Crucially, note Craig's word-selection. Hume discusses "extraordinary CLAIMS," not "extraordinary EVENTS." The event IS the evidence for the claim.
In the lottery case, yes, it's a very unlikely combination of numbers, and this is why the lottery draws are filmed, often in a single take to minimise tampering, and broadcast live on at least one channel. That's the evidence.
Consider if there was no filming of the draw and the CEO of the lottery company won. That's an extraordinary CLAIM.
The evidence of a lottery winning is in the reporting and the fact that they do lottery drawings live and there is a physical ticket. That's the evidence required.
it's all so horrid, this reasoning thing. those who are predisposed to believe a thing will find a way to make it reasonable. talk long enough and loud enough and you can talk yourself and anyone else into anything.
Craig makes a good point. Although I find bothering to try to answer an atheist is an unsavory experience. Even when you win the arguement you feel like you broke even since atheism, evidence, probability, and common sense are all subjective. It is alot like aeguing with a feminist.
@drcraigvideos I don't necessarily agree with Hume, but your "correction" gets us nowhere if it is applied as loosely as you have done. Corroborating evidence all within the same fictional book does not tip the probability as you suggest.
@HiJon89 You don't agree with Hume, yet you made the statement that Craig's arguments can attain to any religion? So, you were thinking randomly I guess. Look, listen to the video and you'd know that extraordinary events DON'T need extraordinary evidence.
Many viewers seem to misunderstand Dr. Craig's point.
Let's say the newspaper reported that the winning lottery number was 777777777.
The probability that THAT number actually had been drawn is very low, so according to Hume we would need to have extraordinary evidence for the extraordinarily low probability of that specific number being drawn.
But we don't need that evidence, because it's very unlikely that the newspaper would have reported the number if it hadn't actually been drawn.
no we get that. But some number has to win. It is unimportant which number. The claim that this particular number one is not extraordinary if the newspaper has accurately reported the correct lottery numbers in the past. It is a fallacy to assert after the fact how improbable it was that this one number should be the winner when one number must be drawn. The improbability of it being that particular number has nothing to do with whether it has been accurately reported
I have always felt that this was an atheist trick in order to raise the bar to something they could more easily reject., as i see someone here as already said
as far as I can see any event only requires valid and sufficient evidence
"Evidence" that is considered to be out-of-the-ordinary will never be considered evidence. Thus, "extraordinary evidence" is an oxymoron. This is why atheists demand it; they know they will never perceive evidence to be beyond the ordinary.
However, this method does not apply to testimony of historical events such as Hume is concerned with. For example, the effects of the resurrection -- empty tomb, sightings of Christ -- are just as unobservable and unfit within our uniform experience as the resurrection itself. This is the key difference. WLC's construction, that we can use miracles to prove miracles exist, is self-referentially inconsistent.
Why on earth are the atheists debating the basic probability theory being discussed in this video? These principles are well established academically, they aren't up for debate. You can say "well, that doens't apply to the resurrection for these reasons...", but saying that centuries of development in probability theory are just wrong kind of makes you look like you don't care about the truth.
@fdasherv How can it fail if you just concede that extraordinary events DOES NOT requre extraordinary evidence, genius. You just said we can actually talk to the commission and the winning "bastard." Boy, are you smart.
@drcraigvideos Um, people win lotteries all the time. What's so extraordinary? Only a mind as tiny as your's can mistake this guy's baffling bullshit for brilliance.
@fdasherv LOL! You're really not getting it, are you? You just asked rhetorically "What's so extraordinary?" Well, nothing, right? That's what William Lane Craig is saying, genius! I thought my mind was supposed to be the tiny one. You just unknowingly admitted you agreed with Craig TWICE now.
@fdasherv He's forgetting one point. The probability of one person winning the lottery is not the same of someone among millions of people win the lottery..
By his reasoning then, Mohammed's claim to a visit from an angel doesn't need evidence. Or his ascent into heaven on a winged horse, or Harold Camping's claim that we have all been spiritually judged, or that Jesus appeared in America to the forbears of the Mormons, or that Xenu awaits Scientologists, etc. etc. The difference with the lottery draw is that it is televised and supervised and no faith is required. Why try prove faith is not necessary, when faith is required according to the bible?
what does extraordinary evidence look like?lol to call evidence extraordinary is very subjective and emotionally loaded. any claim, no matter how improbable, simply needs sufficent evidence. an alien spotting is extraordinary. to say that it was real, you need the same type of evidence you would need in any other case. eye witness testamonies, videos. etc. the same is for the resurrection claim. to know if Jesus rose you simply need reliable eyewitness testimonies.
@timguyperson Wrong. God is eternal, He didn't come from nowhere, genius. If you think it makes sense for nothing to do something then suit yourself. I'll live in reality.
@aquilianranger Well, why must the universe by the exception then? *SIGH* Anyway, listen to Craig's argument on the Kalam Cosmological argument and you'll see why the first cause must be God: watch?v=VOx6z9F0o1c
@drcraigvideos I find amazing Dr. Craig's Kalam Cosmological argument, I don't agree with him because I believe that the universe has always existed with the omnipotent God. I don't believe in creation out of nothing, I believe God controls the universe, and he organized earth probably from solar nebula, and life using natural processes. However, I do find Dr. Craig's Kalam Cosmological argument pretty good, in my opinion it cannot be scientifically or mathematically refuted. Congratulations.
The probability of winning the lottery is extremely low, I agree. Impossible? Of course not, the evidence of one winning is proven by the evidence of the ticket vs. the draw.
@SGMDL You haven't shown how. You just assumed it while granting Craig's analogy! When an atheist tells me the universe can pop out of nothing that's more than just an extraordinary claim, that's ridiculous.
I don't think he is using the word "extraordinary" as was intended. It doesn't merely mean "unlikely", I think it is meant more to mean "goes against the way we think the universe works. In that case, The lottery number combination would not be a surprise, because we know it's going to be some combination of numbers. A man rising from a tomb three days after dying, however, DOES go against how we know the universe to work.
dr. craig's argument is fatally flawed. scientists apply probability to NATURAL, KNOWN, UNDERSTOOD processes, or events occurring. how do u apply the probability calculation to a man resurrecting and turning into a zombie? how do u calculate the probability of someone curing a terminal illness with their mere touch? what do we understand about these things in order to calculate their probability?..as far as we know, we understand that they're by definition, impossible., hence miracles.
There is no difficulty in believing the process of picking a collection of ballsI That there are a particular set of them is a matter of reporting - but they also don't determine the rest of my life in general terms. Believing that a man is brutally murdered and comes back to life - and this is the result of him being a god is not remotely in the same category.
@Lichtspielhaus234 They are not MY sources -- they are the primary Protestant sources on the question. Ad hominem and poisoning the well fallacies do not count as rebuttal in any serious intellectual discussion. I appreciate that YOU PERSONALLY disagree with all the classical, catholic, and protestant primary scholars -- good for you. Doesn't change what the bible actually says.
@Lichtspielhaus234 He says he is the "bread of life" so yes, he IS the "bread of life". It does not say "I am a loaf of bread". Jesus says in John 6:51: "I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world".
So the "bread of life" REFERS to Jesus' flesh.
Have you even read your own Protestant exegetes such as Delitzsch, Kostlin, Keil, or Kahnis?
@Lichtspielhaus234 Jesus says only ">>>>I<<<< will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine". Jesus is going to 'die' on the cross. You cannot get from Jesus saying that HE will not do something to "this means it's just a mere representation". As you say EPIC FAIL.
@Lichtspielhaus234 I didn't assume you were anything, you can deny the words in the bible if you want but that is what they say. You have demonstrated that you don't believe in what the bible says and prefer to apply your own prejudiced interpretation to the CLEAR words when you don't like what it says. Keep going because that is the path to atheism -- you are ALMOST there.
@Lichtspielhaus234 I refuted your claim with textual evidence from the bible - you argue it is "metaphorical" but have absolutely no basis for doing so other than your personal opinion.
@Lichtspielhaus234 So Christians had it "wrong" for 1600 years and then all of a sudden you know better. You already LOST this one because you cannot support your interpretation even with simple textual evidence from the bible. End of discussion -- you can blather on all you want and it will be ignored.
@Lichtspielhaus234 I studied to be a minister and was going to devote my life to it. It was by reading the bible many times and learning about the true history of Christianity that I became an atheist.
Real Presence asserts that in the Holy Eucharist, Jesus is literally and wholly present—body and blood. You can continue to lie about it and be ignored, it is a simple fact that anyone with a brain can look up.
@Lichtspielhaus234 I refer any interested readers to "The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist". Transubstantiation is a simple fact of Catholic dogma and is foundational to the church. That you wish to deny it just shows how unreliable the bible is.
@Lichtspielhaus234 The question of 'evidence' is an extremely complicated question and cannot be answered in some simple-minded fashion. That you fail to grasp this point is part of your problem - you can present your 'evidence' or not and then we can discuss it but I cannot boil down thousands of years and pages of thought on the question to 500 characters or less.
@Lichtspielhaus234 And NOWHERE does Jesus say it is a mere "representation" -- saying that they should do something in REMEMBRANCE in no way implied it is a "representation". You didn't quote a SINGLE verse that supports your re-interpretation.
You can try to deny what the book says but that just means that even YOU are too incredulous to believe in the bible-congratulations!
@Lichtspielhaus234 I answered your question by referencing scientifically sound writing on the subject of evidence - if you refuse to read or cannot understand it that is your problem. I'm not going to reproduce 10,000 pages of study on the question of evidence here because you are too lazy to go read some books on it. So, put up or shut up.
@Lichtspielhaus234 So, by analogy then, Jesus-freaks are a bunch who worship a human sacrifice and partake in cannibalistic rituals? Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22, Luke 22:19, 1 Corinthians 11:23-24
I didn't say a word about chemical processes in conjunction with "god", I was addressing the flaw in your analogy. And again, you simply cannot keep up. I addressed your question about evidence with references, either read them or remain ignorant.
@Lichtspielhaus234 This is very typical of your problem -- YOU are the one making the claim YOU have to present YOUR evidence. It is ridiculous to ask me what evidence I'm looking for.
And yet, I still pointed you to TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PAGES that have been written on the subject of evidence and you ignore it. You claimed to be "educated" so I asked which books on the subject you have read and I'm willing to bet that you haven't read a SINGLE one by any author I mentioned.
@Lichtspielhaus234 the analogy is deeply flawed because planes are not formed by stochastic chemical processes which have been observed to be capable of self-replication, modification, and selection by natural processes (such as R3C, see PMC2652413, 10.1073/pnas.202471099, 10.1146/annurev.biochem.73.011303.073717, et.al.).
I note with very little surprise that you neglected to list any books you have read on the subject of evidence.
I suggest you read up on the Dunning–Kruger effect.
@Lichtspielhaus234 Define evidence, that's just precious. Have you read Popper, or Kuhn, or Stone? What exactly HAVE you read on the subject of empirical data, the scientific method, proofs, logic, or epistemology? Can you name two major treatises on any of these topics that you have read?
I don't have to invalidate anything -- you are the one that must substantiate your claims. So cite your evidence supporting the proposition that atheists believe that "planes evolved from cars".
@Lichtspielhaus234 I have answered your inane questions in great detail.
If I "lack the knowledge to believe in God" then show me your evidence that God exists. But I have reviewed such claims at great length for 45 years and they repeatedly are shown to be lies, misunderstandings, and sometimes out and out fraud (such as your utter nonsense about the 'beliefs' of atheism like "a plane evolved from a car").
You are rabidly ignorant and seemingly proud of it.
atheism: Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God
disbelief: refusal or reluctance to believe
Therefore, IFF your dog has refused to believe in a god, is reluctant to believe in a god, or has denied the existence of a god then YES, your dog would be an atheist. If your dog has NOT done one of those things then NO.
Since I am not privy to the inner thoughts of dogs I do not KNOW their status. And I do not draw unsubstantiated conclusions as you do.
@Lichtspielhaus234 You really should buy a dictionary because I am tired of quoting one for you, this is the stupidest question ever asked and the last time I will respond to such inanities (which is all this semantic nonsense is, you lost the argument so you switch topics repeatedly instead). If you have a point, make it.
Disbelief: refusal or reluctance to believe
So... has your dog declined to believe in God or not? Don't expect me to speak on behalf of what dogs think about or don't.
@SirDarkStar cont..Here's your problem, if atheism is a natural or default belief, then babies are not atheist, because you just admitted that disbelief is a refusal or reluctance to believe, babies can not do either, they can not refuse to believe, or are reluctant to believe. And neither are dogs. Disbelief is based on knowledge or lack of, so you lack knowledge for belief in God, hence that is why you either refuse to believe, or are reluctant to believe. Correct? ;)
@Lichtspielhaus234 Why don't you ask your dog? I have no way to know if you even have a dog nor do I care nor do I have any direct or indirect knowledge of the subjective experience of dogs in general. Dogs *seem* perpetually astonished at the most mundane of events so, for all I know, they might consider humans to be gods.
I would not form any definite conclusions without some evidence, perhaps fMRI can shed some light on the question eventually.
@Lichtspielhaus234 Huxley first used the term at a gathering so someone could have well published before he did, that does nothing to establish who coined it and it is well documented that Huxley coined the term. Cite your source next time.
You seem ill equipped to carry on any kind of a meaningful discussion of epistemology. You made claims of Atheistic Dogma, I debunked those claims, now you blather on and I grow bored of your ADD topic jumping
@Lichtspielhaus234 Thomas Huxley COINED the term Agnosticism. Do you understand what that means? He INVENTED the word and DEFINED it.
Essays Upon Some Controverted Questions [on Agnosticism] "Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable."
@Lichtspielhaus234 I have been Agnostic for some 35 years. Agnosticism, as defined by T Huxley, is the POSITIVE belief in Reason and Evidence. In that sense it is very different from atheism as the core of atheism is merely the rejection of theism. I am also positively atheistic towards the 'God' of Abraham where very specific claims were made and have been repeatedly and clearly demonstrated to be false (e.g., 1 Kings 18, claims about prayer, etc). It is a false religion beyond all doubt.
@Lichtspielhaus234 Just for your reference, the OED defines atheism as "Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God." which is consistent with my usage.
#1 belief does not require logical consistency or Christians wouldn't exist -- my atheism towards all gods is simply more logically consistent than your disbelieve in other Gods except for your own. THAT is your dishonesty, not mine. #2 you are under some misconception that words only mean ONE thing - I used the word consistent with it's meaning. Perhaps you should actually read that Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy?
@Lichtspielhaus234 What I quoted is most certainly IS in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. You apparently haven't read your history nor your own source material very well. Christians WERE called atheists by the Romans. A simple google search will verify that.
@Lichtspielhaus234 You say "no logical sense there" but that is STRAIGHT from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy which you quoted at me and it was absolutely true at the time, the Romans considered Christians to be atheists because they rejected the Gods that clearly DID exist in favor of their made up god. So welcome aboard the atheism train. Such are the problems with believing in the imaginary.
I'm just atheistic towards ONE more god than you are.
@Lichtspielhaus234 No, you claimed this was "atheist dogma", not "arguments atheists commonly use". And as I showed you, some of those are flat out false and all are irrelevant to the atheist position.
Theists make the argument from ignorance (angels move the planets through the heavens) and then we DEMONSTRATE how they are wrong, and then they move the goal post. again and again and again. It's comical at this point.
But you are still missing any evidence to support your claims.
@Lichtspielhaus234 There is no such thing as "micro evolution" -- mutational change is one part of evolution, natural selection is the other. I'm not going to debate the topic further - if you want to remain ignorant then do so; I cannot replicate 100,000 pages of scientific papers here. Go read a book minted this century instead of the 1st.
6. is irrelevant, what people debate is irrelevant -- THEISTS MUST MEET BURDEN OF PROOF -- period - that is the only point relevant to atheism
@Lichtspielhaus234 Re: Hawking "now believes the universe spontaneously popped into existence from nothing. He said more work is needed to prove this". That is a hypothesis, not a claim that he KNOWS.
Where did I imply that all theists are young Earthers?
You are conflating "Spontaneous Generation", the old debunked theory of the origin of life with Hawkings non-specific statement about the universe. Are you being dishonest on purpose here? Those are two UTTERLY different things.
@Lichtspielhaus234 The full quote is talking about a literal meaning: "‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God." - and it goes on to say "‘atheist’ could be used to refer to theists of another religion, notably the Christians" -- so it says Christians are atheists (relative to the Romans).
OED says: One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God.
(and when you ask why, it will generally be because the claims are not demonstrated -- which was my point)
1. We only view THIS universe from INSIDE of it, we may or may not be able to gleen information about a greater context but there are many theories about multiverses, etc. No atheist claims to know the origin of the universe - we just know that YOUR claims are utterly unsubstantiated.
2. The exact age of the Earth is irrelevant to atheism, SCIENCE says it's ~4.55B
3. 'spontaneous generation' is a specific theory that is not accepted by science so that is a flat out lie
@Lichtspielhaus234 None of those statements have anything to do with atheism. An atheist says "you have not proven your claims about god(s) to me".
You can find atheists who disagree with every single claim you made of atheist dogma.
Just because a belief is common amongst a group does mean it is the dogma of that group when those beliefs have NOTHING to do with the definition of the group itself.
I calculated the probability that the claims about Jesus are true.... first I have to explain this notation, ↑ means to the power of the power, 3↑3 means 3^3^3 = 7.62559748 × 10^12. 3↑↑3 means 3 to power of 3 (3 to the power of 3 times) (or ~10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^12.56090264130030)))))).
So the probability of Jesus-claims being true are only 1 in 3 (with 3↑↑↑3 arrows, repeated 3↑↑↑3 times) 3.
If you cannot prove this claim wrong then it must be true.
True science has one standard, to claim some thing needs a higher or lower standard is merely an attempt to rig the game. The only reason one feel the need to rig the game is because they doubt their ability to win.
@MegaUltimateTruth Apparently your friends account got deleted for a few weeks, because some atheist reported him as harassing. I saw the whole debate, Licht used the atheists real name, and the guy got upset and reported him, all the while talking smack to him, while the dude can't even defend himself anymore. Is that what atheists DO?
@Lichtspielhaus234 And I asked you what makes you think I am an atheist? I have never said that nor have I alluded to that, so why do you jump to that conclusion? Do you have a reason for thinking that?
@Lichtspielhaus234 I answered all of your questions with superb evidence, which one do you THINK I did not answer? I will re-answer it for you to seal the argument once and for all. Atheism and evolution are not linked in any way. Evolution is a scientific theory that has nothing to say about god. Only an uneducated fool would not know that and would be so vehemently opposed to evolution because he thought it was refuting god.
@Lichtspielhaus234 The discovery wasn't really a surprise. It seems that they expected to find the water there, went looking for it, and did. What may have been a surprise was how much they found in that particular location.
@Lichtspielhaus234 No, I pretty much supported evolution and you did nothing to refute it. Satisfied with my obvious victory, I moved on to learn why you continue to deny a theory that is so well-supported. What seems to be the case is that you do not understand objective evidence vs. interpretation. You also seem to confuse evolution with atheism and you are openly hostile to the scientific method.
@Lichtspielhaus234 The water in that study is trapped within rocks and is not a continuous lake or ocean of fluid water. In addition, the volume of the arctic is probably not enough to cover the entire planet. Nevertheless, and interesting article you picked from the very first hit on Google.
@Lichtspielhaus234 There aren't any tactics. I am simply trying to understand why people deny evolution despite the loads of evidence we have for its veracity.
@Lichtspielhaus234 the evidence for evolution is clear and I am not going to reiterate it. You clearly have something against the theory that you so vehemently respond to it. Whether it is true or not, why do you care? Saying it is untrue does not explain why you are so dedicated to its destruction.
@Lichtspielhaus234 Tell me this. Why are you so hostile to evolution, a theory that is one of the best supported in all of science? What is it about evolution that gets you so angry you cannot accept the facts as they stand?
@Lichtspielhaus234 The theory makes predictions, which are then tested by observation of what is available. Remember the 10 predictions I listed that evolution said should occur. The presence of that information supports the theory of evolution.
@Lichtspielhaus234 Evidence is not interpreted, that is the point of science. It is objectively evaluated. A theory is tested against observation and experimental evidence to see if it can predict the results. If it predicts the results, then the theory is supported. There is no interpretation involved. Evidence either does or does not support the theory, that is all.
@Lichtspielhaus234 The flood as outlined in the bible could not have occurred as it said it did. It is clearly not possible given the evidence we have today.
@Lichtspielhaus234 Your idea that the information is "already present" does not make sense. DNA is not information, that is just an analogy that is used to help people understand it.
@Lichtspielhaus234 Some are harmful, some are helpful, most are neutral. The idea of harmful of helpful has to be viewed in the context of the environment in which the organisms resides. Wings on a fish are probably not helpful and may be harmful. Wings on a mammal (bats) can be very helpful
@Lichtspielhaus234 I said interpretation of the bible, not the bible itself. Many have claimed a young earth based on interpretations of the bible. Read the wording carefully as I am clear in what I mean.
@Lichtspielhaus234 They are different species of bacteria, which you said was not possible. I just demonstrated, through evidence, that your claim that new species do not arise is not true. You obviously don't know the definition of species.
@Lichtspielhaus234 If it is a neutral mutation, it does not lead to change, but it is still a mutation. Most mutations are not harmful, most are neutral. That is a simple fact that cannot be disputed.
@Lichtspielhaus234 What I did say was that the theory of evolution does refute some of the stories in the Bible. I never said it refuted god or even had anything to say about god. It also refutes certain interpretations of the bible, such as the young earth interpretation.
@Lichtspielhaus234 I was never arguing an atheist standpoint for evolution or against creation. I was only pointing out that evolution is an accurate, supported theory. I don't know where you get the atheist part of it.
@Lichtspielhaus234 Mutations fall into three categories: Harmful, helpful, and neutral. The vast majority are neutral and have no impact at all. A smaller percentage are either helpful or harmful to the organism. Mutate means to change, it has no connotation as to negative or positive in science. For instance, the mongoose has a mutation in its nicotinic ACh receptors that make it immune to the neurotoxins in snake venom. A very beneficial mutation for the mongoose.
@Lichtspielhaus234 I never said either of those things. You said those things. I said the theory of evolution has been supported by all evidence to date. I never said that evolution had anything to say about god, it does not. You are building straw men here. The argument for me was never whether evolution proved or disproved god, it was whether evolution by natural selection was accurate and supported by the evidence (which it is).
@Lichtspielhaus234 They are new species, which you said does not happen. You clearly said that the changes are WITHIN species and I just demonstrated that that is not the case.
@Lichtspielhaus234 Progress, as you are using it, implies that there is an ultimate end point to the process of evolution. There is not. Evolution is not a directed process in that it there is no ultimate end. It occurs as mutations occur and environments change. What is well adapted to life now, will not be well adapted to life in the future nor would it be well adapted to life in the past.
@Lichtspielhaus234 Things evolve all the time today. New species of bacteria are evolving all the time. In addition, new viral strains arise all the time as well.
@Lichtspielhaus234 By the way , your appeal to authority is a classical fallacy. You have yet to offer any evidence that would disprove evolution. Nevertheless, I have followed your trail of BS and debunked every one of your claims. Not that I expect you to realize that though. You are blinded to reality.
@Lichtspielhaus234 Grasse was a supporter of Lamarckism, a fully debunked theory of evolution. The idea of progress is not applicable to evolution because there is no final ending point for evolution. It is not a directed process with a final goal, so there is no such thing as "progress." That is a false dilemma
@Lichtspielhaus234 This is not a good statement. No theory can ever be "proved" true, only disproved. Evolution has been supported by every shred of evidence ever found relating to how organisms change over time.
@Lichtspielhaus234 Mutations in duplicated regions of DNA do produce new genetic information, so this quote is useless as well. The production of new genetic information has been demonstrated time and time again. One example is the nylon eating bacteria found in Asia. New genetic information that never before existed because nylon never before existed.
@Lichtspielhaus234 This man is saying that natural selection is the process by which things evolve, so you are once again supporting evolution by natural selection with this reference.
@Lichtspielhaus234 LeConte died in 1901, so there has been plenty of time to look at his work. His latest work actually confirmed the theory of evolution and he became an ardent proponent of its tenets. So you just supported evolution with reference to him.
@Lichtspielhaus234 I am not familiar with this work. However, transitional fossils have been found, so if he makes that claim he is an outright liar. You can find 1000's of examples of transitional forms if you research them. Examples include Archaeopteryx, Eryops, Ambulocetus, Tiktaalik, and so forth. Dr. Huges is flat wrong.
@Lichtspielhaus234 Cohen's book has been debunked as faulty reasoning that is not consistent with the theory of evolution put forth by Darwin. His study in probabilities in the book fails to take into account certain facets of the theory that render mutation and speciation as something other than random. His book, published in 1984, is bad math and bad science, so you don't want to use that as an example of anything other than what not to do.
@Lichtspielhaus234 LOL you you keep dodging the truth. Science makes an observation & then through sceintific processes finds out why, what, where & how to give them answers for the observation, ID already says that a God/designer did it all and then tries to find "facts" to fit their hypothesis, facts which science discovered....and you accuse atheists of being influenced by their beliefs, you are pathetic! Cont
@FactsVReligion You're an idiot. And you're obviously special pleading. According to you science already says blindandmindlessnaturedidit. And that's it.
@FactsVReligion ID has been shown to be an invalid theory. Its predictions were shown to be incorrect and that is all that is required to prove something false. So, ID is debunked and is only ever mentioned by creationists who often don't realize that it has been conclusively refuted.
@Lichtspielhaus234 Cont. "I believe your world view has made you that same way. Not only ignorant, but arrogant." It 's not my world view, it's a conclusion based on factual info which will evolve with the information & NO I'm not arrogant, just right. Cont.
@Lichtspielhaus234 Cont. "Yes, and Atheist dictators did the same, you live in a glass house my friend" Well no "atheist dictators" didnt kill because they were atheists but the religious have killed 100's of millions in name of their God. My house is made of diamond not glass. "Yes, you are religious, Buddhism is a religion." I do not follow Buddhism but understand some of what they teach is right, just like "love thy neighbour", would that make me a Christian? NO, then I'm NOT religious!
@Lichtspielhaus234 Number 8 has to do with living animals, not a fossils, so global food excuses do not apply. Common designer is somewhat inadequate because it does not explain why all creatures of the same basic structure do not share the same genetic makeup. 10 is also not an interpretation. Adult humans do not have an intermaxillary bone, but they should based on evolution. Examination showed that it is present in the fetus and then becomes incorporated into the maxilla.
@Lichtspielhaus234 Your response to number 5 makes no sense at all. In regard to number 6, humans have a no functional copy of the gene that codes for the protein for making vitamin C. The mutations are clearly defined and their relationship to the same gene in animals that can synthesize vitamin C is well established.
@Lichtspielhaus234 The whale is not interpreted. It was predicted that such a fossil would be found and it was. The prediction of similar structure has to do with environment. It was predicted that organisms in similar environments would independently evolve similar structures, which they did. What is more, it was predicted that they would not share similar genetics or similar mechanisms of adaptation and that was also found to be true.
@Lichtspielhaus234 What predictions do you have that Darwin made that were not correct? It really does not matter if Darwin was a professional scientist or an amateur, the theory stands on its own merits.
@Lichtspielhaus234 There would not be damage from the sun because the organisms (to include plants, fungi, and bacteria as well as animals) were buried and not exposed to the sun. The bones are gone, completely. What remains is specific types of minerals that took the place of the bones over time.
@Lichtspielhaus234 This does not in any way prove atheism or refute theism. It does, in some cases refute specific Biblical stories, but it certainly does not refute god.
@Lichtspielhaus234 Well, the evidence seems to be less favorable of a global flood given that the fossils are found in many strata and not just a single stratum. You would expect that a global flood happening over the course of less than a year to deposit on animals in a single layer, rather than in multiple layers. In addition, you would think the radiometric dating would reveal all fossils to be of the same age, and it does not place them even remotely close in age.
@Lichtspielhaus234 No evolution by natural selection does not validate atheism, I agree. It just provides a natural mechanism by which organisms can change over time and removes the need for god to intervene in every step. It may, to some extent, negate certain stories in the Bible, such as the flood, the ark, the creation story, but it does not remove god altogether from the picture.
@Lichtspielhaus234 There is far more proof than fossils. We also have mounds of genetic information to support the theory that we once shared a common ancestor with the great apes. God or no god, evolution can be true either way.
@Lichtspielhaus234 Evolution does not have anything to say about god and is not incompatible with god. It is simply the way that species arise here on earth, nothing more nothing less.
@Lichtspielhaus234 Scavengers don't eat amber, which is just crystalized tree sap. Carbonization is a less common form of fossilization by which only carbon is left behind as shale or some other coal-like substance. Dessication occurs when organisms are trapped in rocks and other substances and are able to dry out slowly over time. Mummification is another word for it. Freezing is fairly common in the fossil world. Tar preservation is definitely rare, but does happen.
@Lichtspielhaus234 I am afraid that is not true. Evolutionary biologists do not distinguish between micro and macro evolution. It is a false dichotomy.
@Lichtspielhaus234 We must also remember that evolution (the idea that things change with time) is a fact. The theory is about how those things change and the theory that has prevailed is the theory of evolution by natural selection put forth by Darwin. In not only encompassed all known facts at the time, but was also successfully applied to all new evidence that came after its inception without being changed. This is what makes a good theory in science.
@Lichtspielhaus234 This is not a good approximation of a theory. A theory is an explanation of what is that makes predictions about what will be. In other words, a theory must not only explain what we already know, it must be able to make predictions about future evidence. If it accurately predicts future experimental evidence, the theory is supported. If it does not, the theory is rejected. So far, evolution has correctly predicted all experimental results as well as other findings in nature.
@Lichtspielhaus234 Microevolution is not a concept supported by science. Micro and macroevolution as defined by creationists are the same process and are treated as the same thing in science. Splitting them up is to misunderstand the science and to create a dilemma where one does not exist.
I think there is a bit of an error here. It seems to me that the two questions Dr. Craig asks are not the same. It seems that what he should have said was "What is the probability that someone would say that the resurrection took place or that the saw Jesus after his death?" To me, that is the appropriate corollary to his first analogy and the answer seems to be quite high. Based on his earlier statements, this would not be enough to offset the low probability of the resurrection.
Does anyone else get tired of sheer ignorance? The kind of ignorance that makes you feel stupider for simply having been exposed to it... How do I deal with it?
part of me is saying stick and stones, while the other is disgusted that these people are allowed to spread their intellectual poison, it a crime against humanity.
@Amarkcalledme "disgusted that these people are allowed to spread their intellectual poison, it a crime against humanity."
How arrogant of you to say that. Since when is philosophy or simply thinking or debating topics that concern everyone a crime to humanity? If you think he's wrong on something point out what, don't throw insults... that should be the real crime.
This guy is using manipulative language, his first criticism of David Humes's suggestion that extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence is a play on a number of complicated ideas. First of all he is removing the context of religion, secondly, people of faith don't require logic, hence faith. he is also denying the possibility of dramatic alternative, but similar thesis's, the possibilities of which are infinite, in accordance to the limits of imagination. abuse of logic 101.
@Amarkcalledme now, by dramatic alternatives I mean that the imagination can procure any number of fanciful ideas. the fact that they can be created, and in turn given the magic ability to defy logic is, by no means, a good reason to entertain them.
The ability to understand complicated philosophical concepts, as this person does, does not warrant the ability to find a logical conclusion through them.
logic is an important tool for dissecting ideas, one should be wary when it is threatened.
@Amarkcalledme in conclusion, you cannot simply appropriate logic to suit your needs.
accepting a abstracted concept that is reasonably sound under scrutiny, that supports your ideas, but denying all those other perfectly sound concepts that hold up to scrutiny like a diamond under hammer, is, as I was saying "intellectual poison, and a crime against humanity"
@130adi So there you go, well over 1,000 words explaining why I feel the way I do, I hardly felt it was necessary to elaborate but it seems that nobody can think for themselves these days.
epic fail. there is 100% chance that SOMEONE will win the lottery. the chance of any one individual in particular winning the lottery is very slim but the chance that someone will win the lottery is 100%. he fails on the fine-tuning as well, but, for that anyone can just check out Das AA's video on fine-tuning. Carl Sagan and David Hume were great human beings who contributed a great amount to society. WLC is using the same old arguments with more charisma and has contributed dirt to society.
@daveoftheweek You're a moron. First of all, not everyone wins the lottery. Second of all, even atheists have since refuted David Hume's argument on miracles and have agreed that it begs the question. Third of all, Carl Sagan is not a philosopher but a scientist. And quite frankly, he sucks as a thinker. Your comment contributed nothing to anyone because you're brainless.
Crucially, note Craig's word-selection. Hume discusses "extraordinary CLAIMS," not "extraordinary EVENTS." The event IS the evidence for the claim.
In the lottery case, yes, it's a very unlikely combination of numbers, and this is why the lottery draws are filmed, often in a single take to minimise tampering, and broadcast live on at least one channel. That's the evidence.
Consider if there was no filming of the draw and the CEO of the lottery company won. That's an extraordinary CLAIM.
EdwardFalzon 1 week ago
The evidence of a lottery winning is in the reporting and the fact that they do lottery drawings live and there is a physical ticket. That's the evidence required.
snuffygg 1 month ago
it's all so horrid, this reasoning thing. those who are predisposed to believe a thing will find a way to make it reasonable. talk long enough and loud enough and you can talk yourself and anyone else into anything.
legionjdw 1 month ago
@legionjdw Don't look in the mirror now.
drcraigvideos 1 month ago
Craig makes a good point. Although I find bothering to try to answer an atheist is an unsavory experience. Even when you win the arguement you feel like you broke even since atheism, evidence, probability, and common sense are all subjective. It is alot like aeguing with a feminist.
MagnusCattus 1 month ago
@MagnusCattus Haha... that was a highly amusing comment :)
emil0rable 1 month ago
Congratulations Dr. Craig, your argument can be used to prove the truth of any religion.
HiJon89 1 month ago
@HiJon89 ... and atheism too. It's just common sense: better thinking atheists even know that Hume is wrong on this one.
drcraigvideos 1 month ago
@drcraigvideos I don't necessarily agree with Hume, but your "correction" gets us nowhere if it is applied as loosely as you have done. Corroborating evidence all within the same fictional book does not tip the probability as you suggest.
HiJon89 1 month ago
@HiJon89 You don't agree with Hume, yet you made the statement that Craig's arguments can attain to any religion? So, you were thinking randomly I guess. Look, listen to the video and you'd know that extraordinary events DON'T need extraordinary evidence.
drcraigvideos 1 month ago
Many viewers seem to misunderstand Dr. Craig's point.
Let's say the newspaper reported that the winning lottery number was 777777777.
The probability that THAT number actually had been drawn is very low, so according to Hume we would need to have extraordinary evidence for the extraordinarily low probability of that specific number being drawn.
But we don't need that evidence, because it's very unlikely that the newspaper would have reported the number if it hadn't actually been drawn.
Satarack 2 months ago
@Satarack
no we get that. But some number has to win. It is unimportant which number. The claim that this particular number one is not extraordinary if the newspaper has accurately reported the correct lottery numbers in the past. It is a fallacy to assert after the fact how improbable it was that this one number should be the winner when one number must be drawn. The improbability of it being that particular number has nothing to do with whether it has been accurately reported
HeadofRadio 2 months ago
"extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence?"
I have always felt that this was an atheist trick in order to raise the bar to something they could more easily reject., as i see someone here as already said
as far as I can see any event only requires valid and sufficient evidence
Strefanasha 3 months ago
"Evidence" that is considered to be out-of-the-ordinary will never be considered evidence. Thus, "extraordinary evidence" is an oxymoron. This is why atheists demand it; they know they will never perceive evidence to be beyond the ordinary.
ufcarazy 3 months ago
We get it Professor Craig, "you can't be wrong."
nlytend1 4 months ago
However, this method does not apply to testimony of historical events such as Hume is concerned with. For example, the effects of the resurrection -- empty tomb, sightings of Christ -- are just as unobservable and unfit within our uniform experience as the resurrection itself. This is the key difference. WLC's construction, that we can use miracles to prove miracles exist, is self-referentially inconsistent.
RegisTheRaccoon 4 months ago
Why on earth are the atheists debating the basic probability theory being discussed in this video? These principles are well established academically, they aren't up for debate. You can say "well, that doens't apply to the resurrection for these reasons...", but saying that centuries of development in probability theory are just wrong kind of makes you look like you don't care about the truth.
JWHurwitz 4 months ago
Is it wrong to point out that Dr. Craig is incredibly good looking in this video?
FideiDefensor7 4 months ago
Great stuff as always from WLC.
REDRAGON12345 5 months ago
now i know why Richard Dawkins is so afraid to debate Dr. Craig because of his wisdom and knowledge.
ikawpipa 5 months ago
Yea well, we can actually talk to the lottery commission and actually see the lucky bastard spend his winnings. So this talking point fails.
fdasherv 6 months ago
@fdasherv How can it fail if you just concede that extraordinary events DOES NOT requre extraordinary evidence, genius. You just said we can actually talk to the commission and the winning "bastard." Boy, are you smart.
drcraigvideos 6 months ago
@drcraigvideos Um, people win lotteries all the time. What's so extraordinary? Only a mind as tiny as your's can mistake this guy's baffling bullshit for brilliance.
fdasherv 6 months ago
@fdasherv LOL! You're really not getting it, are you? You just asked rhetorically "What's so extraordinary?" Well, nothing, right? That's what William Lane Craig is saying, genius! I thought my mind was supposed to be the tiny one. You just unknowingly admitted you agreed with Craig TWICE now.
drcraigvideos 6 months ago 7
@fdasherv He's forgetting one point. The probability of one person winning the lottery is not the same of someone among millions of people win the lottery..
balhoto 5 months ago 4
By his reasoning then, Mohammed's claim to a visit from an angel doesn't need evidence. Or his ascent into heaven on a winged horse, or Harold Camping's claim that we have all been spiritually judged, or that Jesus appeared in America to the forbears of the Mormons, or that Xenu awaits Scientologists, etc. etc. The difference with the lottery draw is that it is televised and supervised and no faith is required. Why try prove faith is not necessary, when faith is required according to the bible?
DaithiDublin 6 months ago
what does extraordinary evidence look like?lol to call evidence extraordinary is very subjective and emotionally loaded. any claim, no matter how improbable, simply needs sufficent evidence. an alien spotting is extraordinary. to say that it was real, you need the same type of evidence you would need in any other case. eye witness testamonies, videos. etc. the same is for the resurrection claim. to know if Jesus rose you simply need reliable eyewitness testimonies.
lilrat489 6 months ago
@hpsh68 You're right. We're not supposed to be nice to our enemies, we're supposed to be good to them.
drcraigvideos 7 months ago
This makes sense...if you remove common sense and one's capability to think critically.
Jayjs20 7 months ago 16
@Jayjs20 Why talk about your own comment in the third person?
drcraigvideos 7 months ago
@timguyperson Wrong. God is eternal, He didn't come from nowhere, genius. If you think it makes sense for nothing to do something then suit yourself. I'll live in reality.
drcraigvideos 7 months ago
@drcraigvideos Why does God get to be the exception to the rule? Why does God get to be eternal and not the Universe?
aquilianranger 7 months ago
@aquilianranger Well, why must the universe by the exception then? *SIGH* Anyway, listen to Craig's argument on the Kalam Cosmological argument and you'll see why the first cause must be God: watch?v=VOx6z9F0o1c
drcraigvideos 7 months ago
@drcraigvideos I am not making a claim that something cannot come from nothing, you and Dr. Craig are. You are avoiding the question.
aquilianranger 7 months ago
@aquilianranger Uh, yeah, when I say that God is eternal that means he came from nothing. You are very smart. Please stop outsmarting me. It hurts.
drcraigvideos 7 months ago
@drcraigvideos I find amazing Dr. Craig's Kalam Cosmological argument, I don't agree with him because I believe that the universe has always existed with the omnipotent God. I don't believe in creation out of nothing, I believe God controls the universe, and he organized earth probably from solar nebula, and life using natural processes. However, I do find Dr. Craig's Kalam Cosmological argument pretty good, in my opinion it cannot be scientifically or mathematically refuted. Congratulations.
TheSkepticChristian 6 months ago
@aquilianranger: "Why does God get to be the exception to the rule? Why does God get to be eternal and not the Universe?"
Because god is imaginary.
mikefromwa 6 months ago
The probability of winning the lottery is extremely low, I agree. Impossible? Of course not, the evidence of one winning is proven by the evidence of the ticket vs. the draw.
Silly analogy.
SGMDL 7 months ago
@SGMDL You haven't shown how. You just assumed it while granting Craig's analogy! When an atheist tells me the universe can pop out of nothing that's more than just an extraordinary claim, that's ridiculous.
drcraigvideos 7 months ago
I don't think he is using the word "extraordinary" as was intended. It doesn't merely mean "unlikely", I think it is meant more to mean "goes against the way we think the universe works. In that case, The lottery number combination would not be a surprise, because we know it's going to be some combination of numbers. A man rising from a tomb three days after dying, however, DOES go against how we know the universe to work.
StealthDonkey007 9 months ago
dr. craig's argument is fatally flawed. scientists apply probability to NATURAL, KNOWN, UNDERSTOOD processes, or events occurring. how do u apply the probability calculation to a man resurrecting and turning into a zombie? how do u calculate the probability of someone curing a terminal illness with their mere touch? what do we understand about these things in order to calculate their probability?..as far as we know, we understand that they're by definition, impossible., hence miracles.
itzahazylife 9 months ago
There is no difficulty in believing the process of picking a collection of ballsI That there are a particular set of them is a matter of reporting - but they also don't determine the rest of my life in general terms. Believing that a man is brutally murdered and comes back to life - and this is the result of him being a god is not remotely in the same category.
In any event guess believing in god is a lottery.
sigmata0 10 months ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 Irrelevant b/c of John 6:51 "the bread that I will give is MY FLESH".
SirDarkStar 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 They are not MY sources -- they are the primary Protestant sources on the question. Ad hominem and poisoning the well fallacies do not count as rebuttal in any serious intellectual discussion. I appreciate that YOU PERSONALLY disagree with all the classical, catholic, and protestant primary scholars -- good for you. Doesn't change what the bible actually says.
SirDarkStar 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 He says he is the "bread of life" so yes, he IS the "bread of life". It does not say "I am a loaf of bread". Jesus says in John 6:51: "I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world".
So the "bread of life" REFERS to Jesus' flesh.
Have you even read your own Protestant exegetes such as Delitzsch, Kostlin, Keil, or Kahnis?
SirDarkStar 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 Jesus says only ">>>>I<<<< will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine". Jesus is going to 'die' on the cross. You cannot get from Jesus saying that HE will not do something to "this means it's just a mere representation". As you say EPIC FAIL.
SirDarkStar 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 I didn't assume you were anything, you can deny the words in the bible if you want but that is what they say. You have demonstrated that you don't believe in what the bible says and prefer to apply your own prejudiced interpretation to the CLEAR words when you don't like what it says. Keep going because that is the path to atheism -- you are ALMOST there.
SirDarkStar 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 I refuted your claim with textual evidence from the bible - you argue it is "metaphorical" but have absolutely no basis for doing so other than your personal opinion.
SirDarkStar 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 So Christians had it "wrong" for 1600 years and then all of a sudden you know better. You already LOST this one because you cannot support your interpretation even with simple textual evidence from the bible. End of discussion -- you can blather on all you want and it will be ignored.
SirDarkStar 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 Ok then, you explain exactly what you accept as evidence in 500 characters -- show me how it's done.
SirDarkStar 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 I studied to be a minister and was going to devote my life to it. It was by reading the bible many times and learning about the true history of Christianity that I became an atheist.
Real Presence asserts that in the Holy Eucharist, Jesus is literally and wholly present—body and blood. You can continue to lie about it and be ignored, it is a simple fact that anyone with a brain can look up.
SirDarkStar 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 I refer any interested readers to "The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist". Transubstantiation is a simple fact of Catholic dogma and is foundational to the church. That you wish to deny it just shows how unreliable the bible is.
SirDarkStar 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 The question of 'evidence' is an extremely complicated question and cannot be answered in some simple-minded fashion. That you fail to grasp this point is part of your problem - you can present your 'evidence' or not and then we can discuss it but I cannot boil down thousands of years and pages of thought on the question to 500 characters or less.
SirDarkStar 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 And NOWHERE does Jesus say it is a mere "representation" -- saying that they should do something in REMEMBRANCE in no way implied it is a "representation". You didn't quote a SINGLE verse that supports your re-interpretation.
You can try to deny what the book says but that just means that even YOU are too incredulous to believe in the bible-congratulations!
SirDarkStar 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234
John 6 (KJV)
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
SirDarkStar 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 I answered your question by referencing scientifically sound writing on the subject of evidence - if you refuse to read or cannot understand it that is your problem. I'm not going to reproduce 10,000 pages of study on the question of evidence here because you are too lazy to go read some books on it. So, put up or shut up.
SirDarkStar 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 So, by analogy then, Jesus-freaks are a bunch who worship a human sacrifice and partake in cannibalistic rituals? Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22, Luke 22:19, 1 Corinthians 11:23-24
I didn't say a word about chemical processes in conjunction with "god", I was addressing the flaw in your analogy. And again, you simply cannot keep up. I addressed your question about evidence with references, either read them or remain ignorant.
SirDarkStar 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 This is very typical of your problem -- YOU are the one making the claim YOU have to present YOUR evidence. It is ridiculous to ask me what evidence I'm looking for.
And yet, I still pointed you to TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PAGES that have been written on the subject of evidence and you ignore it. You claimed to be "educated" so I asked which books on the subject you have read and I'm willing to bet that you haven't read a SINGLE one by any author I mentioned.
SirDarkStar 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 the analogy is deeply flawed because planes are not formed by stochastic chemical processes which have been observed to be capable of self-replication, modification, and selection by natural processes (such as R3C, see PMC2652413, 10.1073/pnas.202471099, 10.1146/annurev.biochem.73.011303.073717, et.al.).
I note with very little surprise that you neglected to list any books you have read on the subject of evidence.
I suggest you read up on the Dunning–Kruger effect.
SirDarkStar 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 Define evidence, that's just precious. Have you read Popper, or Kuhn, or Stone? What exactly HAVE you read on the subject of empirical data, the scientific method, proofs, logic, or epistemology? Can you name two major treatises on any of these topics that you have read?
I don't have to invalidate anything -- you are the one that must substantiate your claims. So cite your evidence supporting the proposition that atheists believe that "planes evolved from cars".
SirDarkStar 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 I have answered your inane questions in great detail.
If I "lack the knowledge to believe in God" then show me your evidence that God exists. But I have reviewed such claims at great length for 45 years and they repeatedly are shown to be lies, misunderstandings, and sometimes out and out fraud (such as your utter nonsense about the 'beliefs' of atheism like "a plane evolved from a car").
You are rabidly ignorant and seemingly proud of it.
SirDarkStar 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 one last time:
atheism: Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God
disbelief: refusal or reluctance to believe
Therefore, IFF your dog has refused to believe in a god, is reluctant to believe in a god, or has denied the existence of a god then YES, your dog would be an atheist. If your dog has NOT done one of those things then NO.
Since I am not privy to the inner thoughts of dogs I do not KNOW their status. And I do not draw unsubstantiated conclusions as you do.
SirDarkStar 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 You really should buy a dictionary because I am tired of quoting one for you, this is the stupidest question ever asked and the last time I will respond to such inanities (which is all this semantic nonsense is, you lost the argument so you switch topics repeatedly instead). If you have a point, make it.
Disbelief: refusal or reluctance to believe
So... has your dog declined to believe in God or not? Don't expect me to speak on behalf of what dogs think about or don't.
SirDarkStar 1 year ago
@SirDarkStar cont..Here's your problem, if atheism is a natural or default belief, then babies are not atheist, because you just admitted that disbelief is a refusal or reluctance to believe, babies can not do either, they can not refuse to believe, or are reluctant to believe. And neither are dogs. Disbelief is based on knowledge or lack of, so you lack knowledge for belief in God, hence that is why you either refuse to believe, or are reluctant to believe. Correct? ;)
Lichtspielhaus234 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 Why don't you ask your dog? I have no way to know if you even have a dog nor do I care nor do I have any direct or indirect knowledge of the subjective experience of dogs in general. Dogs *seem* perpetually astonished at the most mundane of events so, for all I know, they might consider humans to be gods.
I would not form any definite conclusions without some evidence, perhaps fMRI can shed some light on the question eventually.
Q for you, does my pet rock BELIEVE in god?
SirDarkStar 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 Huxley first used the term at a gathering so someone could have well published before he did, that does nothing to establish who coined it and it is well documented that Huxley coined the term. Cite your source next time.
You seem ill equipped to carry on any kind of a meaningful discussion of epistemology. You made claims of Atheistic Dogma, I debunked those claims, now you blather on and I grow bored of your ADD topic jumping
SirDarkStar 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 Thomas Huxley COINED the term Agnosticism. Do you understand what that means? He INVENTED the word and DEFINED it.
Essays Upon Some Controverted Questions [on Agnosticism] "Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable."
SirDarkStar 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 I have been Agnostic for some 35 years. Agnosticism, as defined by T Huxley, is the POSITIVE belief in Reason and Evidence. In that sense it is very different from atheism as the core of atheism is merely the rejection of theism. I am also positively atheistic towards the 'God' of Abraham where very specific claims were made and have been repeatedly and clearly demonstrated to be false (e.g., 1 Kings 18, claims about prayer, etc). It is a false religion beyond all doubt.
SirDarkStar 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 Just for your reference, the OED defines atheism as "Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God." which is consistent with my usage.
SirDarkStar 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234
#1 belief does not require logical consistency or Christians wouldn't exist -- my atheism towards all gods is simply more logically consistent than your disbelieve in other Gods except for your own. THAT is your dishonesty, not mine. #2 you are under some misconception that words only mean ONE thing - I used the word consistent with it's meaning. Perhaps you should actually read that Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy?
SirDarkStar 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 What I quoted is most certainly IS in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. You apparently haven't read your history nor your own source material very well. Christians WERE called atheists by the Romans. A simple google search will verify that.
SirDarkStar 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 You say "no logical sense there" but that is STRAIGHT from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy which you quoted at me and it was absolutely true at the time, the Romans considered Christians to be atheists because they rejected the Gods that clearly DID exist in favor of their made up god. So welcome aboard the atheism train. Such are the problems with believing in the imaginary.
I'm just atheistic towards ONE more god than you are.
SirDarkStar 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 No, you claimed this was "atheist dogma", not "arguments atheists commonly use". And as I showed you, some of those are flat out false and all are irrelevant to the atheist position.
Theists make the argument from ignorance (angels move the planets through the heavens) and then we DEMONSTRATE how they are wrong, and then they move the goal post. again and again and again. It's comical at this point.
But you are still missing any evidence to support your claims.
SirDarkStar 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 There is no such thing as "micro evolution" -- mutational change is one part of evolution, natural selection is the other. I'm not going to debate the topic further - if you want to remain ignorant then do so; I cannot replicate 100,000 pages of scientific papers here. Go read a book minted this century instead of the 1st.
6. is irrelevant, what people debate is irrelevant -- THEISTS MUST MEET BURDEN OF PROOF -- period - that is the only point relevant to atheism
SirDarkStar 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 Furthermore, Hawkin's claims have NOTHING to do with atheism. If they pan out great. If not, some other hypothesis may.
SirDarkStar 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 Re: Hawking "now believes the universe spontaneously popped into existence from nothing. He said more work is needed to prove this". That is a hypothesis, not a claim that he KNOWS.
Where did I imply that all theists are young Earthers?
You are conflating "Spontaneous Generation", the old debunked theory of the origin of life with Hawkings non-specific statement about the universe. Are you being dishonest on purpose here? Those are two UTTERLY different things.
SirDarkStar 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 The full quote is talking about a literal meaning: "‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God." - and it goes on to say "‘atheist’ could be used to refer to theists of another religion, notably the Christians" -- so it says Christians are atheists (relative to the Romans).
OED says: One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God.
(and when you ask why, it will generally be because the claims are not demonstrated -- which was my point)
SirDarkStar 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234
10. you are repeating yourself to try to make 10 and furthermore you just made this list up.
SirDarkStar 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234
5. Irrelevant to atheism, but evolution is a well established scientific fact and ID claims have been refuted again and again
6. irrelevant to atheism
7. ALL people find some beliefs helpful and some harmful, so saying that some atheists find some religious beliefs harmful is hardly shocking
8. that is not a universal belief & irrelevant to atheism
9. science is NOT an authority, the evidence is the authority. peer review is critical in science
SirDarkStar 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234
1. We only view THIS universe from INSIDE of it, we may or may not be able to gleen information about a greater context but there are many theories about multiverses, etc. No atheist claims to know the origin of the universe - we just know that YOUR claims are utterly unsubstantiated.
2. The exact age of the Earth is irrelevant to atheism, SCIENCE says it's ~4.55B
3. 'spontaneous generation' is a specific theory that is not accepted by science so that is a flat out lie
SirDarkStar 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 None of those statements have anything to do with atheism. An atheist says "you have not proven your claims about god(s) to me".
You can find atheists who disagree with every single claim you made of atheist dogma.
Just because a belief is common amongst a group does mean it is the dogma of that group when those beliefs have NOTHING to do with the definition of the group itself.
Will give some details in next reply.
SirDarkStar 1 year ago
I calculated the probability that the claims about Jesus are true.... first I have to explain this notation, ↑ means to the power of the power, 3↑3 means 3^3^3 = 7.62559748 × 10^12. 3↑↑3 means 3 to power of 3 (3 to the power of 3 times) (or ~10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^12.56090264130030)))))).
So the probability of Jesus-claims being true are only 1 in 3 (with 3↑↑↑3 arrows, repeated 3↑↑↑3 times) 3.
If you cannot prove this claim wrong then it must be true.
SirDarkStar 1 year ago
Comment removed
RefinersFire298 1 year ago
True science has one standard, to claim some thing needs a higher or lower standard is merely an attempt to rig the game. The only reason one feel the need to rig the game is because they doubt their ability to win.
daddyg321 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 What is atheist dogma?
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@MegaUltimateTruth Apparently your friends account got deleted for a few weeks, because some atheist reported him as harassing. I saw the whole debate, Licht used the atheists real name, and the guy got upset and reported him, all the while talking smack to him, while the dude can't even defend himself anymore. Is that what atheists DO?
TheAhunt10 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 And I asked you what makes you think I am an atheist? I have never said that nor have I alluded to that, so why do you jump to that conclusion? Do you have a reason for thinking that?
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 I answered all of your questions with superb evidence, which one do you THINK I did not answer? I will re-answer it for you to seal the argument once and for all. Atheism and evolution are not linked in any way. Evolution is a scientific theory that has nothing to say about god. Only an uneducated fool would not know that and would be so vehemently opposed to evolution because he thought it was refuting god.
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 The discovery wasn't really a surprise. It seems that they expected to find the water there, went looking for it, and did. What may have been a surprise was how much they found in that particular location.
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 No, I pretty much supported evolution and you did nothing to refute it. Satisfied with my obvious victory, I moved on to learn why you continue to deny a theory that is so well-supported. What seems to be the case is that you do not understand objective evidence vs. interpretation. You also seem to confuse evolution with atheism and you are openly hostile to the scientific method.
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 Water is trapped in almost all rocks. It is pretty normal and does not require a flood to get there.
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 Why do you think I am an atheist?
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 The water in that study is trapped within rocks and is not a continuous lake or ocean of fluid water. In addition, the volume of the arctic is probably not enough to cover the entire planet. Nevertheless, and interesting article you picked from the very first hit on Google.
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 There aren't any tactics. I am simply trying to understand why people deny evolution despite the loads of evidence we have for its veracity.
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 the evidence for evolution is clear and I am not going to reiterate it. You clearly have something against the theory that you so vehemently respond to it. Whether it is true or not, why do you care? Saying it is untrue does not explain why you are so dedicated to its destruction.
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 How do you come up with that?
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 Tell me this. Why are you so hostile to evolution, a theory that is one of the best supported in all of science? What is it about evolution that gets you so angry you cannot accept the facts as they stand?
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 The theory makes predictions, which are then tested by observation of what is available. Remember the 10 predictions I listed that evolution said should occur. The presence of that information supports the theory of evolution.
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 Possible or not, evidence suggests that it did not occur. What water inside the earth?
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 Evidence is not interpreted, that is the point of science. It is objectively evaluated. A theory is tested against observation and experimental evidence to see if it can predict the results. If it predicts the results, then the theory is supported. There is no interpretation involved. Evidence either does or does not support the theory, that is all.
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 The flood as outlined in the bible could not have occurred as it said it did. It is clearly not possible given the evidence we have today.
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 Your idea that the information is "already present" does not make sense. DNA is not information, that is just an analogy that is used to help people understand it.
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 No, there are stories in the bible that are clearly refuted by evolution.
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 the story of the flood is not consistent with evolution, paleontology, or geology for instance.
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 Both
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 New species of bacteria. Yes, they are still bacteria, but they are a new species.
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 Some are harmful, some are helpful, most are neutral. The idea of harmful of helpful has to be viewed in the context of the environment in which the organisms resides. Wings on a fish are probably not helpful and may be harmful. Wings on a mammal (bats) can be very helpful
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 I said interpretation of the bible, not the bible itself. Many have claimed a young earth based on interpretations of the bible. Read the wording carefully as I am clear in what I mean.
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 What makes you think I am an atheist?
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 They are different species of bacteria, which you said was not possible. I just demonstrated, through evidence, that your claim that new species do not arise is not true. You obviously don't know the definition of species.
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 If it is a neutral mutation, it does not lead to change, but it is still a mutation. Most mutations are not harmful, most are neutral. That is a simple fact that cannot be disputed.
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 What I did say was that the theory of evolution does refute some of the stories in the Bible. I never said it refuted god or even had anything to say about god. It also refutes certain interpretations of the bible, such as the young earth interpretation.
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 I was never arguing an atheist standpoint for evolution or against creation. I was only pointing out that evolution is an accurate, supported theory. I don't know where you get the atheist part of it.
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 Yes, they are new species. They are new species of bacteria. Do you know the definition of species?
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 Mutations fall into three categories: Harmful, helpful, and neutral. The vast majority are neutral and have no impact at all. A smaller percentage are either helpful or harmful to the organism. Mutate means to change, it has no connotation as to negative or positive in science. For instance, the mongoose has a mutation in its nicotinic ACh receptors that make it immune to the neurotoxins in snake venom. A very beneficial mutation for the mongoose.
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 I never said either of those things. You said those things. I said the theory of evolution has been supported by all evidence to date. I never said that evolution had anything to say about god, it does not. You are building straw men here. The argument for me was never whether evolution proved or disproved god, it was whether evolution by natural selection was accurate and supported by the evidence (which it is).
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 They are new species, which you said does not happen. You clearly said that the changes are WITHIN species and I just demonstrated that that is not the case.
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 Progress, as you are using it, implies that there is an ultimate end point to the process of evolution. There is not. Evolution is not a directed process in that it there is no ultimate end. It occurs as mutations occur and environments change. What is well adapted to life now, will not be well adapted to life in the future nor would it be well adapted to life in the past.
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 That makes no sense. You cannot know the mind of the man.
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 Things evolve all the time today. New species of bacteria are evolving all the time. In addition, new viral strains arise all the time as well.
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 By the way , your appeal to authority is a classical fallacy. You have yet to offer any evidence that would disprove evolution. Nevertheless, I have followed your trail of BS and debunked every one of your claims. Not that I expect you to realize that though. You are blinded to reality.
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 Le Conte supported evolution, there is no question about that. Look it up and you will see that to be true.
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 Grasse was a supporter of Lamarckism, a fully debunked theory of evolution. The idea of progress is not applicable to evolution because there is no final ending point for evolution. It is not a directed process with a final goal, so there is no such thing as "progress." That is a false dilemma
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 This is not a good statement. No theory can ever be "proved" true, only disproved. Evolution has been supported by every shred of evidence ever found relating to how organisms change over time.
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 Mutations in duplicated regions of DNA do produce new genetic information, so this quote is useless as well. The production of new genetic information has been demonstrated time and time again. One example is the nylon eating bacteria found in Asia. New genetic information that never before existed because nylon never before existed.
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 This man is saying that natural selection is the process by which things evolve, so you are once again supporting evolution by natural selection with this reference.
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 LeConte died in 1901, so there has been plenty of time to look at his work. His latest work actually confirmed the theory of evolution and he became an ardent proponent of its tenets. So you just supported evolution with reference to him.
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 I am not familiar with this work. However, transitional fossils have been found, so if he makes that claim he is an outright liar. You can find 1000's of examples of transitional forms if you research them. Examples include Archaeopteryx, Eryops, Ambulocetus, Tiktaalik, and so forth. Dr. Huges is flat wrong.
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 Cohen's book has been debunked as faulty reasoning that is not consistent with the theory of evolution put forth by Darwin. His study in probabilities in the book fails to take into account certain facets of the theory that render mutation and speciation as something other than random. His book, published in 1984, is bad math and bad science, so you don't want to use that as an example of anything other than what not to do.
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 LOL you you keep dodging the truth. Science makes an observation & then through sceintific processes finds out why, what, where & how to give them answers for the observation, ID already says that a God/designer did it all and then tries to find "facts" to fit their hypothesis, facts which science discovered....and you accuse atheists of being influenced by their beliefs, you are pathetic! Cont
FactsVReligion 1 year ago
@FactsVReligion You're an idiot. And you're obviously special pleading. According to you science already says blindandmindlessnaturedidit. And that's it.
drcraigvideos 1 year ago
@FactsVReligion ID has been shown to be an invalid theory. Its predictions were shown to be incorrect and that is all that is required to prove something false. So, ID is debunked and is only ever mentioned by creationists who often don't realize that it has been conclusively refuted.
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 Cont. "I believe your world view has made you that same way. Not only ignorant, but arrogant." It 's not my world view, it's a conclusion based on factual info which will evolve with the information & NO I'm not arrogant, just right. Cont.
FactsVReligion 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 Cont. "Yes, and Atheist dictators did the same, you live in a glass house my friend" Well no "atheist dictators" didnt kill because they were atheists but the religious have killed 100's of millions in name of their God. My house is made of diamond not glass. "Yes, you are religious, Buddhism is a religion." I do not follow Buddhism but understand some of what they teach is right, just like "love thy neighbour", would that make me a Christian? NO, then I'm NOT religious!
FactsVReligion 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 Number 8 has to do with living animals, not a fossils, so global food excuses do not apply. Common designer is somewhat inadequate because it does not explain why all creatures of the same basic structure do not share the same genetic makeup. 10 is also not an interpretation. Adult humans do not have an intermaxillary bone, but they should based on evolution. Examination showed that it is present in the fetus and then becomes incorporated into the maxilla.
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 Your response to number 5 makes no sense at all. In regard to number 6, humans have a no functional copy of the gene that codes for the protein for making vitamin C. The mutations are clearly defined and their relationship to the same gene in animals that can synthesize vitamin C is well established.
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 The whale is not interpreted. It was predicted that such a fossil would be found and it was. The prediction of similar structure has to do with environment. It was predicted that organisms in similar environments would independently evolve similar structures, which they did. What is more, it was predicted that they would not share similar genetics or similar mechanisms of adaptation and that was also found to be true.
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 What predictions do you have that Darwin made that were not correct? It really does not matter if Darwin was a professional scientist or an amateur, the theory stands on its own merits.
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 There would not be damage from the sun because the organisms (to include plants, fungi, and bacteria as well as animals) were buried and not exposed to the sun. The bones are gone, completely. What remains is specific types of minerals that took the place of the bones over time.
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 This does not in any way prove atheism or refute theism. It does, in some cases refute specific Biblical stories, but it certainly does not refute god.
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 Well, the evidence seems to be less favorable of a global flood given that the fossils are found in many strata and not just a single stratum. You would expect that a global flood happening over the course of less than a year to deposit on animals in a single layer, rather than in multiple layers. In addition, you would think the radiometric dating would reveal all fossils to be of the same age, and it does not place them even remotely close in age.
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 No evolution by natural selection does not validate atheism, I agree. It just provides a natural mechanism by which organisms can change over time and removes the need for god to intervene in every step. It may, to some extent, negate certain stories in the Bible, such as the flood, the ark, the creation story, but it does not remove god altogether from the picture.
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 There is far more proof than fossils. We also have mounds of genetic information to support the theory that we once shared a common ancestor with the great apes. God or no god, evolution can be true either way.
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234
7. Prediction that fossil record will have different populations of creatures in different strata that do not overlap.
8. Animals on distant islands will resemble those on the mainland, with more distant islands showing more distant relationship than closer islands.
9. The hierarchical arrangement of relatedness
10. That humans have an intermaxillary bone.
10 is a nice round number, so that should be adequate. Those are just some of the predictions made an confirmed.
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 Predictions made by evolution and later confirmed by observation:
1. Prediction of precambrian fossils by Darwin.
2. Prediction of precursors to trilobite in pre-Silurian rocks by Darwin.
3. Prediction of transitional whale with both teeth and baleen.
4. Prediction of independent evolution of similar structures.
5. Prediction of fossil with ear bones as part of its jaw.
6. Prediction that humans descended from animals that could produce vit. C
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 Evolution does not have anything to say about god and is not incompatible with god. It is simply the way that species arise here on earth, nothing more nothing less.
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 Scavengers don't eat amber, which is just crystalized tree sap. Carbonization is a less common form of fossilization by which only carbon is left behind as shale or some other coal-like substance. Dessication occurs when organisms are trapped in rocks and other substances and are able to dry out slowly over time. Mummification is another word for it. Freezing is fairly common in the fossil world. Tar preservation is definitely rare, but does happen.
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 I am afraid that is not true. Evolutionary biologists do not distinguish between micro and macro evolution. It is a false dichotomy.
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 We must also remember that evolution (the idea that things change with time) is a fact. The theory is about how those things change and the theory that has prevailed is the theory of evolution by natural selection put forth by Darwin. In not only encompassed all known facts at the time, but was also successfully applied to all new evidence that came after its inception without being changed. This is what makes a good theory in science.
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 This is not a good approximation of a theory. A theory is an explanation of what is that makes predictions about what will be. In other words, a theory must not only explain what we already know, it must be able to make predictions about future evidence. If it accurately predicts future experimental evidence, the theory is supported. If it does not, the theory is rejected. So far, evolution has correctly predicted all experimental results as well as other findings in nature.
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 Fossils form in different ways.
1. Quick burial with no scavengers eating the remains followed by permineralization (bone mineral replacement with other minerals).
2. Unaltered preservation - such as amber
3. Carbonization
4. Dessication
5. Freezing.
6. Tar preservation
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 Microevolution is not a concept supported by science. Micro and macroevolution as defined by creationists are the same process and are treated as the same thing in science. Splitting them up is to misunderstand the science and to create a dilemma where one does not exist.
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
I think there is a bit of an error here. It seems to me that the two questions Dr. Craig asks are not the same. It seems that what he should have said was "What is the probability that someone would say that the resurrection took place or that the saw Jesus after his death?" To me, that is the appropriate corollary to his first analogy and the answer seems to be quite high. Based on his earlier statements, this would not be enough to offset the low probability of the resurrection.
MegaUltimateTruth 1 year ago
Does anyone else get tired of sheer ignorance? The kind of ignorance that makes you feel stupider for simply having been exposed to it... How do I deal with it?
part of me is saying stick and stones, while the other is disgusted that these people are allowed to spread their intellectual poison, it a crime against humanity.
Amarkcalledme 1 year ago
@Amarkcalledme "disgusted that these people are allowed to spread their intellectual poison, it a crime against humanity."
How arrogant of you to say that. Since when is philosophy or simply thinking or debating topics that concern everyone a crime to humanity? If you think he's wrong on something point out what, don't throw insults... that should be the real crime.
130adi 1 year ago
@130adi
This guy is using manipulative language, his first criticism of David Humes's suggestion that extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence is a play on a number of complicated ideas. First of all he is removing the context of religion, secondly, people of faith don't require logic, hence faith. he is also denying the possibility of dramatic alternative, but similar thesis's, the possibilities of which are infinite, in accordance to the limits of imagination. abuse of logic 101.
Amarkcalledme 1 year ago
@Amarkcalledme now, by dramatic alternatives I mean that the imagination can procure any number of fanciful ideas. the fact that they can be created, and in turn given the magic ability to defy logic is, by no means, a good reason to entertain them.
The ability to understand complicated philosophical concepts, as this person does, does not warrant the ability to find a logical conclusion through them.
logic is an important tool for dissecting ideas, one should be wary when it is threatened.
Amarkcalledme 1 year ago
@Amarkcalledme in conclusion, you cannot simply appropriate logic to suit your needs.
accepting a abstracted concept that is reasonably sound under scrutiny, that supports your ideas, but denying all those other perfectly sound concepts that hold up to scrutiny like a diamond under hammer, is, as I was saying "intellectual poison, and a crime against humanity"
Amarkcalledme 1 year ago
@130adi So there you go, well over 1,000 words explaining why I feel the way I do, I hardly felt it was necessary to elaborate but it seems that nobody can think for themselves these days.
Amarkcalledme 1 year ago
epic fail. there is 100% chance that SOMEONE will win the lottery. the chance of any one individual in particular winning the lottery is very slim but the chance that someone will win the lottery is 100%. he fails on the fine-tuning as well, but, for that anyone can just check out Das AA's video on fine-tuning. Carl Sagan and David Hume were great human beings who contributed a great amount to society. WLC is using the same old arguments with more charisma and has contributed dirt to society.
daveoftheweek 1 year ago 5
@daveoftheweek You're a moron. First of all, not everyone wins the lottery. Second of all, even atheists have since refuted David Hume's argument on miracles and have agreed that it begs the question. Third of all, Carl Sagan is not a philosopher but a scientist. And quite frankly, he sucks as a thinker. Your comment contributed nothing to anyone because you're brainless.
drcraigvideos 1 year ago