Is God a Delusion? 7/12

[ndzoko]

God is the great escapist. When you think you found him, you lost him. Theological bullsh,, is rampant in proving a deity.

[DiatonicSoul]

Cooke can't hold a candle to WLC, Cooke sounded like a frustrated little child.

[CheekyVimto08]

That moral argument is terrible!

1.If god does not exist, morality is an illusion.

2. We don't think morality is an illusion, therefore god exists.

Erm, hello. Illusion?

[AgeOfReasonXXI]

Craig is the master of quote-mining. in his article Pinker goes on to answer those same questions which Craig exploits to prop up his case. this guy is such a dishonest hack

[robtul12]

@AgeOfReasonXXI And how!

[Domzdream]

AT 06:53)

NO Lame-O Craig-O. You do not. Because if you look at schizzophrenics, they base their delusions on the reality they are presented. In their eyes, they might see walking zombies instead of live people. It is their tautology. But it is an incorrect one.

Why incorrect? Because of outside comparrison. External obserbvation and concurrence. I'd agree, if ALL the world was only adhereing to ONE kind of god, then we'd have something to work with. Isnt it obvious to you? COme on!!!!

[ResurrectedThinker]

The squeak is pretty funny, but after awhile it's kind of annoying to keep doing that during an academic debate...

[wigglesza]

With all due respect Mr. Cooke: many scholarly people just sit in their offices all day and are out of touch with reality. Talking from experience.

[7tylerjb]

"Suppose you suddenly hear a loud bang, and you ask what made that bang? And I reply, nothing! " ROFL LOL ROFL LOL

[DazedSpy2]

why wasnt the douche playing around with that clown- sound thing kicked out? Pretty unprofessional by the people hosting the debate honestly...

[7tylerjb]

@DazedSpy2 Yeah true but it made me laugh alot and Dr. Craig laughed alot also. The people hosting the debate didn't know he had it.

[MrGrandDragon]

What's wrong with absolutism??!

1+1 = 2

What is wrong with that? How dare anyone have sympathy for one who rejects this

[BeRealistic101]

@MrGrandDragon

There are logical absolutes, which mathematics simply mirrors because math is based in those logical absolutes. It is another matter entirely when you get into evidential matters based on observation and experience.

[Kwhit99]

"If you agree with me that torturing a child is wrong then I think you will agree with me that god exists"... whoaaa. Quick cover that one up before someone spots your grand plan.

[goldstead]

How is it possible for thinking people to believe in angels, afterlife with the imaginary boss in the sky, virgin birth and other fictional, mythological, story-book nonsense. There is not a shred of evidence produced by any religion of the these supernatural phenomenon.

[7tylerjb]

@goldstead Where in the bible does God claim to be a boss in the sky? Your weak argument is always provided by the same old misinformed idiot atheists. It really does get annoying.

[DisturbedYetHappy]

Wow this New Zealand audience is childish...

[7tylerjb]

@DisturbedYetHappy A good laugh every now and then is good for the debate lol. But the clown thing in the background made me ROFL.

[DisturbedYetHappy]

@7tylerjb Yeah I LOL'd too :)

[BloodOfRayne]

I so wanna shove that squeaker right up that kiwi's arse!!! D:

[Birdieupon]

I really don't get Cooke at all. He's doing two things:

1. Agreeing with Craig that you can experience God personally.

2. Saying Craig is wrong to use logical arguments for the existence of God, but never actually engaging with the logical arguments themselves.

[5tonyvvvv]

@Birdieupon Atheists are lost empty people!!

[gbologa]

Mr. Cooke, once again childish!!!

[Buggz21]

Craig mopped the floor  with that clown

[somor98]

I see why they laugh at this idiot: 'objective morality does not exist without god' my ass.

[mellielli]

It figures that 75% of scholars writing about Jesus's resurrection agree that it's a fact, since Christians are the most eager to write about and study said phenomenon. Before I accept that view I would like to see a graph about the amount of believing and non-believing scholars and how their religious views attribute to their final conclusion. It's easy to find quotes in defense of any view, especially if the context is not revealed in the discussion.

[DeusMerdaeEst]

Well, I guess God must have been created by an even more powerful God, as something apparently can not come out of nothing. I sure reliman has a very good explanation for that.

[emopeacekid]

Dude, get a better argument. Your reasoning shows how u and your atheist buddies are standing on a cloud with your head up your ass.

[RationalMan16]

>:0

That quote by Stephen Pinker was a blatant quote mine.

[kiwiguy77]

Somthing can come into being out of nothing? But god came into being out of nothing? Are you joking, come on wake up!!! What came first god or man?

[romanali1]

Luckily Muslims don't believe that God came into being. God always was in our view (and will always be), thus truely encompassing the power and infinitely tremendous nature of God and not falling to the trappings of needing a parent.

[RedlandsCRC]

romanali1, Islam is logically inconsistent on numerous points, so thus a rational person would not be a Muslim.

God the Father is not the parent of Jesus. All three persons of the trinity have always been existed.

[romanali1]

Trust me I know what you mean RedlandsCRC. Irrespective of the definition of "begotten" (you obviously don't mean "child" when you refer to father and son re: God and Jesus, even though the language insinuating this is all pervasive in the bible, you mean "a split in consciousness" like losing an arm - you are still you, the arm is still you, I get it), we still disagree that God can become material. This doesn't undermine God's power to do things, but highlights Gods transcendence over creation

[RedlandsCRC]

romanali1: Well it does. If God cannot become flesh then He is not omnipotent.

[romanali1]

The creatOR cannot become the creatED, because the created needs a creator to exist prior to the created coming into existence, so what you are saying is that God created a part of Himself (the material [Jesus] part). So God appended to Himself more of Himself in a different form? So was He lacking in some way beforehand? God IS omnipotent in the Muslim view, but that doesn't mean he does illogical non-sensical things. God not doing unGodly things adds to His majesty, it doesn't make him weak.

[romanali1]

Since Jesus was created, it makes sense that he isn't God. Anyway, we could argue with this forever, and I don't want to for the sake of it. I appreciate the dialogue thus far.

Peace be with you. :-)

[marephrem]

Jesus wasn't created...what are you talking about?

[romanali1]

So are you saying Jesus always existed?

If you are saying he never existed, then you are deluded. It's historical fact. You may not agree with the miracles etc, but there was a person named Jesus about whom there is much controversy, that is undeniable.

[marephrem]

Yes, I am saying He always existed.

[romanali1]

OK... So are you referring to the "soul" part of Jesus, or the physical body?

[marephrem]

Well first off, if Jesus is solely human, then he cannot be pre-existent. Let us establish that, because no creation can exist before it was created. If the Lord Jesus has ALWAYS existed, then I am equating Him with the Father, since the Father, being by Nature God, has Forever existed. So essentially I am saying that the Lord Jesus, is also of this One Divine Nature with the One and Only God and Father.

[romanali1]

I have an issue with one aspect of your response. I agree that being human, i.e. not existing in terms of flesh, then being born as a baby, growing up, all that is what one would call creation.

A physical baby of Jesus didn't exist at one point, then "God" willed it to be and then the flesh was formed. So to me that is one aspect of Jesus. The other aspect is the "soul" ("divine consciousness" to you).

I can hypothetically entertain that the soul could be divine on par with God...but the body?

[marephrem]

One second here. I never said the Body was eternal. In fact, I said the complete opposite. Anything that is created, cannot exist prior to its creation, that's what I said. I said if Jesus is solely human he cannot be pre-existent, because he would be mere creation. If it is human to have a soul and body, then this soul and body of mine, just as those of Jesus, were created. However I am saying He is not only human, but Divine.

[marephrem]

Part II

That means I am saying He is of one essence with the God of the universe, because it is only this One Divine Essence that you can be eternal and Timeless, since you are not created, but are the Creator.

[romanali1]

I know you werent saying that the body is eternal; and in fact you were highlighting the contrary. I just wanted to establish that we both agree on that point.

Now that we do, I have to ask one thing, does the non-eternal body (the vessel) that contained the "divine essense" of "Lord Jesus" have the same claim to being called "the divine Lord Jesus" as the essence it contained?

I think you could say it is a "special" body compared to us, but still the flesh itself wasn't divine/eternal.

[romanali1]

So my point is, Christianity is dependent on the sacrifice of Jesus, who is supposed to be a more worthy sacrifice than any other possible sacrifice in all of creation. He was the only candidate, because it is he who had the divine "essence".

You'll say the flesh part died, and I'll say ok. Will you also say the spirit part died? If you say yes, I ask, if jesus is fully God, did not the father and Holy Ghost die too ... by rights they should! ... unless of course Jesus wasn't fully God.

[romanali1]

However, if you say, the flesh part died and the eternal divine essence did not, since God cannot die, then I ask what is so special about this body .. which you must remember is not divine in itself (it was merely a host for the divine)? What makes the sacrifice of this created flesh so special?

You can't say it is enough to be the host, because Christianity says the specialness of the sacrifice is that "God's divine son" died, i.e. the Godly part (whom I understand to be the soul)

[romanali1]

Interestingly, in Islam, human souls never die, let alone God. They do get taken out of the body, which is death, but the soul stays alive forever.

[MrGrandDragon]

Great Argument... did you get that Argument from a Muslim?

You must have since Muslims are very good at arguing against the Divinity of Jesus that Christians like to believe in

[wigglesza]

@romanali1 Jesus says he and the father are one, so there's a problem there =p

[romanali1]

@wigglesza Interpretations vary, eg one in body (but that raises more problems, such as limiting God to physical space) or one in purpose, which is more likely.

Being one in purpose means Jesus came to teach the way that is acceptable to Allah, ie Islam. Following the teachings of Jesus pbuh would please Allah, as how following the teachings of prophet Muhammad pbuh are pleasing to Allah.

Let's make the smaller assumption of "one in purpose" rather than the bigger assumption of "one in body".

[luisdstripper]

Why don't you fuckers stay on topic?

[RedlandsCRC]

kiwiguy77, Dr. Craig never contended in the debate that God came into being out of nothing. But rather he said, the cause of the universe (God) needs to outside of space and time, so thus immaterial and timeless. So if the cause is timeless, then it must be changeless (changes can only happen in time). That means God can never begin to exist because that involves a change.