in modal logic. God's omniscience are not determinant of his choices. It's the other way around. God knows what he will choose, but that does not mean to say that God is therefore rendered useless or powerless. Now you could ask, "Could God change His mind?" But that would be a meaningless question, for God is a changless being, so He cannot change His mind.
Omnipotence does not entail the ability to do that which is logically impossible.
@pantherfanatic7 As predicted, the "almost omnipotent" copout. Concerning omniscience you're just reiterating my point. The existence of any thing omniscient renders absolutely everything absolutely powerless.
@lenoka It's not a cop out. Expecting God to do the logically impossible, by definition, makes no sense. But if you contend that God should be able to do the logically impossible, then fine. God can create a impenetrable shield, and pierce through it with an unstoppable sword
As CS Lewis said Saying nonsense doesn't become any less nonsense by adding "God can" to the beginning of it
No, that's, like I said, a logical fallacy in modal logic. His future actions affect his knowledge not vice versa
@pantherfanatic7 So the fact that God will do X in two weeks is the reason why God knows (right now) what he will do X in two weeks? Yet another circular argument.
Why yes, we can play the omnipotence game as long as we like, at some point arriving at the realization that God either isn't responsible for anything at all; or that He works in mysterious ways (Craig's attempt at refuting the Problem of Evil).
@lenoka How is that at all a circular argument? That's just rational. I've decided to finish typing this comment. That's why I know I'm going to finish typing this comment. That's not at all circular.
What omnipotence game? Pointing out that God cannot do the logically impossible is not a serious objection. Me and you agree that God can't do that which is logically impossible, so it's not a real objection. Just semantics.
That's not Craig's argument at all. He shows that God and evil are
@pantherfanatic7 which is a really flawed argument and pure rationalization. Free will is compromised if we understand that once we were created, we had not the choice to be free or to decide if we wanted to live. God didn't care while playing his selfish little game of creation and that's why he's not benevolent...
When Craig said he was going to define terms I thought he was finally going to define god. He always gets away with arguing points for a deistic god while his audience the whole while takes it as the biblical god. I find that disingenuous.
You'll find that the reason why he doesn't ultimately define God is because the definitions of God are different depending on each religion. The reason why he refers specifically to the triune God of Christianity is because he is convinced that the triune God is the only God that consistently fits the God definition, given His particular attributes. A lot of other deities are devoid of the same attributes making them far less persuasive ideologies.
Of all the spokesmen on the Christian-side of this topic, WLC is the best. He has as good an argument for the existence God as I have heard anyone offer. He strikes me as someone who would have made a great lawyer.
It goes to support a point that Sam Harris has made - It is possible to have a very well-educated and apparently rational person who, at the same time maintains a theology-based personal philosophy. It still somewhat surprises me.
@XaniusMok That's otherwise known as Sam Harris' being an intellectual bigot, however well stated. It's not so long since people's intelleligence and judgement were being questioned if they believed a little theory known as evolution by natural selection.
"Of all the spokesmen on the Christian-side of this topic, WLC is the be"
Then it's no wonder Christianity is losing ground. Actually, I see Craig as part of a last desperate effort by Christians to justify their beliefs. In this age of information though, it's becoming easier by the day to verify religious claims and see how they fail.
@AliasPerplexity Otherwise known as the argument from cowardice. Are you saying Christopher Hitchens is insane and should be committed to a mental hospital because he debated WLC? Was Thomas Huxley suffering from some kind of dementia when he debated (and roundly beat) Bishop Wilberforce in 1860? What the fuck is wrong with you?
@AliasPerplexity Otherwise known as the arguement from cowardice. Are you saying Christopher Hitchens is insane and should be committed to a mental hospital because he debated WLC? Was Thomas Huxley suffering from some kind of dementia when he debated (and roundly beat) Bishop Wilberforce in 1860? What the fuck is wrong with you?
@AliasPerplexity Otherwise known as the arguement from cowardice. Are you saying Christopher Hitchens is insane and should be commited to a mental hospital because he debated WLC? Was Thomas Huxley suffering from some kind of dementia when he debated (and roundly beat) Bishop Wilberforce in 1860? What the fuck is wrong with you?
@AliasPerplexity Otherwise known as the arguements from cowardice. Are you saying Christopher Hitchens is insane and should be commited to a mental hospital because he debated WLC? Was Thomas Huxley suffering from some kind of dementia when he debated (and roundly beat) Bishop Wilberforce in 1860? What the fuck is wrong with you?
A delusion is a belief held in spite of evidence that confirms it as false. WLC can't even get a psychological definition right, and it is a psychological term in the religious debate. That's what unshakeable faith does to you, it closes you down to the degree that you can't even be bothered getting a definition right. As for his throwing the onus of proof on Wolpert, it was a cop-out, but no less than you'd expect. No wonder Dawkins dismisses him. :)
"A delusion is a belief held in spite of evidence that confirms it as false"...so if it would confirm it as false that would make it a false belief. Good job.
Another reason to refuse to debate William Lane Craig: He has said that there is nothing, no fact, no argument, that could, for him, "controvert the witness of the Holy Spirit." Since the final word for Craig is faith why does he even bother debating and why should anyone bother debating him. Craig does not debate, he preaches. I find these debates neither informative nor entertaining.
Another reason to refuse to debate William Lane Craig: He has said that there is nothing, no fact, no argument, that could, for him, "controvert the witness of the Holy Spirit." Since the final word for Craig is faith why does he even bother debating and why should anyone bother debating him. Craig does not debate, he preaches.
@AliasPerplexity yeah, that's like my little sister who refuses to argue with me because I'm a stupid meanie and she won't dignify anything with an answer. Dawkins is clever, but he has no integrity. I think people would respect him far more if he admitted that he doesn't feel ready to argue against a professional debater yet. Dawkins isn't a debater, he's a writer, there's not shame in that; the shame lies in his lack of honesty.
Yes, he is. Craig says he leans toward "progressive creationism", which is the religious belief (e.g. unfounded assumption) that God created new forms of life gradually, over a period of hundreds of millions of years.
@MomoTheBellyDancer All Christians are Creationists by that definition - however that is not the definition Dawkins' uses, he specifically talks about YEC. If not, then he shouldn't have debated ANY of the Christians that he did. So using that as an excuse to dodge WLC, it's just fallacious.
"using that as an excuse to dodge WLC, it's just fallacious."
Dawkins doesn't want to waste his time on people whose only claim to fame is that they're debaters, since he feels that it only validates them without justification. I wholeheartedly agree with Dawkins here and feel that people should stop taking Craig seriously, since he has disqualified himself over and over with his dishonesty and intellectual vapidness.
@MomoTheBellyDancer This is also an invalid reason. WLC is more qualified than Dawkins (WLC holds 2 PHDs). WLC has done more debates, with more prominent opponents and is not simply a good debater. He has dozens of published papers and books on philosophy and the nature of time, as well as on Theology and God. His resume is monstrous, it's on his website if you wish to see it.
"WLC is more qualified than Dawkins (WLC holds 2 PHDs)"
WLC holds irrelevant PH. D'.s, one in Philosophy, the other in Theology, which amount to having Ph.D's in jodeling and making raspberries. Dawkins has a Ph. D. in an actual scientific subject, namely zoology. Dawkins was professor at the world-renowned Oxford University; Craig is a professor at some backwater Christian college. Game, set and match for Dawkins in this regard.
@MomoTheBellyDancer Then you are simply guilty of special pleading. When it comes to debates on the subject of God, Theology and Philosophy are the two most relevant criteria.
Zoology is is utterly inconsequential. In fact it's just intellectual dishonesty to claim this somehow trumps professional experience in areas which the subject directly deal with. WLC has also spent 13 years studying the nature of Time, which is why he is trained to comment on cosmology which deals with this.
"When it comes to debates on the subject of God, Theology and Philosophy are the two most relevant criteria."
No. When you claim an all-powerful being exists that created the universe, you're making a scientific statement that can be addressed using the scientific method.
"Zoology is is utterly inconsequential."
At least Dawkins is trained in the scientific method, which he successfully applies, whereas WLC clearly doesn't understand how science works.
@MomoTheBellyDancer Topics such as God, deal with philosophy and theology for the most part. Even if you disagree with that, saying that Dawkins has a scientific field - seems to eclipse A) That WLC has studied the nature of time for other 13 years, which is all to do with science and mathematics, and B) That somehow biology is the only field which is credible?!
Again its special pleading.
As Michael Ruse said, the only reason left to Dawkins to refuse a debate with WLC is cowardice.
"Topics such as God, deal with philosophy and theology for the most part. "
I don't care about philosophy and ESPECIALLY not theology. Neither of them have advanced human knowledge much. We only started to make progress once started VERIFYING our claims about nature against the same nature, and the results are often totally different than we are able of philosophizing.
"WLC has studied the nature of time"
Show me his articles in peer-reviewed physics journals then.
@MomoTheBellyDancer I think you misunderstand. Most of the modern day scientific method comes from Christian thinkers, who were driven to enquire by their belief in God. Additionally science owes it's origin to philosophy and theology. I think it sounds like somewhere someone has told you these things, and you have accepted them. I would encourage you to find out for yourself. Without philosophy, science would utterly fall into obscurity - science is the medium FOR philosophy.
"Most of the modern day scientific method comes from Christian thinkers"
Nonsense. There might have been thinkers who were also Christian, but they didn't let their beliefs influence their work. Pointing to a problem and shouting "goddidit" is NOT scientific. The Bible, for one, doesn't encourage scientific thinking, it's main message being "Believe without questioning and you'll be saved".
@MomoTheBellyDancer I said their work was DRIVEN by their theological beliefs. I can rattle off a list of names quite easily. Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, Andreas Vesalius, William Harvey, Robert Boyle, Antony van Leeuwenhoek, Isaac Newton... I mean, I can go on. You claim about the Bible is also false, so again I assert you are simply ignorant like Dawkins.
1 Thessalonians 5:21 "Test everything. Hold on to the good."
I encourage you to keep seeking and searching for the truth.
"I said their work was DRIVEN by their theological beliefs."
So what? They could be driven by their passion for pasta, for all I care. I could just as easily name a bunch of non-religious scientists, or religious scientists who are not Christians. It's the result that matter, not WHY someone does science.
"You claim about the Bible is also false"
Every time the Bible touches on a scientific subjects, it gets falsified. So yes, it's false in that regard at least.
@MomoTheBellyDancer Well you claimed we got nothing from Theology, and Theology wasn't responsible for anything. However based on this, it's actually responsible for almost everything you yourself hold dear. :)
Your claim about the Bible was that it doesn't investigation or scientific method. That verse shows otherwise, also all the Christian grandfathers of science show otherwise too. I don't know how else to say it.
@MomoTheBellyDancer "Theology is responsible for stifling science." Strange when I just pointed out that science owes it's roots to theologically driven thinkers.
"The "good" in that verse means "belief"." This is incorrect. I find it shocking that you, who earlier said, "I don't care about philosophy and ESPECIALLY not theology" are trying to make theological claims. That verse is talking about reason, logic and testing *EVERYTHING*. Maybe you should listen to the Christian here.
@MomoTheBellyDancer " I'm simply showing you how you can make Bible verses mean whatever you like. The Bible has no intellectual merit." It seems there are several large fields of study which disagree with you. It's not that I don't listen to what you are saying, it's more that what you are saying is just preposterous. Shall I quote from Strong's concordance the meanings of that verse? Or is that likewise subject to mere opinion? I mean really. Your statement is just silly.
"It seems there are several large fields of study which disagree with you."
Let me guess: those are all conducted by CHRISTIANS, right?
"what you are saying is just preposterous"
Translation: "How do you DARE disagree with me!"
"is that likewise subject to mere opinion"
Yes. I am sure others will disagree with that interpretation, just like they do about nearly EVERY sentence in the Bible. Of course, this is to be expected from a book of bronze age fairy tales.
@MomoTheBellyDancer Actually no, the fields have mixed faiths studying them.
When I say preposterous, I mean silly - imagine you claimed that you could fly, that's the same level of silly that you are exhibiting here. There is not much disagreement about the Bible, I don't know who told you that, but like I said earlier it seems like you have been sold a pack of lies, and have eaten them up. I would encourage you to actually 'Test everything.' and to 'Hold on to the good.' as God commanded.
"There is not much disagreement about the Bible, I don't know who told you that"
There are literally THOUSANDS of Christian denominations. Explain those.
Besides, I am not at all interested in what YOU or some apologetic thinks the Bible says. I have read the book myself and the only thing I think is impressive is how so many people can buy into a set of stories that clearly mere flights of fancy, describing a wholly psychotic god.
@MomoTheBellyDancer Actually there are probably a dozen, perhaps a few more main denominations.
Considering you think you can make the Bible say whatever you want, you should probably take more interest in the people who are claiming they know what it means, and ask them how or why they think that.
Do you think any history book can be made to say anything we want? Or just the Bible... special pleading, let me guess?
"Actually there are probably a dozen, perhaps a few more main denominations."
Not so. You can actually look up the numbers yourself.
But even if there were only TWO, that would already shine a dubious light on the veracity on the Bible. How can you disagree on something that is supposedly the "truth of god"?
"Do you think any history book can be made to say anything we want?"
The winners write the history books. That said, the Bible is not a history book in the slightest.
@MomoTheBellyDancer "Not so. You can actually look up the numbers yourself." I don't need to look them, I am a Christian, I know the denominations however for kicks I did, and there are 8 main denominations. :)
I think you are talking about the sub-denominations, but that's like saying there are biologists who disagree on various aspects of bio-theory, and so bio-theory itself is credulous. Your logic is just plain fallacious.
@MomoTheBellyDancer The wikipedia article actually shows the 8 main denominations at the very top.
Even if I grant for sake of argument, there are double what I think, so 24, it's still not thousands. Even if I grant there are 10x the amount, there are still not thousands. You are talking about the sub-denominations, which only differ on non-core issues, Christianity itself is united on core doctrines.
Actually science is about absolute truth, that's what it is working towards finding.
According to Barret's Encyclopedia, there are there are more than 33,000 protestant denominations in 238 countries. Remember: having only TWO is already enough to dismantle the claim that the Bible is "truth".
"Actually science is about absolute truth"
Science is about explaining the universe as we find it. If this one day lead to a form of "truth", all the better, but it's not the main goal.
@MomoTheBellyDancer Like I said, those are not main denominations, they differ on minute details.
Also this idea that two denominations is enough to dismantle the Bible as truth, is also misplaced. I don't know where you get this from, as I said, it's like saying bio-theory is defunct based on differing opinions.
Science is all about absolute truth, your statement did nothing other than refine that claim.
"Like I said, those are not main denominations, they differ on minute details."
Even the slightest difference is damning to the truth-claim of the Bible. And that's without realizing that the majority of people on earth is not even Christian.
"Science is all about absolute truth, "
No, it isn't. I know Craig claims this, but he's wrong, just like he's wrong about most anything else he says outside of his "expertise". Stop being a Craigbot and start thinking for yourself.
@MomoTheBellyDancer "Even the slightest difference is damning to the truth-claim of the Bible." Once again, says you... no theologian believes this is the case, since the early Christian forefathers to the modern day Christian thinkers. The only people who believe this are people who don't care about theology or know anything about it.
If you don't think science is working towards absolute truths, then you simply don't understand science it seems.
@MomoTheBellyDancer "The "truth" should be self-evident." What like bio-theory is self-evident? What gibberish.
"Why should I care what theologians think? Theology has contributed NOTHING to human knowledge." Apart from science, medicine, cosmology and philosophy. Yes, nothing.
@MomoTheBellyDancer "According do Christian theology disease is caused by demons and that the world is flat and rests on pillars. Gimme a break." Perhaps if you listened to Theologians you would know that this isn't what Christians believe. Also it doesn't address the point I made, because of Christian theology you have all the disciplines you love and respect, but you have blinders on and view the world through a narrow point of view.
"Perhaps if you listened to Theologians you would know that this isn't what Christians believe. "
Of course not, since Christians changed their ideas once science proved their original ideas wrong.
"because of Christian theology you have all the disciplines you love and respect, "
Nonsense. Christians have successfully suppressed science since it didn't fit in with their beliefs.You might look up some information on this period in history referred to as the "Dark Ages".
@MomoTheBellyDancer "Of course not, since Christians changed their ideas once science proved their original ideas wrong." I'm not sure what ideas you are talking about. Not even the early Christians believed what you just wrote.
"Christians have successfully suppressed science since it didn't fit in with their beliefs." Again, nonsense, I cited numerous Christian scientists who created the disciplines you hold dear.
Everything. Cosmology, geology, biology, meteorology, the origin of diseases. Science contradicts EVERYTHING the Bible tell about these issues.
"I cited numerous Christian scientists who created the disciplines you hold dear."
And I made it clear OVER AND OVER that the belief of those scientists are IRRELEVANT. For instance, Newton not even ONCE uses god as an explanation in his Principia.
@MomoTheBellyDancer "Everything. Cosmology, geology, biology, meteorology, the origin of diseases. Science contradicts EVERYTHING the Bible tell about these issues." Only if you believe that "According do Christian theology disease is caused by demons and the world is flat and rests on pillars." Like I said, you are chasing your tale, you have invented your own Christian Theism Strawman to fight.
Christianity is about the absolute authority of ancient mythology with little basis in reality or fact. They used to drill into the heads of sick people to release the demons that were causing the sickness.
How could it NOT be at odds with science?
It's typically dealt with this rivalry through torture, murder, suppression of science and scientists that didn't support their narrow and ignorant views.
For you to support that, makes you an utterly awful person.
@Ryakki You and I disagree what Christianity is about. I don't doubt you believe what you say, but if you aren't a Christian, then I would say you have been taught incorrectly.
Science doesn't deal with with self-evident "truths", but with evidence found in nature. The theory of evolution is internally consistent AND corroborated by massive amounts of evidence, which is what makes it one of the most successful scientific theories to date.
"Apart from science, medicine, cosmology "
According do Christian theology disease is caused by demons and the world is flat and rests on pillars. Gimme a break.
Dawkins has claimed, “As for religion … nobody wields a sharper bayonet than Sam Harris.” Harris debated Craig on 7th April. In his opening statement in that debate, Harris declared that Dr Craig is “the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists.” After that debate, the atheist website Debunking Christianity reported: “Bill (Craig) has once again showed himself as the best debater of this generation.” ROFL LMFAO
RosesTimes 1 day ago
@StupidTheist The uploader of this video, Christianjr4, taught me several importing points about sharing my ideas with others especially those whose ideas differ. "We're all in agreement here, all sound minds agree". What he was saying is that all sound minds definitely don't agree, but by being disagreeable we accomplish nothing. People change when they get ready to not when we try and get them to. What do YOU hope to gain? I do this because piano practice is difficult. Peace
shizzleman8 1 month ago
@CorytheRaven brilliant. I would like to speak with you more. At length. This is not the forum to talk. Feel free to email me Sin247365@gmail.com
What a well spoken answer.
sin247365 2 months ago
This is great! If only this organization had called itself the Federation of Universities and Christian Colleges.
psb1964 2 months ago in playlist IS GOD A DELUSION? William Lane Craig vs Lewis Wolpert
Awesome upload thanks
FeignofCordor 2 months ago 2
"Is God a Delusion".
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: Yeah.
TimEddyHughes 2 months ago 4
If the universe is infinite, then there was nothing before, it cant.
If the universe had a beginning, then there also was nothing before, because if not, that wouldnt be really the beggining.
Even if you want to put an infinite god in the middle, there was nothing before that god.
So nothing is always the right answer. So, my answer to the question where did we came from? We came from nothing, even "god".
Aguijon1982 3 months ago
Has anyone ever seen a debate with WLC where he goes second?
I never have... he always uses the same format (leading the debate and outlining what his opponent must say) - a format which simply wouldn't work if he spoke second.
I wonder if this is one of his conditions to agreeing to a debate?
Is there a single example on youtube of him being the second speaker?
SAHBfan 3 months ago
@SAHBfan In formal debate settings, the person providing the evidence goes first. Just like the US Justice System. It's not a demand Craig makes, it's an age old debate format.
209vaughn 3 months ago
@209vaughn "In formal debate settings, the person providing the evidence goes first. "
Yes, this is a formal 'Oxford Style' debate, where one side proposes a motion and the other side opposes it.
But what is the motion, here? There isn't one. The debate is actually in the form of a question, with a yes or no answer, so there is no formal motion, either party could equally be said to be proposing or defending depending on whether the answer is yes or no.
Regardless, WLC always goes first...
SAHBfan 3 months ago
Change in environment which leads to random mutation, and non random natural selection. The issue of a personal god,.. Although i must admit that it's possible for it to exist, in the same category i'd say that anything is possible to exist including unicorns,.ghosts, imaginary little pixies,.. It's impossible to disprove anything. you also said " Give it a few more days and maybe I'll get you clear around to believing in God." I want empirical evidence,..not philosophical nonsense
simw7 3 months ago
@simw7 "It's impossible to disprove anything."
Whereas before you said that a personal god was easy to disprove. Should I take this as a concession of defeat?
"I want empirical evidence,..not philosophical nonsense"
So you want the sort of evidence that is neither claimed for God, nor needed for most facets of your existence? What sort of empirical evidence do you want (or reasonably expect) for an entity that transcends the physical universe and therefore transcends science?
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
yay so I couldn't disprove that your imaginary friend doesn't exist, so what? you won. it's not that you defeated me,.I just made a mistake with my statement,..idk what i was thinking, but whatever...The empirical evidence that I would accept as real evidence for god for a personal god for example pray that he can cure amputees if he can create the whole universe, and tlk to every creature in it,..he can grow someone's limb easily.also
simw7 3 months ago
@simw7 So if suddenly everyone regrew limbs and things like that, you would take that as empirical evidence of a personal deity? How would you know it is evidence of a personal deity though?
You said something about everyone reaching a consensus on the identity of God, but that's not empirical so I'm not sure why that matters.
...
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
@simw7 ...I get a distinct impression that you're treating a personal god like it is some sort of vending machine: that it operates by understandable principles in uniform, reliable and repeatable ways. That is, you're treating it like it would be some kind of natural law that could be investigated scientifically. But that's not even what is claimed for God. A personal god, being personal, has intention and choice. The kind of evidence you're asking for would be proof against a personal god.
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
@CoryTheRaven see is what exactly what i'm saying,..There's no actual real definition of a god. you have yours, someone else got a definition of what a god is, and would surely disagree with you,. what I just told you was just one example of a god who cure people from disease like jesus etc.. your denying this saying that if he can cure amputees it would disprove the idea. Fair enough give me your definition of a god, and then I'll show u what would take you to convince that such thing exists
simw7 3 months ago
@simw7 "your denying this saying that if he can cure amputees it would disprove the idea."
I said that if there was a direct, uniform, reliable, repeatable cause-and-effect relationship between prayer and the curing of illnesses, that would be evidence against prayer being a form of communication with a personal deity. The strong implication is that we would be dealing with some kind of heretofore unknown natural law, not a sentient entity with its own will...
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
@CoryTheRaven ".As for the question of which god, I'm not particularly partial. Any of them. All of them. Multiple claims would require multiple arguments, so knock yourself out." So you don't believe in any god? I thought u believed in a personal god. Then you must know the characteristic of ur god since he's personal. tell his/her characteristics then i'll tell you what kind of evidence would convince me that ur personal god is in fact something to take seriously,
simw7 3 months ago
@simw7 @simw7 As I recall, I haven't been advocating for any particular deity. You were the one to initiate our conversation by saying that the existence of a personal god was easy to disprove, to which I replied with "okay, go for it." The onus is on you to disprove, not on me to convince you of anything. If you want to go through, one-by-one, disproving Jesus, YHWH, Brahman, Zeus, Japanese kami and whatever all else, go for it. Don't let me stop you.
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
@CoryTheRaven ooh i c,..well you can't disprove the existance of anything really,..jesus flying spaghetti monster or w/e
simw7 3 months ago
@simw7 But one can debate the logical consistency of a claim, which is what you attempted to do when I invited you to say your proof against the existence of a personal god. You could not, however, poke any holes in the consistency of belief in a personal god. You tried to use an argument from unanswered prayer that didn't work, then an argument from the limitations of an unlimited being and that didn't work, and then from theodicy and that didn't work either. Only then did you retreat to this.
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
@simw7 ...As for the question of which god, I'm not particularly partial. Any of them. All of them. Multiple claims would require multiple arguments, so knock yourself out.
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
I mean there are many version of god(s) since the beginning everyone define "supposedly" one thing differently, everyone has a different idea of what god is to them, or what he wants. The empirical evidence, since he's personal and all powerful god he can actually go to everyone and prove to everyone that he's real so everyone can have an idea of how their "creator" is like. if everyone agree on which god is real, and what he/she wants then that'd be something to look into. if appears to me too
simw7 3 months ago
WLC is a professional apologist; WL is a biological scientist. Having a delusion is demonstrable. WLC provided not one peice of evidence, just assertions and bad arguments that there is something outside space/time. I will believe the scientist when it comes to what is demonstrable. WLC doesn't believe in macro-evolution because what he says is the lack of evidence, yet he believes there is reasonable evidence for something that is outside of space/time. I like LW 'double-take' moments.
vgerdj 3 months ago in playlist William L Craig vs. Lewis Wolpert
7:37 it starts
arcaniondeath666 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Is God a Delusion all I know he is able to have some of us see him while leaving rest blind. In effect this makes our faith all the stronger. It truly is Amazing!
stevalianarbone 4 months ago
Comment removed
stevalianarbone 4 months ago
I have to say, though I disagree with some things craig does and says. I respect him for accepting scientific Chronology, and other factual discoveries.
treasuredroperX 4 months ago
professor craig is just about the only respecful and logical clear minded christian i have ever heard.
psychedellic420 4 months ago
@psychedellic420 Maybe get out more?? :D just messing. People need to be less defensive in the west. I definately agree with you there
mehldau125 4 months ago
@mehldau125 indeed, i said that because so many christians i talk to deny even the possibilty of science being right at all (ie my parents) and think that evolution is wrong and the earth is like 6000 years old. Craig accepts whats real and answers the real question, which is how it BEGAN, not whether religion is true or not. I really like how he braves this question which is dodged with the bible all the time.
psychedellic420 4 months ago
@psychedellic420 yup I agree....just be careful when you say "is dodged with the bible all the time" NOWHERE in the bible does it say the world is 6000 years. Don't know where that idea came from....
mehldau125 4 months ago
@mehldau125 indeed, but following the bibles timeframe of adam and eve down to abraham and such, unless there is a massive gap in which the bible does not tell us who was being born and what was going on, it would be about that old. it can be inferred, but what is an infered fact but an interpretation or an opinion?
psychedellic420 4 months ago
@psychedellic420 Thats a paradox...There are no open minded religious people
Cisser 4 months ago
@Cisser which is why i am thinking of him more spiritual rather than religious- he goes against his own dogma just by considering evolution as true.
psychedellic420 4 months ago
@psychedellic420 He could only go against his own dogmas by accepting evolution if his dogma was Creationist. It evidently is not, since he accepts evolution. It is worth keeping in mind that the majority of mainline Christian denominations officially accept evolution. If that is a point of distinction between "spiritual" and "religious", then the Roman Catholic Church is "spiritual".
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
@CoryTheRaven evolution does absolutely nothing to disprove creationism.
psychedellic420 3 months ago
@psychedellic420 ?! It very explicitly contradicts both Young and Old Earth Creationism. It does not disprove the idea that God created the universe, but Creationism is a specific religious doctrine positing a literal interpretation of the Genesis Creation myths.
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
@CoryTheRaven Thats the point, it does nothing to disprove the idea that god created the universe, but it does disprove the creationism coupled with the dogma of religious doctrine. i never said it disproves religious creationism, because it clearly does. i agree with you that the opposition to evolution all stems from biblical or religious literalists.
psychedellic420 3 months ago
@Cisser It is only a paradox if you consider the proposition "there are no open minded religious people" true. If you do not consider it to be a true porposition, then there is no paradox. Any apparent paradox, in fact, would demonstrate that the proposition "there are no open minded religious people" is not true.
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
@CoryTheRaven Its a paradox. Open minded people are not religious!
Cisser 3 months ago
@Cisser Okay. Please demonstrate the veracity of this claim.
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
@CoryTheRaven beliving in god meens, having faith! faith is beliving without evidence!! Open minded people dont belive things for faith, coz they like them or think they should be true, but becouse there is scientefic evidence that show us a hypothesis! So if someone belives in god becouse the bible says so sorry but you can be a a inteligent person but you are not a OPEn MINDED PErson!
Cisser 3 months ago
@Cisser Faith does not mean belief without evidence. As used in Christian theology (since we're discussing a debate with a Christian apologist), faith is a relational term denoting trust and reliability. Trust is usually founded on what the person who holds it considers to be good and sufficient reasons. Those reasons may or may not be scientific, but to say they are bad reasons because they are not scientific would obligate you to prove that science is the ONLY reliable epistemological method.
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
@Cisser This demonstration puts your argument in a difficult place. First of all, it is a faith-based argument. Science is based on a set of fundamental, undemonstrable assumptions about the way the world works that are nonetheless considered trustworthy. That would be compounded by the argument that science is the ONLY way to know anything, which is a claim that cannot itself be demonstrated by science. You are essentially arguing for absolute faith in science.
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
@Cisser Secondly, arguing for absolute faith in science (what is called Scientism) does not come across as particularly open minded. It isn't open minded by how most people define the term, nor is it open minded by your OWN definition.
All in all, you haven't demonstrated anything about whether or not religious people are, as a class, open minded.
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
@CoryTheRaven i have, but you are blinded." Science is based on a set of fundamental, undemonstrable " lol? no thats wrong, Science can be proven tested and demostrated. You are so wrong, I see you dont understan science...And i think you have demostrated better than me why people like you are not open minded. Just giving wrong definitios!. So you TRUST A MAN WHO WROTE A BOOK TELLING THAT IS TRUE....(btw bible was written by lot of different people in a time period of 2000 years.
Cisser 3 months ago
@Cisser Resisting the urge to correct your attrocious grammar, I will attempt to correct your misunderstandings of science. Science does rest on a set of untestable fundamental assumptions, such as the reality of the world outside of the human mind, the reliability of sense experience and human reason, and the continuity of the natural world. These cannot be tested scientifically, nor can you prove scientifically that science is the only epistemological method...
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
@Cisser ...To say that science proves that only science is right is circular reasoning. Science has only demonstrated itself as a useful methodology when addressing questions of the physical universe and its laws, but has nothing to say in questions of ethics, aesthetics, or relationships, just as three examples. There is not a person alive who bases their entire existence on either empiricism or reason. To do so would be neuro-atypical...
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
@CoryTheRaven all depends of what kind of god your talking about. a personal god that 80 percent of people believe in or just a primer mover of the universe which in that case could be anything. It doesn't have to be an intelligent being,..it doesn't have to be supernatural,..doesn't intervene in any affairs in the universe in that case it's a useless to us if it exist. Though it's hard to disprove it. But when you tlk about the personal god, tat one is so easy to disprove
simw7 3 months ago
@simw7 Okay, disprove it. I cross my fingers that you're going to use an argument that hasn't already been counterargued by Aquinas, Origen or someone else over the last 2000 years.
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
@CoryTheRaven a personal god that answers prayers and listen to everyone etc.. First of all there's enough evidence to show that prayers doesn't wrk. second, there have been so many gods worshiped and prayed to. There is over 100 billions gallaxies which each might contain over 100 billions of stars i mean c'mon,..it's too big for a all powerful, all knowing god caring about u cares about what u eat, drink, and who u have sex with.
simw7 3 months ago
@simw7 The efficacy of prayer is a difficult subject because it involves the intentionality of a sentient entity. It's not a cause and effect activity. God could just as easily answer a prayer with "no", and I know many people who do claim to have had their prayers answered. There's no way to systematize it.
As for the universe being too big for an ALL-powerful, ALL-knowing, EVER-present God to care about, that is an oxymoron. You're ascribing limitations to this being.
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
"As for the universe being too big for an ALL-powerful, ALL-knowing, EVER-present God to care about, that is an oxymoron. You're ascribing limitations to this being." the evidence actually disagree with you given that 98 to 99 percent of all life that ever existed have went extinct. Also the suffering of little children, innoncent children who die of starvation, all this shows that there isn't any merciful being anywhere. prayers don't, if it didn't y don't people pray for a cure to cancer
simw7 3 months ago
@simw7 "the evidence actually disagree with you given that 98 to 99 percent of all life that ever existed have went extinct."
How does that reflect at all on the question of whether an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being is capable of concerning itself with the morality of sentient beings throughout the universe?...
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
@simw7 "Also the suffering of little children, innoncent children who die of starvation, all this shows that there isn't any merciful being anywhere."
Arguments from theodicy prove nothing, as that debate has been going on for a LONG time without any conclusive proofs against the existence of a caring personal deity. Many quite sufficient answers have been given by the theistic side, the most convincing to me being that the question is nonsensical in a still-evolving universe...
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
@simw7 "prayers don't, if it didn't y don't people pray for a cure to cancer."
How do you know that people aren't? How do you know that "miraculous" remissions of cancer aren't actual miracles? How do you know that God is not at work through researchers to develop cures for cancer? How do you know that God does not have a reason for not simply blinking all cancer out of existence? How do you know that anthropogenic cancer is not some form of "judgement" on our society?
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
"How do you know that people aren't" i kno fo a fact people are but guess what nothing, no cure has come from anywhere. god isn't working through researches to find cure lol..they've been doing research to find cure for cancer to decades and nothing came about. us humans are fortunate that we evolve to be so clever that we can manipulate nature to help ourselves. what about other animals? they surfer beyond anything,.starvation, disease, extinctions,..why is god punishing them too?
simw7 3 months ago
@simw7 "god isn't working through researches to find cure lol."
Again, how do you know? You're drawing a conclusion where one isn't warranted. All you can say is that a cure hasn't been developed YET.
I also noticed that you said we were "fortunate that we evolve". Invoking Fortune is itself a metaphysical claim. How do you know that our evolution was simply luck? Or maybe you're an ancient Roman and you think that Fortune is an actual god, I dunno'...
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
Evolution is luck,...cause it's driving by random mutation in genes, and natural selection which no one can predict the outcome. that's why i used the word "fortunate" which i meant lucky for us. Even though you can't technically disprove it, well you really can't disprove anything I mean i can claim that an alien civilization that hated humans was working through hitler to kill all Jews in the world,..How do we know this isn't true? but there's no evidence that such civilization exist.
simw7 3 months ago
@simw7 Evolution is not a random process. On the contrary, its highly structured and has provided enough repetition to allow scientists like Simon Conway Morris to go "hmmmm..." Philosophers like Ken Wilbur have observed that evolution is the universe's striving of order against randomness and chaos. But "random" is itself a metaphysical claim and in evolution can only apply to mutation. Natural selection is not random at all...
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
@CoryTheRaven "random" is itself a metaphysical claim and in evolution can only apply to mutation. Natural selection is not random at all"
that's exactly what i said,..random mutation, i never claimed that natural selection is random. but Evolution is not predictably given that you can't predict change in environment which is also what plays role in evolution. I mean it wasn't structured that one day humans will occupie the earth,..rather it was mostly random chance which includes (continue)
simw7 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@simw7 "Evolution is not predictably given that you can't predict change in environment"
Yes we can. We do it all the time. That is why the climate change crisis is freaking us out so much: we know what is going to happen.
"I mean it wasn't structured that one day humans will occupie the earth"
How do you know?
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
@simw7 "How do we know this isn't true? but there's no evidence that such civilization exist."
Now you've gone very far from your initial claim. You started by saying that a personal god was easy to disprove. I've been puncturing those arguments and now you're trying to seek refuge in an absense of evidence (which is not evidence of absense). Give it a few more days and maybe I'll get you clear around to believing in God.
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
@simw7 ...As for animals, I assume you mean that they suffer, not that they surf. So now we've gone from discussing a personal god's concern for our morals to a personal god's concern for suffering in general.
And again, this is a weak argument because it denies both the intentionality of a sentient deity and the fact of evolution. Perhaps God is currently in the process of doing something about the suffering of life and has reasons for going about it in this way. You don't know.
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
@Cisser ...The claim that only science is right (because science proves it is right!) is far less open-minded than accepting that there are categories of inquiry that fall outside of science, empricism and strict rationality. To admit the possibility of a deity is far more open minded than saying "NO GODZ ECXIST COZ RELIGOUS PPL ONLY BELIEF DUMB BOOK LOL"
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
@CoryTheRaven So, beliving in the bible, its demostrable to be stupid, unmature, and no open minded. So please, open your eyes and realize that the bible is not diferent from the lord of the rings. SOMETHING IS NOT TRUE COZ YOU WANT IT TO BE TRUE! AND LIFE ITS NOT FAIR GET USED TO IT!
Cisser 3 months ago
And FAITH is beliving without evidence, becouse if you belived with evidence it wouldnt be called faith, it would be called reason! (something you lack of)
Cisser 3 months ago
what was that about the 15 year old redhead??
hobaleo 5 months ago
"Tonight I'm going to defend two basic contentions[..]"
Yeah, you can stop right there, you've already read the same script a hundred times to us and there's no reason to think you're going to change it to accommodate valid objections that were brought up.
Just skipping your parts to see what the opposition has to say. kthxbye
lenoka 5 months ago 2
@lenoka Valid objections like....?
pantherfanatic7 2 months ago
@pantherfanatic7 Too many to fit in a YT comment. However, the most basic one is how he sets up the debates he's in. WLC makes sure he goes first so that he can both establish his straw man of atheism and his 5 verbose bullshit arguments. He defines his opponent's position for them and ignores all attempts to correct that. This way he can always use the same script (because he's essentially debating himself) and constantly whine about how they refuse to refute his straw man/all of his arguments.
lenoka 2 months ago
@lenoka Haha. Craig doesn't set up debates so he can go first. It is traditional for the affirmative side to go first. Craig affirms that God does exist, so he goes first.
What strawmen does he erect of atheism?
His arguments are very sound, which explains why atheists can rarely refute them very well.
pantherfanatic7 2 months ago
@pantherfanatic7 If WLC is the affirmative, then why is the core trick to his script to ask for proof of the falsehood of an infalsifiable claim? Which is also the straw man. And which of his arguments are you talking about? Cosmological? Circular. Teleological? Argument from ignorance. Moral argument? Pointless semantics. Resurrection? Yeah, because the most elegant explanation for an empty tomb is that its former inhabitant must be the risen son of a god. Or the "I just feel it's true" one?
lenoka 1 month ago
@lenoka That doesn't mean he rigs the debates so he can go first. That's a baseless claim. And it's not a strawman to ask someone prove their assertion.
Let's take these one at a time. Please explain to me how the Kalam Cosmological Argument is at all circular.
pantherfanatic7 1 month ago
@pantherfanatic7 According to Sam Harris, WLC worked together closely with the people organising the debate to make sure he went first. Atheism isn't an assertion, it is the rejection of an assertion. Hence the negative proof fallacy on which WLCs script rests. The cosmological argument is circular because God is already implied in the first premise. The Kalam version simply adds an ad hoc "that begin to exist", which doesn't really change anything.
lenoka 1 month ago
@lenoka An atheist he debated saying that doesn't count as proof. It's very likely just a smear.
In the Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy, atheism is defined as, "‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God." That is a claim. The lack of belief in God is agnosticism.
That's not circular reasoning. You act as if God is the only thing which doesn't begin to exist. What about numbers? They never begin to exist, and they don't have a reason for their existence.
pantherfanatic7 1 month ago
@pantherfanatic7 As if Harris would need to smear WLC...
You're misinterpreting what you quoted. As you said, atheism is the negation of theism, i.e. exactly what I said it was. Or in other words, "Atheism is a religion like turning off the television is a channel."
Numbers are concepts. They didn't exist before a mind created them. Just like gods. Oh, the irony.
lenoka 1 month ago
@lenoka No I'm not. Atheism makes the explicit claim that there is no God. Richard Dawkins makes a positive argument against God's existence in the God Delusion for a reason. (The argument is, however, rather weak.)
I think that's false. I don't think there is a possible world where numbers don't exist. I don't think someone has to postulate an idea before it can exist. If there is a world with no intelligent life, and there are 3 melons, there are still 3 melons, regardless of intelligence.
pantherfanatic7 1 month ago
@pantherfanatic7 So you believe in everything hat hasn't been or can't be disproven? If the answer is no, your point is completely moot. You're doing the exact same thing WLC is, i.e. straw man + negative proof fallacy.
You're conflating the thing and it's description. In this world there would be something we would describe as 3 melons, but neither the concept "melon" nor the concept "3" would exist, because those require minds.
lenoka 1 month ago
@lenoka I'm not saying that he has to believe in God because he can't disprove His existence. But atheism makes the claim that there is no God. That's a stance which must be defended. "There is not enough evidence" does not mean it's not true. In WLC's debate with John Shook, Shook used an example of a stock market, and Craig just demolished it. Craig said that just because your friend doesn't give you enough evidence that the stock market is going up, doesn't mean that the stock market isn't
pantherfanatic7 1 month ago
@pantherfanatic7 Atheism doesn't make that claim. You don't get to define our position. We do.
The stock market analogy fails because the stock market is not a supernatural entity that cannot be tested in any way, like gods. "There is not sufficient evidence." means that it's unreasonable to believe it to be true. To demand proof of the nonexistence of something, especially something infalsifiable, is silly.
lenoka 1 month ago
@lenoka going up.
We're not going to agree on whether numbers exist outside of minds, but I'll say this. I think your definition of circular reasoning is skewed. Craig saying something that excludes God from a premise is not circular reasoning, because it doesn't assume God exists. You could argue that it is special pleading, but I don't think that's the case. Something which has always existed has no cause. That's just basic logic. If the universe had always existed, it would have no cause.
pantherfanatic7 1 month ago
@pantherfanatic7 The whole problem is that WLC uses logic backwards, like most theologians/apologetics do. They have a conclusion, e.g. "My specific version of a god exists." and then they try to construct an argument leading to that conclusion. Kalam is the best example of this. It's merely an attempt to make the failed cosmological argument more obfuscated. And since the existence of this god is part of their job description they don't have the option of conceding this.
lenoka 1 month ago
@lenoka I'm not defining your position. I let the philosophy dictionary do that for me.
To claim that you cannot prove something untrue is ridiculous. All you have to do is prove that it's logically incoherent. For example, I can prove that there are no round squares.
That's an ad hominem attack with no evidence. You have no idea whether WLC is being intellectually dishonest with his arguments, and it's fallacious to act as if that changes the validity of his arguments, anyways.
pantherfanatic7 1 month ago
@pantherfanatic7 Dictionaries do not define terms. They merely explain usage(s). And especially if the meaning of a term can be ambiguous, I have to define it if my argument relies on it. Neither you nor WLC get to define my terms for me. I specifically said that infalsifiable claims cannot be disproven, which is true by definition. And just like a square circle is implausible, an omniscient and omnipotent god is impossible as well. Oh, right, he's just "almost" omnipotent, huh?
lenoka 1 month ago
@lenoka Fine. But what you're defining as atheism is typically referred to as agnosticism, which is simply the lack of belief in God.
Now you've made an argument. That's progress. Now please explain to me how omniscience and omnipotence are logically incompatible.
Also, theism is just as falsifiable as naturalism or atheism. I cannot prove there is a God anymore than you can prove there is not.
pantherfanatic7 1 month ago
@pantherfanatic7 An agnostic is someone who holds that one cannot understand the supernatural. Or someone who doesn't claim knowledge about the supernatural. Agnosticism as some kind of on-the-fence position between theism and atheism is simply incoherent; because it allows no room for Gnosticism. Omnipotence on its own is already contradictory: can God create a sword that pierces through everything and a shield that cannot be pierced by anything?
lenoka 1 month ago
@pantherfanatic7 Once we add omniscience it gets even more ridiculous. If God is omniscient, he knows his own decisions in advance, which means that all of his actions, thoughts etc. are absolutely predetermined, rendering him completely impotent.
A few thousand years ago, gods were responsible for everything. Natural disasters, disease, whatever... every time we come up with a natural explanation, naturalism is vindicated a bit more, and supernaturalism becomes more silly.
lenoka 1 month ago
@lenoka That commits a logical fallacy in modal logic. God's omniscience are not determinant of his choices. It's the other way around. God knows what he will choose, but that does not mean to say that God is therefore rendered useless or powerless. Now you could ask, "Could God change His mind?" But that would be a meaningless question, for God is a changless being, so He cannot change His mind.
Omnipotence does not entail the ability to do that which is logically impossible.
pantherfanatic7 1 month ago
@pantherfanatic7 As predicted, the "almost omnipotent" copout. Concerning omniscience you're just reiterating my point. The existence of any thing omniscient renders absolutely everything absolutely powerless.
lenoka 1 month ago
@lenoka It's not a cop out. Expecting God to do the logically impossible, by definition, makes no sense. But if you contend that God should be able to do the logically impossible, then fine. God can create a impenetrable shield, and pierce through it with an unstoppable sword
As CS Lewis said Saying nonsense doesn't become any less nonsense by adding "God can" to the beginning of it
No, that's, like I said, a logical fallacy in modal logic. His future actions affect his knowledge not vice versa
pantherfanatic7 1 month ago
@pantherfanatic7 So the fact that God will do X in two weeks is the reason why God knows (right now) what he will do X in two weeks? Yet another circular argument.
Why yes, we can play the omnipotence game as long as we like, at some point arriving at the realization that God either isn't responsible for anything at all; or that He works in mysterious ways (Craig's attempt at refuting the Problem of Evil).
lenoka 1 month ago
@lenoka How is that at all a circular argument? That's just rational. I've decided to finish typing this comment. That's why I know I'm going to finish typing this comment. That's not at all circular.
What omnipotence game? Pointing out that God cannot do the logically impossible is not a serious objection. Me and you agree that God can't do that which is logically impossible, so it's not a real objection. Just semantics.
That's not Craig's argument at all. He shows that God and evil are
pantherfanatic7 1 month ago
@lenoka logically compatible, by using the libertarian free will argument.
pantherfanatic7 1 month ago
@pantherfanatic7 which is a really flawed argument and pure rationalization. Free will is compromised if we understand that once we were created, we had not the choice to be free or to decide if we wanted to live. God didn't care while playing his selfish little game of creation and that's why he's not benevolent...
SophiasHeir 2 weeks ago
When Craig said he was going to define terms I thought he was finally going to define god. He always gets away with arguing points for a deistic god while his audience the whole while takes it as the biblical god. I find that disingenuous.
BigIdeaSeeker 5 months ago
@BigIdeaSeeker
You'll find that the reason why he doesn't ultimately define God is because the definitions of God are different depending on each religion. The reason why he refers specifically to the triune God of Christianity is because he is convinced that the triune God is the only God that consistently fits the God definition, given His particular attributes. A lot of other deities are devoid of the same attributes making them far less persuasive ideologies.
BassP86 5 months ago
@BigIdeaSeeker Before you can attack the castles keep you must first tear down its walls.
scar504 5 months ago
@BigIdeaSeeker He argues for morality and Jesus' resurrection. Both indications of a theistic and Christian God.
pantherfanatic7 1 month ago
Of all the spokesmen on the Christian-side of this topic, WLC is the best. He has as good an argument for the existence God as I have heard anyone offer. He strikes me as someone who would have made a great lawyer.
It goes to support a point that Sam Harris has made - It is possible to have a very well-educated and apparently rational person who, at the same time maintains a theology-based personal philosophy. It still somewhat surprises me.
XaniusMok 6 months ago
@XaniusMok That's otherwise known as Sam Harris' being an intellectual bigot, however well stated. It's not so long since people's intelleligence and judgement were being questioned if they believed a little theory known as evolution by natural selection.
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@XaniusMok
"Of all the spokesmen on the Christian-side of this topic, WLC is the be"
Then it's no wonder Christianity is losing ground. Actually, I see Craig as part of a last desperate effort by Christians to justify their beliefs. In this age of information though, it's becoming easier by the day to verify religious claims and see how they fail.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
Humphrys is freaking hilarious.
KSTONER 7 months ago
Yes he is.
Henkera 8 months ago
Starts at 7:40 if you want to skip intros
JennaSmith987 9 months ago 11
@AliasPerplexity Lets all pretend we believe that.
lucasdasilvamaria 11 months ago
@AliasPerplexity Otherwise known as the argument from cowardice. Are you saying Christopher Hitchens is insane and should be committed to a mental hospital because he debated WLC? Was Thomas Huxley suffering from some kind of dementia when he debated (and roundly beat) Bishop Wilberforce in 1860? What the fuck is wrong with you?
111Wacky 1 year ago
@AliasPerplexity Otherwise known as the arguement from cowardice. Are you saying Christopher Hitchens is insane and should be committed to a mental hospital because he debated WLC? Was Thomas Huxley suffering from some kind of dementia when he debated (and roundly beat) Bishop Wilberforce in 1860? What the fuck is wrong with you?
111Wacky 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AliasPerplexity Otherwise known as the arguement from cowardice. Are you saying Christopher Hitchens is insane and should be commited to a mental hospital because he debated WLC? Was Thomas Huxley suffering from some kind of dementia when he debated (and roundly beat) Bishop Wilberforce in 1860? What the fuck is wrong with you?
111Wacky 1 year ago
@AliasPerplexity Otherwise known as the arguements from cowardice. Are you saying Christopher Hitchens is insane and should be commited to a mental hospital because he debated WLC? Was Thomas Huxley suffering from some kind of dementia when he debated (and roundly beat) Bishop Wilberforce in 1860? What the fuck is wrong with you?
111Wacky 1 year ago
A delusion is a belief held in spite of evidence that confirms it as false. WLC can't even get a psychological definition right, and it is a psychological term in the religious debate. That's what unshakeable faith does to you, it closes you down to the degree that you can't even be bothered getting a definition right. As for his throwing the onus of proof on Wolpert, it was a cop-out, but no less than you'd expect. No wonder Dawkins dismisses him. :)
MzHellinahandbasket 1 year ago
@MzHellinahandbasket
"A delusion is a belief held in spite of evidence that confirms it as false"...so if it would confirm it as false that would make it a false belief. Good job.
Jim1905 11 months ago
richard dawkins is a dickhead ,fucking nerd!!!
bestinfadel 1 year ago
Another reason to refuse to debate William Lane Craig: He has said that there is nothing, no fact, no argument, that could, for him, "controvert the witness of the Holy Spirit." Since the final word for Craig is faith why does he even bother debating and why should anyone bother debating him. Craig does not debate, he preaches. I find these debates neither informative nor entertaining.
Kailoa36 1 year ago
Another reason to refuse to debate William Lane Craig: He has said that there is nothing, no fact, no argument, that could, for him, "controvert the witness of the Holy Spirit." Since the final word for Craig is faith why does he even bother debating and why should anyone bother debating him. Craig does not debate, he preaches.
Kailoa36 1 year ago
@Kailoa36 yeah. yea. preach it brother!. hahahaha j/k
Airmanf7 11 months ago
@AliasPerplexity yeah, that's like my little sister who refuses to argue with me because I'm a stupid meanie and she won't dignify anything with an answer. Dawkins is clever, but he has no integrity. I think people would respect him far more if he admitted that he doesn't feel ready to argue against a professional debater yet. Dawkins isn't a debater, he's a writer, there's not shame in that; the shame lies in his lack of honesty.
lorenzschuerch 1 year ago
@AliasPerplexity William Lane Craig is not a Creationist. Please try again. :>
DigitalDecadence 1 year ago
@DigitalDecadence
"William Lane Craig is not a Creationist."
Yes, he is. Craig says he leans toward "progressive creationism", which is the religious belief (e.g. unfounded assumption) that God created new forms of life gradually, over a period of hundreds of millions of years.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer All Christians are Creationists by that definition - however that is not the definition Dawkins' uses, he specifically talks about YEC. If not, then he shouldn't have debated ANY of the Christians that he did. So using that as an excuse to dodge WLC, it's just fallacious.
DigitalDecadence 6 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
"using that as an excuse to dodge WLC, it's just fallacious."
Dawkins doesn't want to waste his time on people whose only claim to fame is that they're debaters, since he feels that it only validates them without justification. I wholeheartedly agree with Dawkins here and feel that people should stop taking Craig seriously, since he has disqualified himself over and over with his dishonesty and intellectual vapidness.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer This is also an invalid reason. WLC is more qualified than Dawkins (WLC holds 2 PHDs). WLC has done more debates, with more prominent opponents and is not simply a good debater. He has dozens of published papers and books on philosophy and the nature of time, as well as on Theology and God. His resume is monstrous, it's on his website if you wish to see it.
DigitalDecadence 6 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
"WLC is more qualified than Dawkins (WLC holds 2 PHDs)"
WLC holds irrelevant PH. D'.s, one in Philosophy, the other in Theology, which amount to having Ph.D's in jodeling and making raspberries. Dawkins has a Ph. D. in an actual scientific subject, namely zoology. Dawkins was professor at the world-renowned Oxford University; Craig is a professor at some backwater Christian college. Game, set and match for Dawkins in this regard.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Then you are simply guilty of special pleading. When it comes to debates on the subject of God, Theology and Philosophy are the two most relevant criteria.
Zoology is is utterly inconsequential. In fact it's just intellectual dishonesty to claim this somehow trumps professional experience in areas which the subject directly deal with. WLC has also spent 13 years studying the nature of Time, which is why he is trained to comment on cosmology which deals with this.
DigitalDecadence 6 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
"When it comes to debates on the subject of God, Theology and Philosophy are the two most relevant criteria."
No. When you claim an all-powerful being exists that created the universe, you're making a scientific statement that can be addressed using the scientific method.
"Zoology is is utterly inconsequential."
At least Dawkins is trained in the scientific method, which he successfully applies, whereas WLC clearly doesn't understand how science works.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Topics such as God, deal with philosophy and theology for the most part. Even if you disagree with that, saying that Dawkins has a scientific field - seems to eclipse A) That WLC has studied the nature of time for other 13 years, which is all to do with science and mathematics, and B) That somehow biology is the only field which is credible?!
Again its special pleading.
As Michael Ruse said, the only reason left to Dawkins to refuse a debate with WLC is cowardice.
DigitalDecadence 6 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
"Topics such as God, deal with philosophy and theology for the most part. "
I don't care about philosophy and ESPECIALLY not theology. Neither of them have advanced human knowledge much. We only started to make progress once started VERIFYING our claims about nature against the same nature, and the results are often totally different than we are able of philosophizing.
"WLC has studied the nature of time"
Show me his articles in peer-reviewed physics journals then.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer I think you misunderstand. Most of the modern day scientific method comes from Christian thinkers, who were driven to enquire by their belief in God. Additionally science owes it's origin to philosophy and theology. I think it sounds like somewhere someone has told you these things, and you have accepted them. I would encourage you to find out for yourself. Without philosophy, science would utterly fall into obscurity - science is the medium FOR philosophy.
DigitalDecadence 6 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
"Most of the modern day scientific method comes from Christian thinkers"
Nonsense. There might have been thinkers who were also Christian, but they didn't let their beliefs influence their work. Pointing to a problem and shouting "goddidit" is NOT scientific. The Bible, for one, doesn't encourage scientific thinking, it's main message being "Believe without questioning and you'll be saved".
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer I said their work was DRIVEN by their theological beliefs. I can rattle off a list of names quite easily. Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, Andreas Vesalius, William Harvey, Robert Boyle, Antony van Leeuwenhoek, Isaac Newton... I mean, I can go on. You claim about the Bible is also false, so again I assert you are simply ignorant like Dawkins.
1 Thessalonians 5:21 "Test everything. Hold on to the good."
I encourage you to keep seeking and searching for the truth.
DigitalDecadence 6 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
"I said their work was DRIVEN by their theological beliefs."
So what? They could be driven by their passion for pasta, for all I care. I could just as easily name a bunch of non-religious scientists, or religious scientists who are not Christians. It's the result that matter, not WHY someone does science.
"You claim about the Bible is also false"
Every time the Bible touches on a scientific subjects, it gets falsified. So yes, it's false in that regard at least.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Well you claimed we got nothing from Theology, and Theology wasn't responsible for anything. However based on this, it's actually responsible for almost everything you yourself hold dear. :)
Your claim about the Bible was that it doesn't investigation or scientific method. That verse shows otherwise, also all the Christian grandfathers of science show otherwise too. I don't know how else to say it.
DigitalDecadence 6 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
"Theology wasn't responsible for anything."
Theology is responsible for stifling science. The Dark Ages are primarily a result of theological reasoning suffocating human thinking.
"That verse shows otherwise"
The "good" in that verse means "belief". It doesn't say anything about science. In any case, Bible verses are totally irrelevant to this discussion.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer "Theology is responsible for stifling science." Strange when I just pointed out that science owes it's roots to theologically driven thinkers.
"The "good" in that verse means "belief"." This is incorrect. I find it shocking that you, who earlier said, "I don't care about philosophy and ESPECIALLY not theology" are trying to make theological claims. That verse is talking about reason, logic and testing *EVERYTHING*. Maybe you should listen to the Christian here.
DigitalDecadence 6 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
"Strange when I just pointed out that science owes it's roots to theologically driven thinkers."
And it's even stranger how you totally ignore my statement that it's completely irrelevant what drives someone to do science.
"This is incorrect."
So you claim.
"trying to make theological claims."
I don't. I'm simply showing you how you can make Bible verses mean whatever you like. The Bible has no intellectual merit.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer " I'm simply showing you how you can make Bible verses mean whatever you like. The Bible has no intellectual merit." It seems there are several large fields of study which disagree with you. It's not that I don't listen to what you are saying, it's more that what you are saying is just preposterous. Shall I quote from Strong's concordance the meanings of that verse? Or is that likewise subject to mere opinion? I mean really. Your statement is just silly.
DigitalDecadence 6 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
"It seems there are several large fields of study which disagree with you."
Let me guess: those are all conducted by CHRISTIANS, right?
"what you are saying is just preposterous"
Translation: "How do you DARE disagree with me!"
"is that likewise subject to mere opinion"
Yes. I am sure others will disagree with that interpretation, just like they do about nearly EVERY sentence in the Bible. Of course, this is to be expected from a book of bronze age fairy tales.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Actually no, the fields have mixed faiths studying them.
When I say preposterous, I mean silly - imagine you claimed that you could fly, that's the same level of silly that you are exhibiting here. There is not much disagreement about the Bible, I don't know who told you that, but like I said earlier it seems like you have been sold a pack of lies, and have eaten them up. I would encourage you to actually 'Test everything.' and to 'Hold on to the good.' as God commanded.
DigitalDecadence 6 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
"There is not much disagreement about the Bible, I don't know who told you that"
There are literally THOUSANDS of Christian denominations. Explain those.
Besides, I am not at all interested in what YOU or some apologetic thinks the Bible says. I have read the book myself and the only thing I think is impressive is how so many people can buy into a set of stories that clearly mere flights of fancy, describing a wholly psychotic god.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Actually there are probably a dozen, perhaps a few more main denominations.
Considering you think you can make the Bible say whatever you want, you should probably take more interest in the people who are claiming they know what it means, and ask them how or why they think that.
Do you think any history book can be made to say anything we want? Or just the Bible... special pleading, let me guess?
DigitalDecadence 6 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
"Actually there are probably a dozen, perhaps a few more main denominations."
Not so. You can actually look up the numbers yourself.
But even if there were only TWO, that would already shine a dubious light on the veracity on the Bible. How can you disagree on something that is supposedly the "truth of god"?
"Do you think any history book can be made to say anything we want?"
The winners write the history books. That said, the Bible is not a history book in the slightest.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer "Not so. You can actually look up the numbers yourself." I don't need to look them, I am a Christian, I know the denominations however for kicks I did, and there are 8 main denominations. :)
I think you are talking about the sub-denominations, but that's like saying there are biologists who disagree on various aspects of bio-theory, and so bio-theory itself is credulous. Your logic is just plain fallacious.
DigitalDecadence 6 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
"I don't need to look them, I am a Christian"
So because you're Christian, you think you know everything? This attitude explains a lot.
"there are 8 main denominations"
I don't know where you looked, but simply entering "List of Christian denominations" into Wikipedia already gives you a lot more.
"so bio-theory itself is credulous"
Science is NOT about the "absolute truth", in contrast to religions, so this is a false analogy.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer The wikipedia article actually shows the 8 main denominations at the very top.
Even if I grant for sake of argument, there are double what I think, so 24, it's still not thousands. Even if I grant there are 10x the amount, there are still not thousands. You are talking about the sub-denominations, which only differ on non-core issues, Christianity itself is united on core doctrines.
Actually science is about absolute truth, that's what it is working towards finding.
DigitalDecadence 6 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
"it's still not thousands."
According to Barret's Encyclopedia, there are there are more than 33,000 protestant denominations in 238 countries. Remember: having only TWO is already enough to dismantle the claim that the Bible is "truth".
"Actually science is about absolute truth"
Science is about explaining the universe as we find it. If this one day lead to a form of "truth", all the better, but it's not the main goal.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Like I said, those are not main denominations, they differ on minute details.
Also this idea that two denominations is enough to dismantle the Bible as truth, is also misplaced. I don't know where you get this from, as I said, it's like saying bio-theory is defunct based on differing opinions.
Science is all about absolute truth, your statement did nothing other than refine that claim.
DigitalDecadence 6 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
"Like I said, those are not main denominations, they differ on minute details."
Even the slightest difference is damning to the truth-claim of the Bible. And that's without realizing that the majority of people on earth is not even Christian.
"Science is all about absolute truth, "
No, it isn't. I know Craig claims this, but he's wrong, just like he's wrong about most anything else he says outside of his "expertise". Stop being a Craigbot and start thinking for yourself.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer "Even the slightest difference is damning to the truth-claim of the Bible." Once again, says you... no theologian believes this is the case, since the early Christian forefathers to the modern day Christian thinkers. The only people who believe this are people who don't care about theology or know anything about it.
If you don't think science is working towards absolute truths, then you simply don't understand science it seems.
DigitalDecadence 6 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
"Once again, says you"
How can you claim something is "truth" when people disagree with it? The "truth" should be self-evident.
"no theologian believes this is the case"
Why should I care what theologians think? Theology has contributed NOTHING to human knowledge.
"If you don't think science is working towards absolute truths"
Science is a METHOD of trying to understand how the universe works. That's it. Anything aside from that is philosophical mumbo-jumbo.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer "The "truth" should be self-evident." What like bio-theory is self-evident? What gibberish.
"Why should I care what theologians think? Theology has contributed NOTHING to human knowledge." Apart from science, medicine, cosmology and philosophy. Yes, nothing.
DigitalDecadence 6 months ago
Comment removed
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
Comment removed
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer "According do Christian theology disease is caused by demons and that the world is flat and rests on pillars. Gimme a break." Perhaps if you listened to Theologians you would know that this isn't what Christians believe. Also it doesn't address the point I made, because of Christian theology you have all the disciplines you love and respect, but you have blinders on and view the world through a narrow point of view.
DigitalDecadence 6 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
"Perhaps if you listened to Theologians you would know that this isn't what Christians believe. "
Of course not, since Christians changed their ideas once science proved their original ideas wrong.
"because of Christian theology you have all the disciplines you love and respect, "
Nonsense. Christians have successfully suppressed science since it didn't fit in with their beliefs.You might look up some information on this period in history referred to as the "Dark Ages".
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago 2
@MomoTheBellyDancer "Of course not, since Christians changed their ideas once science proved their original ideas wrong." I'm not sure what ideas you are talking about. Not even the early Christians believed what you just wrote.
"Christians have successfully suppressed science since it didn't fit in with their beliefs." Again, nonsense, I cited numerous Christian scientists who created the disciplines you hold dear.
DigitalDecadence 6 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
"I'm not sure what ideas you are talking about."
Everything. Cosmology, geology, biology, meteorology, the origin of diseases. Science contradicts EVERYTHING the Bible tell about these issues.
"I cited numerous Christian scientists who created the disciplines you hold dear."
And I made it clear OVER AND OVER that the belief of those scientists are IRRELEVANT. For instance, Newton not even ONCE uses god as an explanation in his Principia.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@MomoTheBellyDancer "Everything. Cosmology, geology, biology, meteorology, the origin of diseases. Science contradicts EVERYTHING the Bible tell about these issues." Only if you believe that "According do Christian theology disease is caused by demons and the world is flat and rests on pillars." Like I said, you are chasing your tale, you have invented your own Christian Theism Strawman to fight.
DigitalDecadence 6 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
Christianity is about the absolute authority of ancient mythology with little basis in reality or fact. They used to drill into the heads of sick people to release the demons that were causing the sickness.
How could it NOT be at odds with science?
It's typically dealt with this rivalry through torture, murder, suppression of science and scientists that didn't support their narrow and ignorant views.
For you to support that, makes you an utterly awful person.
Ryakki 5 months ago
@Ryakki You and I disagree what Christianity is about. I don't doubt you believe what you say, but if you aren't a Christian, then I would say you have been taught incorrectly.
DigitalDecadence 5 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
If incorrectly taught is the bible and historical record, then yes, I have been.
Ryakki 5 months ago
@Ryakki I didn't really understand that sentence, sorry.
DigitalDecadence 5 months ago
@DigitalDecadence you have no idea what your talking about
ofomatheblackbelt 6 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
"What like bio-theory is self-evident?"
Science doesn't deal with with self-evident "truths", but with evidence found in nature. The theory of evolution is internally consistent AND corroborated by massive amounts of evidence, which is what makes it one of the most successful scientific theories to date.
"Apart from science, medicine, cosmology "
According do Christian theology disease is caused by demons and the world is flat and rests on pillars. Gimme a break.