One minute in..WLC is attempting an epistemology discussion therefore, YES, A needs the same scutiny as B or anything else after it...otherwise the ONLY thing you need to know about YOUR existence is you came from your parents; who cares where they came from...etc,etc,etc
This WLC defense demonstrates a complete lack of critical thought or understanding of epistemology discussion, which is NOT the same as scientific discovery which you incorrectly used as an analogy.
Finally I'd mention Craigs analogy deliberately invited misunderstanding of his point. If I find something in the ground which looks like an arrow my first reaction might be to conclude that a person made it. This conclusion would be invalid unless I first confirmed that humans had previously made arrows like this, confirmed no natural process could make the 'arrow' and so on. Intelligent design proponents are not doing this when it comes to 'design' in biological systems.
It's also worth mentioning that you cant really obtain evidence for Intelligent Design as currently formulated. To show design you would need to find statistically significant evidence for it. Neither specified complexity nor any other notion of complexity proposed by the design proponents comes close to be rigourous enough to be testable. With that in mind I have no idea where you have this notion that there is evidence for design in nature or in the literature.
I strongly agree with you. The problem with Craigs argument isn't that is fallacious, it is that he has miscatagorised god as an explanation. The problem with positing a god is that the problem "who created god" is totally isomorphic to the problem "who created the universe". It isn't that you need an explanation of the explanation, it's that the 'explanation' needs to actually explain something, not merely change the language of the problem.
I believe you miss the whole point which is, where did everything begin? So, in y > A > x > B, it should end with = Z. Z is the answer to the formula for the question of where it all began. Therefore, not only does A need an explanation, so does y and so on.
This video made an excellent point with regard to clarification of Craig's idea that explanations of intelligent design are not contingent on explanations of those explanations.
However, this video also fallaciously claims that intelligent design has just as much evidence to support it as evolution.
This video also does not address the baseless assumption that the infinite regress is unsound.
Likely because the critique is biased toward a belief that God exists.
You are right to pull this statement from my comment. I wrote this comment after listening to the whole video and should have verified your statement at 5:00. You did not make a comparison to evolution at all. However, there is a fallacious statement with regard to intelligent design having available evidence for its claim: While it is true that living things appear designed, this can in no scientific way be mistaken for evidence.
Y may need knowledge because the object A needs a probability of being in existence.
The designer hypnosis there is no evidence for the designer (A on your diagram) or of the act of god (x on your diagram) {the excites of the life can not be list since that is what the hypnosis it try to explain and could equally de sited for evolution}
Evolution theory has evidence of single celled organises (A on your diagram) and the fosse record shows some of the process (x)
anyone who would consider this as good logic is an absolute tool, i'm sorry. we need EVIDENCE to have a theory. the evidence for a god is nil, whether you want to believe that or not.
you are utterly insane. science does not consider something true because it is the best explanation. do we just say, well we are pretty sure an asteroid killed the dinosaurs so let's just accept that and move on? craig's analogy is idiotic, he is comparing something that is inorganic to an organic material. yes, we would think a human maybe made arrowheads because we know humans exist and they make things. we do not in any way know a god exists, it is a complete shot in the dark.
You're argument is we have 'B', but don't know where it came from. So we need an 'A' and a process 'x'. Then when someone asks, 'but don't you then need an explanation for A?' you just shrug your shoulders and say it doesn't need an explanation... it's magic!
All I am saying is that whether or not A has an explanation is irrelevant as to whether or not A is an explanation of B. I refer back to my evolution/abiogenesis analogy. Do we need an explanation for the origins of life in order to account for the origin of species?
But this is the main argument Christians use to presume there *must* be a God. Just because we don't understand how the universe exists, doesn't mean there has to be a creator. Why can't we just accept that we don't have an understanding yet?
I never condoned that line of reasoning. I'm just saying that God as an explanation of origins is not deficient on the basis that God himself cannot be explained.
you are right in what you say, how ever ther urey/miller experiement has completely created the ribosome in the polypeptide but other than that you are correct.
B) With that sorted out, we can then see the invalidity of your question. Since you are trying ascertain what makes existence be the way it is. Obviously, the answer is, it's inherent nature. Since existence is axiomatic, it thus cannot have an explanation beyond itself, other than in it's inherent nature.
This is because existence, is all encompassing, and inescapable, and so, it is the grounds upon which we base, justify, and ground everything else subsequent.
Your last question didn't make any sense. I brought up the inherent nature of existence, in response to your question about how does existence know, to conform to certain consistencies.
They are not two distinct dynamics that must be differentiated.
The word axiom is a human made description, not the concept of an axiom itself. What is being described is the reason as to why things have certain traits. This reason is immaterial, as it does not consist of matter or energy.
Your last comment didn't make any sense. This is because an axiom is a concept. So you basically conflated the same thing twice, then separated it into two distinct things.
I already answered that. The focus was existence, and what makes existence "adherent" with what the Laws of Logic describe, comes from it's inherent nature, which cannot have an explanation, as existence is utterly foundational and axiomatic.
It is inherent to things that exist, to be itself. It is inherent to things that exist, to not be itself, and then also not itself at the same to time, and in the same sense. It canon be otherwise, as that would be contradictory, and thus self-refuting.
Nope. Because the Laws of Logic are human descriptions of the existence, and the facts of reality. To say otherwise, is to commit the fallacy of hypostatization.
I think the who designed the designer argument is to disprove God by trying to say that one gets an infinite regress when trying to trace the who designs what.
The first comment I saw there said that I won. Matt interrupted me there and wouldn't let me finish and then changed the subject away from that so I couldn't respond. I had a response ready.
Dhorpatan, you're so stupid. Crawl back into your hole.
I've already disproved the resurrection, and all you could do was display your Ignorance of the implications of the Law of Identity, and utter ignorance of the Primacy of Existence principle. You constantly display your immaturity, with your denigration and insults, then have the disgusting nerve to try to justify it by claiming your Jesus did it to, so it's OK.
You couldn't even say Special Pleading right on the Atheist Experience.
Hahahaha! You continue to expose the bankruptcy of your Christan faith, and your childish immaturity. Which I've already exposed in several of my video-graphic compositions anyway.
None one should take you seriously. You have lowered your Intellectual credibility with your verbal abuse, insults, and childish attacks. Which further makes you a Christian fraud, given the tenets of your mythology. You were roundly booed for the schadenfreude you displayed with the Rational Response squad situation. Further, you got jacked up Intellectually by Dillahunty, and plenty of people have said as much, just visit my videos on it, and look at the comments.
Since the Christian God is an illegitimate foundational starting point, Christianity cannot provide the necessary preconditions for Induction, the Laws of Logic, or truth verification.
Christianity is necessarily false, as it cannot provide the epistemic, or Ontological essentials to ground Intelligibility.
I love most of your responses and I agree with the validity of both you and Dechha1981. You are both looking at two different issues. Dechha1981 is showing how infinate regression does not undermind science and is critical in the persuit of knowledge. You are saying that you can make an observation with out complete knowledge of all things.
I disagree with Craig because his equation is incomplete.
The Sun has a boundary relative to the Earth. Dave has a boundary, relative to his house, which has a boundary, relative to the house next it. Dave's mailbox, has a boundary, relative to the grass. Someone's bicycle has a boundary, relative to someone else's bicycle. All things that exist, have a boundary. A physical boundary, because only physical things exist, and everything else is either the effect of a physical thing, or a physical force field.
All that you are saying is that all physical things have physical boundaries.
God also has certain boundaries (God must remain separate from sin, to use my previous example), but they are not physical boundaries because God is not a physical being.
The laws of Logic are conceptual application that obtain their derivation from human beings. As such, they are in no way, shape, or form, immaterial. They are the effects of materiality.
You can name nothing that exists, that is immaterial. Everything that exists, is either composed of matter/energy, is the effect of matter/energy, or is a physical force field. The reason why, is because immaterial existence violates the Law of Identity, and the very nature of existence.
The Laws of Logic, the language, the process, did not exist before human beings. What the Laws of logic were made to describe, and were made to represent, which is existence, and the facts of reality, did exist before human beings.
If the laws of logic are only the effects of matter and energy, what is it that makes matter and energy conform to certain consistencies from which we can derive what you call the laws of logic?
It is not that matter and energy(existence), conform to the Laws of Logic, but that the Laws of Logic, "conform"(I.E. describe) to the facts of reality, and the way existence is.
The Laws of Logic, (the language, the process), is man made. Simply a conceptual application. This conceptual application describes and represents existence, and the facts of reality.
You didn't fully answer my full question. What is it that makes matter and energy conform to certain consistencies from which we can derive what you call the laws of logic?
A) You keep referring to the focus of the situation as matter and energy, and although all things that exist are matter/energy, it is more proper to say, existence, not matter and energy, because that is what the Laws of Logic refer to, and are about.
"but they are not physical boundaries because God is not a physical being."
I'm gonna call Bullshit on that. Theists are always making up excuses for why you can't prove or disprove God's existance and expect us to accept any of it, and they do this WHILE trying co convince us that he exists.
I ronically, all this "He lives outside of Reality" stuff actually makes God LESS believeable than the bearded magical giant I believed in as a kid.
Who says God "lives outside reality"? Nice strawman.
God transcends time and space. He exists above and beyond it. That's what theists believe. The realm in which God exists is not held to be any less real than the physcial universe.
Furthermore, the Christian God cannot do anything like love, or design, or think, or judge, as those actions require instantiation of kinetic actuality which something immaterial lacks.
The Christian God and Christianity is necessarily illegitimate, as it cannot account for, or justify any position or belief, without begging the question. This is because the Chrisitan God is not an irreducible primary, as it presupposes prior truths, and is not axiomatic.
Christianity cannot provide the necessary preconditions for intelligibility. All a Chrisitan can do, is presuppose the truth of their God, without have the epistemic essentials to ground that presupposition in validity.
The Chrisitan God is not an irreducible primary, because it assumes prior truths for starters. Therefore, since your foundation is not a proper starting point, nor is it axiomatic, you cannot justify or account for anything, as you ground those things, in that which is not a legitimate foundation.
The truth of my worldview, and it's foundational proposition, must be prior to, and true, before your worldview, and it's foundation, can be true. Which is that "Existence Exists". Therefore, your foundational worldview is not properly axiomatic,and is therefore illegitimate, as it begs the question on all things it presupposes.
The Christian God does not exist, as I've shown several times.
Existence is an activity, that requires some THING that acts. To be a thing, one must have concrete boundaries, and therefore, everything that actually exists, is made of matter/energy. Everything else is THE EFFECT of something composed of matter/energy.
Thus, there is no such thing as an immaterial entity, as it violates the very nature of existence.
My greatest problem with people claiming design (and likewise with those who refute the design argument e.g. Dawkins) is that they both fail to understand that complexity is not the basis for intelligence, so much as the limits that produce that complexity.
The problem with the design argument is that it supposes the existence of a thing that is omnipotent, and then supposes that this omnipotent thing demonstrates intelligence. But demonstrations of intelligence do not exist without limits.
i.e. The reason we do not fly to the moon in capes and spandex is because... plainly that is not possible. The reason we do not shoot people to the moon with carnival cannons is because we cannot survive that. The reason space shuttles are complex is because of the limits imposed on us by physics.
But for Superman to spend five thousand years inventing a personal shuttle with 7 million catastrophe-ridden parts like the Challenger would be plainly stupid. And I would laugh if it blew up on him.
One minute in..WLC is attempting an epistemology discussion therefore, YES, A needs the same scutiny as B or anything else after it...otherwise the ONLY thing you need to know about YOUR existence is you came from your parents; who cares where they came from...etc,etc,etc
This WLC defense demonstrates a complete lack of critical thought or understanding of epistemology discussion, which is NOT the same as scientific discovery which you incorrectly used as an analogy.
NatalieAtUW 8 months ago
Good job. All the other guy needed to do was a little thinking....
MSALLADLACIENCIA 1 year ago
Thank you for defending William Lane Craig.
drcraigvideos 1 year ago
Finally I'd mention Craigs analogy deliberately invited misunderstanding of his point. If I find something in the ground which looks like an arrow my first reaction might be to conclude that a person made it. This conclusion would be invalid unless I first confirmed that humans had previously made arrows like this, confirmed no natural process could make the 'arrow' and so on. Intelligent design proponents are not doing this when it comes to 'design' in biological systems.
nanoduckling 1 year ago
It's also worth mentioning that you cant really obtain evidence for Intelligent Design as currently formulated. To show design you would need to find statistically significant evidence for it. Neither specified complexity nor any other notion of complexity proposed by the design proponents comes close to be rigourous enough to be testable. With that in mind I have no idea where you have this notion that there is evidence for design in nature or in the literature.
nanoduckling 1 year ago
I strongly agree with you. The problem with Craigs argument isn't that is fallacious, it is that he has miscatagorised god as an explanation. The problem with positing a god is that the problem "who created god" is totally isomorphic to the problem "who created the universe". It isn't that you need an explanation of the explanation, it's that the 'explanation' needs to actually explain something, not merely change the language of the problem.
nanoduckling 1 year ago
I believe you miss the whole point which is, where did everything begin? So, in y > A > x > B, it should end with = Z. Z is the answer to the formula for the question of where it all began. Therefore, not only does A need an explanation, so does y and so on.
MonkeyBallZ214 2 years ago
This video made an excellent point with regard to clarification of Craig's idea that explanations of intelligent design are not contingent on explanations of those explanations.
However, this video also fallaciously claims that intelligent design has just as much evidence to support it as evolution.
This video also does not address the baseless assumption that the infinite regress is unsound.
Likely because the critique is biased toward a belief that God exists.
demandevidence 2 years ago
"However, this video also fallaciously claims that intelligent design has just as much evidence to support it as evolution."
When did I claim that?
StutteringDave 2 years ago
StutteringDave,
You are right to pull this statement from my comment. I wrote this comment after listening to the whole video and should have verified your statement at 5:00. You did not make a comparison to evolution at all. However, there is a fallacious statement with regard to intelligent design having available evidence for its claim: While it is true that living things appear designed, this can in no scientific way be mistaken for evidence.
demandevidence 2 years ago
Pfff....you're confused.
Domzdream 2 years ago
Y may need knowledge because the object A needs a probability of being in existence.
The designer hypnosis there is no evidence for the designer (A on your diagram) or of the act of god (x on your diagram) {the excites of the life can not be list since that is what the hypnosis it try to explain and could equally de sited for evolution}
Evolution theory has evidence of single celled organises (A on your diagram) and the fosse record shows some of the process (x)
hens0w 2 years ago
anyone who would consider this as good logic is an absolute tool, i'm sorry. we need EVIDENCE to have a theory. the evidence for a god is nil, whether you want to believe that or not.
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
you are utterly insane. science does not consider something true because it is the best explanation. do we just say, well we are pretty sure an asteroid killed the dinosaurs so let's just accept that and move on? craig's analogy is idiotic, he is comparing something that is inorganic to an organic material. yes, we would think a human maybe made arrowheads because we know humans exist and they make things. we do not in any way know a god exists, it is a complete shot in the dark.
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
Do you not understand your own logic?!
You're argument is we have 'B', but don't know where it came from. So we need an 'A' and a process 'x'. Then when someone asks, 'but don't you then need an explanation for A?' you just shrug your shoulders and say it doesn't need an explanation... it's magic!
aliasbrush 2 years ago
All I am saying is that whether or not A has an explanation is irrelevant as to whether or not A is an explanation of B. I refer back to my evolution/abiogenesis analogy. Do we need an explanation for the origins of life in order to account for the origin of species?
StutteringDave 2 years ago
But this is the main argument Christians use to presume there *must* be a God. Just because we don't understand how the universe exists, doesn't mean there has to be a creator. Why can't we just accept that we don't have an understanding yet?
aliasbrush 2 years ago
I never condoned that line of reasoning. I'm just saying that God as an explanation of origins is not deficient on the basis that God himself cannot be explained.
StutteringDave 2 years ago
The problem is Craig asserts that A used process "x" to create B, without any evidence of either A or "x".
justintempler 2 years ago
you are right in what you say, how ever ther urey/miller experiement has completely created the ribosome in the polypeptide but other than that you are correct.
320iguy 2 years ago
Continued...
B) With that sorted out, we can then see the invalidity of your question. Since you are trying ascertain what makes existence be the way it is. Obviously, the answer is, it's inherent nature. Since existence is axiomatic, it thus cannot have an explanation beyond itself, other than in it's inherent nature.
This is because existence, is all encompassing, and inescapable, and so, it is the grounds upon which we base, justify, and ground everything else subsequent.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
And is existence's inherent nature material or immaterial?
StutteringDave 2 years ago
Material.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
Then what is the difference between existence and existence's inherent nature?
StutteringDave 2 years ago
Your last question didn't make any sense. I brought up the inherent nature of existence, in response to your question about how does existence know, to conform to certain consistencies.
They are not two distinct dynamics that must be differentiated.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
You said that existence inherently has certain traits. What is it that makes existence inherently posses these traits?
If you are going to argue that existence axiomatically has these inherent traits, than how is that axiom not immaterial?
StutteringDave 2 years ago
Because axioms are the EFFECT of material existence. In this case, humans.
So axioms are not immaterial, they are the effects of that which is material.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
So, existence axiomatically possesses certain traits, but axioms are an effect of the traits of material existence.
Your reasoning is circular.
StutteringDave 2 years ago
@Dave
You are confusing the language and process of description, with what is being described. Axioms are human made descriptions of a certain (X).
That's all there is to it. It's not that hard.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
The word axiom is a human made description, not the concept of an axiom itself. What is being described is the reason as to why things have certain traits. This reason is immaterial, as it does not consist of matter or energy.
StutteringDave 2 years ago
Your last comment didn't make any sense. This is because an axiom is a concept. So you basically conflated the same thing twice, then separated it into two distinct things.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
You are saying that axioms are a human made description of X. I am asking what is it that makes X have the features of X.
StutteringDave 2 years ago
I already answered that. The focus was existence, and what makes existence "adherent" with what the Laws of Logic describe, comes from it's inherent nature, which cannot have an explanation, as existence is utterly foundational and axiomatic.
It is inherent to things that exist, to be itself. It is inherent to things that exist, to not be itself, and then also not itself at the same to time, and in the same sense. It canon be otherwise, as that would be contradictory, and thus self-refuting.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
"It is inherent to things that exist, to be itself."
And when you say that, you are affirming an immaterial law of logic.
StutteringDave 2 years ago
Nope. Because the Laws of Logic are human descriptions of the existence, and the facts of reality. To say otherwise, is to commit the fallacy of hypostatization.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
I think the who designed the designer argument is to disprove God by trying to say that one gets an infinite regress when trying to trace the who designs what.
qizix 2 years ago
watch?v=qIKjPqj_3p4&feature=channel_page
^^^Tommy, check out the above video,
from 1:40-1:51. Then know, you should be the last person to call someone else stupid.
Check out how Dillahunty jacked you up
real bad from 2:24-2:38.
You embarrassed yourself on that show, and it got recorded for posterity.
GET SOME KABANE~!
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
The first comment I saw there said that I won. Matt interrupted me there and wouldn't let me finish and then changed the subject away from that so I couldn't respond. I had a response ready.
Dhorpatan, you're so stupid. Crawl back into your hole.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
@Tom
Check out my comment two posts down, with the video numbers.
Hahahaha! You embarrassed yourself on that show Tom, and you couldn't even say special pleading right, TWICE!
GET DOMINATED KABANE~!
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
@Tom
Correction: No one; not NONE one.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
Contined @Tom
I've already disproved the resurrection, and all you could do was display your Ignorance of the implications of the Law of Identity, and utter ignorance of the Primacy of Existence principle. You constantly display your immaturity, with your denigration and insults, then have the disgusting nerve to try to justify it by claiming your Jesus did it to, so it's OK.
You couldn't even say Special Pleading right on the Atheist Experience.
Hahahaha!
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
Ah, a classic Dhorpatan comeback. Go away. We all think you're stupid.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
@Tom
Hahahaha! You continue to expose the bankruptcy of your Christan faith, and your childish immaturity. Which I've already exposed in several of my video-graphic compositions anyway.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
NONE of us take you seriously Dhorpatan. We literally laugh at your stupidity. Go away.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
@Tom
None one should take you seriously. You have lowered your Intellectual credibility with your verbal abuse, insults, and childish attacks. Which further makes you a Christian fraud, given the tenets of your mythology. You were roundly booed for the schadenfreude you displayed with the Rational Response squad situation. Further, you got jacked up Intellectually by Dillahunty, and plenty of people have said as much, just visit my videos on it, and look at the comments.
Continued...
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
@Jake
Since the Christian God is an illegitimate foundational starting point, Christianity cannot provide the necessary preconditions for Induction, the Laws of Logic, or truth verification.
Christianity is necessarily false, as it cannot provide the epistemic, or Ontological essentials to ground Intelligibility.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
I love most of your responses and I agree with the validity of both you and Dechha1981. You are both looking at two different issues. Dechha1981 is showing how infinate regression does not undermind science and is critical in the persuit of knowledge. You are saying that you can make an observation with out complete knowledge of all things.
I disagree with Craig because his equation is incomplete.
(cont)
RosieDesire 2 years ago
Theory of Evolution (Dawkins)
y Abiogenesis
A Single Replicating Cell
x Evolution
B Complex Animal
y is the connection between A and B. y is not needed to show x is a possible connector. A, x, and B are observable.
Full Dawkins Equation (A -> x -> B)
(cont)
RosieDesire 2 years ago 2
The Hypothesis of ID (Craig)
y Adeitygenesis
A Designer
y Intellegent Design
B Single Cell and Complex Animal
y is a possible connector between A and B, However, both A and y are not observable even if y is irrellevant.
Full Graig Equation ( -> B )
RosieDesire 2 years ago 2
Adeitygenesis...brilliant
Nihilist127 2 years ago 2
@Dave
The Sun has a boundary relative to the Earth. Dave has a boundary, relative to his house, which has a boundary, relative to the house next it. Dave's mailbox, has a boundary, relative to the grass. Someone's bicycle has a boundary, relative to someone else's bicycle. All things that exist, have a boundary. A physical boundary, because only physical things exist, and everything else is either the effect of a physical thing, or a physical force field.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
All that you are saying is that all physical things have physical boundaries.
God also has certain boundaries (God must remain separate from sin, to use my previous example), but they are not physical boundaries because God is not a physical being.
StutteringDave 2 years ago
@Dave
"but they are not physical boundaries because God is not a physical being."
^^^Thus, your God does not exist, since all thing must be composed of matter/energy(physical)
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
Then I suppose that the laws of logic do not exist, as they are not composed of matter/energy.
StutteringDave 2 years ago
@Dave
The laws of Logic are conceptual application that obtain their derivation from human beings. As such, they are in no way, shape, or form, immaterial. They are the effects of materiality.
You can name nothing that exists, that is immaterial. Everything that exists, is either composed of matter/energy, is the effect of matter/energy, or is a physical force field. The reason why, is because immaterial existence violates the Law of Identity, and the very nature of existence.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
"The laws of Logic are conceptual application that obtain their derivation from human beings."
So, the laws of logic didn't exist before human beings?
StutteringDave 2 years ago
@Dave
The Laws of Logic, the language, the process, did not exist before human beings. What the Laws of logic were made to describe, and were made to represent, which is existence, and the facts of reality, did exist before human beings.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
If the laws of logic are only the effects of matter and energy, what is it that makes matter and energy conform to certain consistencies from which we can derive what you call the laws of logic?
StutteringDave 2 years ago
@Dave
It is not that matter and energy(existence), conform to the Laws of Logic, but that the Laws of Logic, "conform"(I.E. describe) to the facts of reality, and the way existence is.
The Laws of Logic, (the language, the process), is man made. Simply a conceptual application. This conceptual application describes and represents existence, and the facts of reality.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
You didn't fully answer my full question. What is it that makes matter and energy conform to certain consistencies from which we can derive what you call the laws of logic?
StutteringDave 2 years ago
There's two problems with your question:
A) You keep referring to the focus of the situation as matter and energy, and although all things that exist are matter/energy, it is more proper to say, existence, not matter and energy, because that is what the Laws of Logic refer to, and are about.
Continued....
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
"but they are not physical boundaries because God is not a physical being."
I'm gonna call Bullshit on that. Theists are always making up excuses for why you can't prove or disprove God's existance and expect us to accept any of it, and they do this WHILE trying co convince us that he exists.
I ronically, all this "He lives outside of Reality" stuff actually makes God LESS believeable than the bearded magical giant I believed in as a kid.
dechha1981 2 years ago
Who says God "lives outside reality"? Nice strawman.
God transcends time and space. He exists above and beyond it. That's what theists believe. The realm in which God exists is not held to be any less real than the physcial universe.
ukchristian28 2 years ago
The difference being?
dechha1981 2 years ago
The difference being that the realm in which God exists outside of space and time is not outside of reality.
ukchristian28 2 years ago
Comment removed
dechha1981 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Continued.....
Furthermore, the Christian God cannot do anything like love, or design, or think, or judge, as those actions require instantiation of kinetic actuality which something immaterial lacks.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
Comment removed
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
I couldn't watch his video. It was painfully stupid.
migkillertwo 2 years ago
The Christian God and Christianity is necessarily illegitimate, as it cannot account for, or justify any position or belief, without begging the question. This is because the Chrisitan God is not an irreducible primary, as it presupposes prior truths, and is not axiomatic.
Christianity cannot provide the necessary preconditions for intelligibility. All a Chrisitan can do, is presuppose the truth of their God, without have the epistemic essentials to ground that presupposition in validity.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
alright. you said it. tell me why I can't say god is itself a foundational belief.
migkillertwo 2 years ago
@Jake
The Chrisitan God is not an irreducible primary, because it assumes prior truths for starters. Therefore, since your foundation is not a proper starting point, nor is it axiomatic, you cannot justify or account for anything, as you ground those things, in that which is not a legitimate foundation.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
"because it assumes prior truths for starters"
prior truths like...
migkillertwo 2 years ago
@Jake
The truth of my worldview, and it's foundational proposition, must be prior to, and true, before your worldview, and it's foundation, can be true. Which is that "Existence Exists". Therefore, your foundational worldview is not properly axiomatic,and is therefore illegitimate, as it begs the question on all things it presupposes.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
You mentioned that Craig has a degree in what? What is it anyway? What subject do they learn there? Is it a subject at all?
0zerosomu0 2 years ago
He has a doctorate in philosophy and a doctorate in theology, from the Universities of Birmingham and Munich.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
(This question is directed at StutteringDave)
Have you seen dechha1981's video: 'The Leprechaun'? If so what did you think of it?
DeadMindWorking 2 years ago
It's just a typical misunderstanding of the Kalam cosmological argument.
StutteringDave 2 years ago
I'll be making a response to this today.
Looking4Coffee 2 years ago
I hope you will actually present Craigs position correctly.
Pumbaelo 2 years ago
Nice video.
unholyascension 2 years ago
Comment removed
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
The Christian God does not exist, as I've shown several times.
Existence is an activity, that requires some THING that acts. To be a thing, one must have concrete boundaries, and therefore, everything that actually exists, is made of matter/energy. Everything else is THE EFFECT of something composed of matter/energy.
Thus, there is no such thing as an immaterial entity, as it violates the very nature of existence.
Continued....
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
What would you consider to be a "concrete boundary"? God certainly have boundaries. He cannot sin, for example.
StutteringDave 2 years ago
My greatest problem with people claiming design (and likewise with those who refute the design argument e.g. Dawkins) is that they both fail to understand that complexity is not the basis for intelligence, so much as the limits that produce that complexity.
The problem with the design argument is that it supposes the existence of a thing that is omnipotent, and then supposes that this omnipotent thing demonstrates intelligence. But demonstrations of intelligence do not exist without limits.
TrenchantAtheist 2 years ago
i.e. The reason we do not fly to the moon in capes and spandex is because... plainly that is not possible. The reason we do not shoot people to the moon with carnival cannons is because we cannot survive that. The reason space shuttles are complex is because of the limits imposed on us by physics.
But for Superman to spend five thousand years inventing a personal shuttle with 7 million catastrophe-ridden parts like the Challenger would be plainly stupid. And I would laugh if it blew up on him.
TrenchantAtheist 2 years ago