Did u notice how Craig calls Atkins view as."radical" while atkins keeps referencing Craig's belief in God is "stupid", "lazy", "elementery"...and more..
For Craig to say that speculating parallel universes is no better than speculating god is absolutely false.... the difference is, that we can logically speculate other universes, because we ourselves are already in one, we know as a matter of fact, that at least one already exists.... nothing like this could be said of the God concept.
"Dr. Atkins, says nothing exists." Lane Craig relies on confusion. Atkins did NOT say nothing exists. He cherry picks phrases to pretend he has knowledge he does not have.
@daleshankins that is in fact exactly what atkins said. It is atkins that is relying on confusion. His blotchy, overstated rant about charges was nothing short of ridiculous. Even if you write down and study what atkins said it makes no sense. It is merely the argument of a man who has been beaten into a corner.
@greekmanos "we do see something created out of nothing in many quantum mechanics"
The quantum field is energy (i.e. something) so previously non existing materials do not come out of it and mechanics implies a mechanic. I am also dying to hear these refutations you speak of. I've poured through tons. I've never seen a truly convincing argument against Craigs.
@Falcondick69 a debt does not imply existence of money. The money you really posses is what is left after you pay your obligations/debt. Ignore this and you run in to a crisis. You don't own the house until you have paid back the mortgage. We do often say though this is my house, which is wrong. The existence of a debt alone doesn't prove anything and it has nothing to do with cosmology, energy or quantum physics. Bad analogies
@greekmanos you didn't listen to him. the analogy was "if i have debt that is X and money that is Y and X=Y it doesn not mean that X and Y do not exist" so if i have 100 dollars in the bank and i owe 100$ it doesn't mean the 100$ i have no longer exists. honestly now under the view atkins gave atoms don't exist because the electron/protron ratio cancel eachother out.
@Falcondick69 I don't know if you guys can see the twist of Atkins arguments by Craig. The existence of the universe is not denied. When Atkins says rearrangement of nothing doesn't mean the denial of existence of the opposite counterparts. 100 dollars credit and 100 debt sums up to a zero balance. Yes it doesn't deny that money or debt exist as notions. Craig creates strawmen by misquoting his debaters. Intellectual honesty is not your field Craig...
@Theophilus823543 you're fighting with ghosts I'm afraid, or strawmen just like Craig. When Atkins says "there's nothing here", it can't be any more obvious that he's simply working against a false simplistic intuition, as any serious scientist would do, in an attempt to point out that all that stuff that we believe is so great, is a mere product and a rearrangement of nothing. Of course Craig would easily exploit this; he's an expert in demagogy.
@greekmanos Directly quoting someone in appropriate context constitutes the exact opposite of a strawman. I assume the "false simplistic intuition" to which you refer is that of "ex nihilo nihil fit." Considering that the entire body of emperiometric science is based upon this assumption (that nothing can come from nothing), it seems inappropriate to refer to this as a "false" without undermining virtually every piece of inductive knowledge that "serious science" possesses.
@Theophilus823543 well in fact you quoted someone exactly out of context my friend. If really Atkins would try to suggest what you say, he'd be a fool. I think for anyone with a bit of sense this is obvious. Maybe you need to update your science background. In quantum physics they observe photons popping out of nothing all the time. What you say is false. This assumption doesn't exist. Maybe you should go and read what are the preconditions of a scientific body of work.
@greekmanos If I am quoting out of context, I invite you to enlighten me as to the proper context. As a bachelor of physics and chemistry, I am quite familiar with the intricacies of quantum physics, and I am also quite familiar with the fact that no one has ever observed a photon coming out of nothing. Until the 1800s, biologists believed in spontaneous generation of organisms because they had no evidence of microbes. Something appearing to come from nothing does not make it so.
@Theophilus823543 picking one of the possible interpretations of a specific phrase is equal to out of context quoting. Atkins would be silly to literally mean that the universe or our planet IS nothing. The context is the re-arrangement of nothing. Not that me or you are nothing. If you explain me the difference then between nothing and vacuum (the best nothing we can have in laboratory), maybe you can doubt about the validity of the Casimir effect findings. Photons do pop out of nothing.
@greekmanos If he does not literally mean the universe is nothing, then it is silly of him to say "there is truly nothing here." Furthermore, "re-arrangement of nothing" is a completely meaningless concept, since SOMEthing would have to dictate how the NOthing was rearranged. Regarding Casimir effect, photons seem to pop out of quantized space-time, which is hardly nothing. Laboratories cannot identify "nothing" and therefore cannot verify something coming from nothing.
@Theophilus823543 I think you come slowly to the very point. Nothing is a philosophical concept. The best nothing you observe in a lab is the vacuum, where things pop out spontaneously without a cause. Complex numbers, Riemannian space or hyperbolic geometry are founded upon counter-intuitive assumptions, and yet they work. Saying "we all know..." as Craig often does, is not even an argument. Ask a farmer about quantum mechanics then... he knows photons do not pop out of vacuum...
@greekmanos You come to the very point that I made from the start, that "nothing" is a philosophical concept (and is therefore, not identical to "zero," "masslessness," "vacuum," etc.). "The best nothing" is as meaningless a statement as "rearrangement of nothing," as such things are still not nothing. It seems you take your turn to create a strawman, as Craig is appealing to self-evident ("we all know") logical axioms such as the law of causality, not a farmer's physics background.
@Theophilus823543 therefore talking about something we cannot observe is unscientific. Statements like "nothing" and "ether" have been binned by science long time ago. No need to create "arguments" out of "nothing" :-) You may know that Riemannian and hyperbolic geometry rely on the denial of a simple intuitive axiom. That from one point outside a line there's only one parallel to this line that passes through this point. In fact there are no self-evident axioms...
@greekmanos If "nothing" has been binned by science, then Dr. Atkins and you have no reason to use them in the context of a scientific discussion at all. Of course, non-Euclidean geometry is based upon that one intuitive axiom. However, that axiom is intuitive AND correct, in the context of planar geometry, which does not invalidate the axiom. If one was working on an ellipse or hyperbola, one would see "evidently" that that axiom would not apply in those settings.
@Theophilus823543 I don't remember Atkins pointing to any study dealing with "nothing". Obviously another issue is that Craig's nothing may be far away from how science sees nothing. Therefore I don't understand how someone can quote and abuse science so hard. Well according to your statement it may be true that in this universe nothing is created out of nothing, and then if we are in a universe created out of nothing that this intuitive axiom is untrue. This could be our universe though :-)
@greekmanos You hit the nail on the head. Craig's "nothing" is FAR from how someone like you sees nothing. He approaches from a supernaturalist philosopher's standpoint, and never claims to use science as a major support for his argument. Atkins, who believes science can account for everything, does indeed abuse science hard, pulling data out of the realm of science and attempting to use it in the realm of philosophy and rhetoric.
@Theophilus823543 See I've tried to have a serious look at Craig's line of arguments, however I just see pseudo-science instead of science and demagogy instead of rhetoric. He uses pseudo-science all the time. Most of the times the science he cites (with confidence I must admit) to give a reasonable foundation in his viewpoint, is obsolete, debunked etc. Pretty much most of the studies of the discovery institute are pseudo-science. Can a farmer see the difference? probably not...
@Theophilus823543 by the way I just remembered your previous comment about the casimir effect. IS quantised time-space "something" ? because this is what you implied and it made me laugh out loud :-) so assuming an entity to be discrete or in quanta makes it something? is this what you imply? And how you define vacuum? It's not the "best nothing" we can get, it is the only one we have :-) have a good day
@greekmanos It is not the quantization that makes it something. It is by virtue of being space-time. Do you find it laughable that space-time changes, contracts, and expands in the presence of mass as described in general relativity theory? It is contradictory to say that "nothing" can bend around large masses or that "nothing" can have any kind of geometry at all. Again, calling it the "best nothing" or the "only nothing" is meaningless, because it is something. Good day, my friend.
@Theophilus823543 you just might be able to understand that expansion of time is not the same as expansion of a ball. Bending of time might not be the same as bending a ruler. In science we use models, far too simplistic to capture what is really happening in nature. The vacuum has no mass my dear friend. Yet we observe photons popping out of it. Observing it as a continuous or a discrete phenomenon has nothing to do with the reality of it.
@greekmanos I never said space-time behaves like a ball or a ruler. But it BEHAVES, and "nothing" cannot behave at all. Vacuum, light, energy, force, electric and magnetic fields, gravity, space, time, all these do not have mass. Therefore, by your defintion, they do not exist either. If this is what our discussion has come to, then I believe we must accept our mutually exclusive axioms and call it a day. You may have the last word. May you be guided in your search for Truth.
@Theophilus823543 space-time is pretty different from energy or light. I like thinking of it as the frame of the picture, which is pretty much definition dependent as well. Although 3-d space may be straightforward to conceive, 11-d space isn't. And time, modern theories have discarded the notion of "beginning of time". Space-time cannot enter the debate of something-nothing. While you can send me a certain amount of energy, light, force etc, you can't deliver me 2 kilos of space or time :-)
@CloverfieldMonster95 they have all been refuted. Craig is just a professional debater, he will go on and on using his full time with confidence. When scientists say that indeed we do see something created out of nothing in many quantum mechanics, he will say "we all know that nothing comes from nothing". Is this even an argument? He doesn't understand science
@greekmanos And yet all the top atheists were given a chance and could not refute them all. Some of them were able to refute an argument or two, but never all of them. Craig has the same argument every single time. If the atheists had the answers, they could pick him apart easily. You know exactly what you are walking into every single time.
@jbourg333 All of them have been refuted. When you have a debate the issue becomes "his word against mine". The reality is Craig can't talk about quantum mechanics, he is not a natural scientist. His assertion "we all know that nothing can be created out of nothing" is in fact a lie. He's of course a professional debater, he will use his full time to deliver his dishonesty, pocket the money and go home. The evangelist supporters will also feel another victory was obtained.
@greekmanos Can you please point me in the direction of where I can find all of them refuted? I've watched every one of the debates here on youtube. I'm not religious, but I still think that it might be possible for a god to exist. I feel the only intellectually honest answer is "We don't know". So if you can provide me with some evidence to refute his statements, I'd greatly appreciate it.
I'm just trying to look at it from all possible angles.
@jbourg333 "We don't know" is the honest answer about what created the universe. I'm saying "what" simply because the "prime mover" issue doesn't presuppose a personal creator. Craig's arguments (Kalam, moral etc) are all refuted. I refuted the moral one myself in 5 mins. Craig says "nothing is created out of nothing", so I point you to the casimir effect for example. Photons popping out of vacuum (the best scientific nothing we can observe). This box is too small to talk about everything
Craig always offers the same bit about his opposition needing to argue that a god does not exist (like he makes the rules), even when Atkins specified he was not arguing as such. Craig aslo treats atheist and agnostic as mutually exclusively terms, refusing to acknowledge the weak atheist position and agnosticism outside the existential god issue. He uses labels and cherry picks their definitions to claim victory on straw men. Further, comparitive plausibility doesn't merit belief.
@urcorrect He has to argue as such because Atkins is an atheist, not an agnostic. Craig provided a quote from Kai Nielsen to back up his assertion that it's not enough to just refute arguments for God's existence.
"To show that an argument is invalid or unsound is not to show that the conclusion of the argument is false....All the proofs of God’s existence may fail, but it still may be the case that God exists."
@Drgamedood Agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive terms. It's absurd to expect one to argue against a god of the gaps. Atkins in fact stated this, which is an admission of agnosticism with respect to the subject, making him an agnostic (negative/weak) atheist. Craig's assertion about how Atkins must proceed is completely irrelevant anyway, because it does not support his own position, and he hasn't the right to moderate from the affirmative. Btw, see argumentum ad verecundiam.
I don't think so. The majority of atheists come to the decision through their own logic and intelligence.
I remember rejecting this biblical crap whilst still a young kid at school. Incidentally so did all of my friends...we are now all 'captains of industry' so to speak, so maybe the two are correlated.
As a side note, the only two guys I know who are ardent believers, grew up in strict religious households. Indoctrination seems the only way this disease perpetuates
Craig, do you have evidence of multiverses that are probable to permit life? Also the only reason we are able to live on this earth is because we adapted to it, it wasn't made for us.
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
@davewatcher God does not play your childish science games; in fact you are doing the same fariseists in Jesus times, asking a signal to believe (so self centered). Let's better say that if you don`t show a plausible example of evolution ocurring nowadays, evolution doesn't exist.
"A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign, and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonah." And He left them and departed."
remember in the simpsons lisa makes genesis tub,she watches over them and then says they are evolving so fast.lisa was still the creator tho and lol bart was the devil.that was some funy shit "the devil is your brother" well they thought bart was the devil.lol and then they start asking "why do you allow bad things to happen to good people"
It is silly, futile to believe in existence of G/d, an entity that now is punishing people and now is rewarding them. Nature and people are the most powerful elements of this wonderful life. No ned to prove anything at all. You only need common sense and freedom to think.
"you don't need to prove anything you just need common sense"
Common sense in my opinion is that you should try to validate anything that you can. Atkins was never able to refute and show that anything Craig said was illogical. If I were to go by just the arguements presentented there it would be the obvious choice to be a theist because the athiest looks like a fool. So common sense says that god exist because there isn't suffiecient evidence against. If evidence that absolutly..
@adamsochLA destroys the idea of their being a god then that should be the truth but so far as I can see athiest stupidly rely on the fact that there will eventually be evidence.
@derth4 A god can NOT exist, period. It is futile, comic and ridiculous. What exists is you, me, them & our actions. Does not matter how we got here or why? We are too small of the puzzle in this enormous universe. We people invented god. Why would anyone belibe in something was invented so many thousands of years ago. Religion, in the name of god is the most violent, evil and destructive institution on the face of the earth. It serves only the poor, uneducated and feeble.
ha someone has issues. You clearly know nothing about religion and as far as I can see athiest have yet to actually dissprove god let alone validate athiesm.
@derth4 You certainly do not know that I've grew up in the church, read the Bible, believed in god for the first 20 years of my life and than saw the light: Reason. I become a humanist. Even if I am an atheist, I still study world religions out of curiosity. Most thinkers and intelligent people are non believers. WLC is a smart opportunist. If you need god in your life, dear friend, go for it. I certainly do not need god or superman or Ironman, I manage just fine without them
most? I disagree. You cleary understand nothing about metaphysics and all philosophy for that matter. Atkins believes in materalism. That the universe sprang from nothing. That is illogical as everybody with an IQ of at least ten knows that a sandwhich cannot make another sandwhich no matter how much he wills it and wants it. Science has outstripped its own boundries and has become itself a form of mystesism. Based entirely of the belief that proof will inevtiably arise.
When faced with the options to believe in nothing (athiesm) which believes the universe is irational (which makes science self defeating) and theism (and christianity by extention) which belives the unvierse is rational (thus making science and philosophy prime methods of validating of our beliefs) I would jump wihout question at the obvious answer which theism. Any two-bit hillbilly knows that non-matter cannot create matter because then the non-matter must have quatlities...
@derth4 You should NEVER say "atheist believe in nothing". It is wrong. You are not ONE so you do not know. I believe in PEOPLE, in KINDNESS, in GOOD, in NATURE in HUMANITY and mostly I believe in myself. Why can't you get that? Here is the difference between me and religious people, they say: there is an invisible man who never shows himself and is living in the sky who made everything, very simple. I believe in what you read earlier. There is a huge difference.
@derth4 Well, YOU talk about HIM, I do not, but have you seen him, actually see him? of course not. so, invisible.... inexistent but in your imagination. Next you will tell me, this invisible man is talking to you. That is called delusion in my opinion.
@adamsochLA Can you see the wind? No, but you can see its effects.I tried to induldge what Atkins stated, but he was correct when he said in part 3,that I would be dissapointed.I respect your right to choose to not believe in a God. I think you do believe in something, just as you said you did.Atkins seems to, by his own reasoning, reduce us all to nothing,which at the very least would be in conflict with your own perspective, because you seem to recognize that we do have value, and thats good.
@WrknClssHero --Everyone believes in something, BUT NOT EVERYONE believes in GOD. Your Christian God. there are 7 billion people in the world. Countless religions and beliefs. My values are human, down to earth, real values. I do not conduct my life out of FEAR, as christians do, or for eternal reward in heaven, as christians do. I am good for goodness sake, not for an imaginary God. I believe in people, art and nature. No need for untouchable Jesus as long as I have people i can touch.
@adamsochLA I know thousands of Christians & none of them live out of fear,so try not to generalize me & I will offer you the same courtesy. I understand your values, and they're are self-defined and no less real than my own, for that very reason. We are all trying to persue truth so lets understand that some of these perceptions are in fact relative to the inividual and thats fine. Just remember that the "goodness" you speak of can have varying definitions among all people including athiests.
@WrknClssHero You know thousands? Only? Out of Billions of GOD FEARING christians? Muslims, woman especially live in FEAR, I lived with fear when I was religious. If you are an exception, good for you but it is a drop in an ocean. Punishment in HELL is real for most religious people. Again, I AM GOOD, not for a reword or because someone is watching me from above. Unlike billions of christians. of course, You are an exception. Do not get offended.
@adamsochLA Listen, I know you dont actually know BILLIONS of christians.Lets start from what you do know.You should not have been led to believe that you need live in fear as a person of faith(when you were of faith).That was wrong, and unbiblical if I may say.That said, the earth is filled with people with flaws & inevitably they find themselves into all areas of philosophy, science AND religion.I appeciate that you can dialog about this so openly & friendly.Maybe this can go someplace good.
@adamsochLA of matter thus making the non-matter actually a form of matter. Atkins' reason for why the universe exists is that the universe exists. That is his arguement. Particles floated around until they collided making the big band. That gives no explanation for where the universe came from. He can only say that the reason we came into being doesn't matter. Thus making him in all intesive purposes a buddhist.
also how we got here is important because if the universe is rational then finding how we came to be then it should be a scientific and philisophical priotrity. It's funny to see an athiest say that science isn't important because we just exist and that is all that matters. So that is the equivalent of "please don't ask questions. we don't know anything just believe in us no matter how futile and irational what we say. Please religous people will burn you alive ---- beg beg beg"
Hats of to Dr. Lane! He made mush of Atkins! Dr. Atkins is honest in what he understands and dishonest in what he does not. He is not fit for his office of scientist!
For the 3rd and last time) Evolutionary sciences are still limited, we know it, they know it.
However, I'm pretty sure it will have some small revolutions of its own in the future, maybe in a way of discovering "feedback mechanisms", which allow the influence of remote information transfered into the genes, as certain thought processes are known to influence the brain structure.
Even that would well within the boundaries of evolution and nothing of a hint to any "god designer".
Don't let grammar fool you. Evolution itself requires noone to witness or to believe in it. It exists, irregardless of our observations of it.
What we put faith in, is the science which observes it, its methodology, its intellectual capacity and honesty to deliver the best descriptions and explanations.
And in opposite to putting faith into explanations of the supernatural, it is REASONABLE to put faith into science, because every single aspect of it is transparent and examinable.
I have no clue what you're talking about. I lay open every single one of my thoughts with the corresponding background. You don't ... get on par with me or get lost.
Is it so hard to think that a single "piece" of the universal potential can develop a complexity of its own, while still being in the boundaries of the universe's potential complexity ?
When I see pollen carried away by the wind, all I can see is a single rather simple object, which eventually will turn into a field of beautiful flowers in the future.
I see nothing in this universe which is more complex than the universe itself (or could be).
Well, I'm not a scientist, but what I do know is that, cells can be used in many different ways, even between different species, when their DNA is replaced. And even stem cells with the same DNA can develop into many different succeeding cells.
I seriously can't see your "basic" problem with evolution, maybe you can elaborate on that. (I just don't hope this is going towards "intelligent design" ???).
this amoeba gets to go to heaven :). primates may have a lot similar to us but when they dont get to. Jokes on you everything else in the universe, it was all about some humans going to school to know rapes bad before they get head of the class and get to go to heaven.
(1) I would replace "greater" with "more complex". That's pretty much all. If we describe it as "greater", we really mean "its complexity is a bigger cognitive challenge for us".
We appreciate cognitive challenges, because we know how they ultimately affect us : They make us better.
(2) Why would humans be "greater" than the universe ? Because we have a rough idea of its attributes ?
(3) The beginning of life seems to be a bit similar to the beginning of the universe... We can trace them both back to a point where we have to admit, that our sciences are terribly bad at reconstructing one time phenomena.
If life was created every day in front of our eyes or if we could witness the birth of universes more often, its origins would become accessible to us. Since that doesn't happen, we're left with very good guesses, until we get more information and can re-evaluate.
Why do you say that? Throughout the "animal kingdom", we can witness different states of complexity and also of consciousness. Our closest "relatives" among the apes certainly have a level of consciousness that is comparatively similar to our own. We've been just lucky enough to develop bigger and better brains, since we changed our ways of food intake.
Maybe you make the same mistake I made before: To accept the nonsensical biologist statement, that evolution doesn't know principles like "purpose" aka "goal orientation", because it's obvious it exists as a method of decision making among all complex living beings and is therefor certainly rooted in our genes.
And just because the scientific view of evolution is still limited (as I mentioned before), it doesn't mean that evolution is no appropriate explanation.
Regarding the existence of the universe: It may exist despite of our ratio, but are we really allowed to say that ?
We are so limited in our linear perception of reality, that we can't really cope with the most simple "riddles" like dark matter. It's easily possible that the universe is so much richer, so much more active, so much more different and maybe non-unique without us ever being able to witness it.
Who are we to attest the universe its existence, when we haven't really got the slightest idea of how much we might miss due to our limitations?
It's like a man who is locked up in a dark room since he was born, stating that an outside world exists, because the walls of his room keep him from going there. He may or may not be right, but he still knows nothing.
The only "leap of faith" I could accept is the one, that humbly stands down from its intention to insert a "god of explanations" (not to mention the idiotic "god of the gaps") into this world.
You might be surprised how close I come to the views of some people like Father George Coyne (whose interview with Richard Dawkins is also available on youtube), but it doesn't make me a believer.
It may be right to question the origin of thought and instances of it (purpose,reason,emotion etc.) but I don't see how these could possible defy the "evolutionary code".
I cannot see anything we humans are capable of, that is not enclosed in the structures of our very brains and there are 2 hard facts to support this view: (1) The capabilities of the human mind have evolved along the evolution of the brain and (2) The capabilities of the mind strongly differ among individuals.
What you see as as reason, ambition etc. and do with it, might be trivial to one, or an impossible burden to another individual.
So why would I think that instances of thought are remote, absolute or outside of strictly evolutionary terms?
The only question which bothers me is : Will the human mind ever be complex enough to decipher itself completely ? Unfortunately, my own brain isn't capable of giving a definite answer to that. Our great grandchildren will have a different answer to that.
Btw: Your first "reply" didn't meet the most simple requirements of a discourse : to layout one's thoughts in a way that is accessible to others. I'm not trying to hide or shut up anyone, but I do require people to approach me in a way that I can reasonably react to. That wasn't the case with your first statement, glad to see you changed that.
Listen to Atkins again and you will find he IS INDEED a fence sitter. He knows that he cannot, and therefor doesn't even try, to disprove the existance of god; for the reasons he gave (and I quoted him on that).
His whole argumentation is based on a different idea : You don't NEED god in order to explain ANYTHING.
And that is a perfectly legitimate standpoint, because since god is simply left out of the picture, no explanation,description or proof of god is required in any way.
It might be valuable to remind yourself of a few things:
The idea of "god" is only accessible to anyone of us through metaphysical exploration, since god is not available on a examniable physical, empirical level.
If religious people are serious about the attributes they assign to this entity ("omnipotence", "outside of this world","exists forever" etc), one huge semantic problem occurs: This entity would not be governed by -anything- we can reason.
Such an entity could "act" against anything which could be predicted by any laws, may they be physical or logical. It could exist and inexist, create and destroy, make appear and fool, simply do ANYTHING by sheer will power. This universe could be 5 minutes old, all "evidence" in the universe could be staged and our memories could be a simple "injection" to fool us about simply everything.
By inserting an omnipotent entity, you destroy the very basis on which our rationality works.
And that's the reason why I find WLC's whole approach so inferior:
He assigns certain attributes (intention & method) to this entity in the way it is supposed to have created this universe, WITHOUT saying WHY this entity is supposed to act this way and HOW he KNOWS that.
I take his approach to be deeply inconsistent and therefor dishonest.
I mean, there's lots of babble going on on youtube, but reciting Wikipedia is THE WORST possible idea for trying to approach this historically rich and loaded issue.
A dogmatic agnostic like myself is indeed a fence sitter, not because I cannot decide for one side to jump down to, but because of something that Atkins cited with very much insight:
"The perception of god overwhelms any rational argument, for an omnipotent entity is the ultimate chameleon."
In consequence of that, any rational approach to approve or disprove "god" is ultimately impotent and therefor meaningless. It is indeed an intellectual void with no possible outcome.
A lot of atheists I have met on youtube take great exception to someone describing atheism as a position. Atheism they say is merely a lack of belief in God. They don't say for certain there is no God, but do not accept belief in God because there is, as they see it, no sufficent evidence to warrant belief. Therefore they call themselves "weak atheists" or "agnostic atheists" as opposed to strong atheists (gnostic atheists) who say there is definately no God.
*UHUM* The opposite is the case. Most youtube self proclaimed artists do claim, that this would be the ONLY (!) real existing atheism there is. In reality however, there is a topology of different atheistic approaches, most of them COMPLETELY unknown to these youtube atheists.
@UnitedFan16 So let me ask you this. You had to choose between two beans: one poisonous, one not, but you don't know which one is poisonous. One bean has a chart showing a number of deaths after ingesting the bean, but this does not prove that the bean caused the death of the victims. The premise is that one bean is poisonous. Would you not choose the other bean? According to your argument, it shouldn't be fair, for you, to choose the bean that is most probable in not killing you?
@UnitedFan16 You imply that it is unfair for the audience to choose an argument because one argument, atheism, cannot be proven- yet, God's existence cannot be proven, thus creating a fair grounds for argument. It is understood that science, process of logic and other phenomena inclusive, simply points to a truth, but often fails to prove it. (character limit, continued on next post)
@UnitedFan16 To add onto my previous statement, you are in your own right to continue on with an argument, and I assure you I will read it, but I will not reply, as stated in my previous comment.
@UnitedFan16 Exactly, but that is not the debate, which is why William Lane Craig is in no wrong. Secondly as you have stated Agnostic Atheist, which means he turns more towards atheism than theism. Which would give reason for Craig's statement, if he were just agnostic the situation would change, and Craig would be faulty in saying what he did. I think we ought not go on with this, who are we to defend or attack two people who are not even here to defend themselves?
@UnitedFan16 The matter of the debate is the EVIDENCE for and AGAINST God...If it were different then I would agree with you. Also I am well aware of Peter W. Atkins is an agnostic atheist, and I highly doubt it came to William Lane Craig that anyone would be ignorant of the fact, it rarely does when someone is sure about something, you automatically assume that other people are or ought to be aware of it. (and in this case it would be right to assume that they ought to be aware.)
One gets real tired of listening to Craig rattle on with his same prescribed arguments, presented in the exact same sequence over and over without ever really responding to the good questions. BORING!!
@UnitedFan16 As stated the question they were dealing with is the evidence for and against God. So Atkins had accepted the debate full well knowing his seat, and as I remember Atkins stated that he believed there was no evidence because there is nothing that exists, and then seems to ignore Craig's evidence for God. So Craig did nothing of the sort, he merely pointed out Atkins fallacies. Which is not 'appealing' to the audiences ignorance.
@UnitedFan16 What William Lane Craig is stating and trying to get Atkins to realize is that atheism is unprovable, and then goes to show that there is more evidence for the existence of God then there is for the non-existence of God. Which, from what I've seen out of these, Atkins is refusing to note that atheism is a more foolish seat to hold than he assumes theism is. And that all Atkins can attempt to prove is agnosticism, which Craig also logically argues against.
William doesn't believe in parallel universes so then what do you call heaven or hell they would have to be in a parallel universe of some kind thats a contradiction in his belief i think but i could be wrong.
It is because our approach to the subject as an object is wrong. God is the subject, not the object. Attempting to objectify God is an absurdity. You'll never find the divine in an argument. You can only come "across" the divine when you are not.Our fabricated sense of self is what blocks the entrance of our true nature which transcends all objectified data.Its really that simple.
That puzzle solving brain is an obvious needed tool in a world that rewards ingenuity, however, when it comes to the intangible, that same left brained thinking becomes less & less applicable. It becomes like a closed fist unable to grasp water, & ultimately dying of thirst.a fist is applicable when it comes to fighting, not drinking water. consequently, God will continue to elude, not however, Because God, or higher consciousness is evasive.
Man is basically applying that same hominid brain that helped weave him thru the dark ages into a much richer, vaster, tapestry of the universe & his place in it. The same reasoning brain, great for conceptualizing & construction of societies, of tools harnessed first by homo erectus, to the sophisticated devices & amenities of todays world, are products of developing brains that were needed to elevate man above the primal carnage taking place around him.
Man continually attempts to understand, to decode, to decipher. That is simply human nature, a direct result of our hominid brains. Reasoning & the application of ideas is what brought us out of the dark caves & predator filled jungles. This is why man is so adamant that he know everything there is to know, that no rock be left unturned, even when it comes to the inexplicable. Its like a facet that can't be turned off. How could all things begin from nothing? From purposeless to purposeful?
You're not responding to what I'm talking about (logical proofs for god's existence). Listen very closely to the first 30 seconds of what Craig says. The burden of proof is on Craig. He must provide independent evidence to support his argument for god, which he doesn't. All P.A has to do is show there isn't any evidence or a lack of evidence supporting the belief in the the existence of god. Finally, I don't say anything about W.C argument from experience. Read my arguments below if interested
Craig should try to understand one concept: Not being able to disprove god is not a positive argument for god's existence. The entire edifice of his deductively valid arguments rests on two fallacies: he disguises speculation as a logical proof. The problem is that their isn't any evidence confirming his speculations. Second: his arguments appear sound because speculation can not be proven to be false. Notice in all his debates he has the same response to a variety of attacks and it gets boring.
@l1a2b He does understand that. Not once does he say "Atkins has not showed any proof for Atheism, therefore God still probably exists" He says "Since I have had experiences of things which seemed very much to me to be of God, and Since Atkins has showed me no reason to believe God Does not exist, then I am justified in believing that those experiences were most likely of God, which would require God to exist" its an inductive argument... but he supplies other deductive arguments as well.
Where did Craig ever get the idea that you have to be able to disprove god in order to be an atheist. "I do not believe in god". Does that not constitute atheism. Also, the proposition, "God exits" can neither be verified nor falsified; so in the realm of objective knowledge, the proposition is a meaningless one. David Hume: "Only believe a miracle if it would be more miraculous to not believe it; if that's not the case then the rational explanation is always more plausible". Common sense.
Dr. Craig states: He didn't prove God doesn't exist. Well I believe he stated that he can't prove god doesn't exist. He argues god is not a necessary component to explain natural phenomena. In other words, if phenomena can be explained and understood without reference to god then god is not necessary to our knowledge and understanding of how thing are;as a result, implying god is superfluous. Notice Craig does not respond to this dimension of P.A's argument. Craig simply repeats his arguments.
Craig is so articulate. More so then even Ravi Zacharias, its scary. And Ravi is in the audience.
Even 15 years later he still explains himself better then most of the veterans in apologetics.
agreatflood2121 1 day ago
Did u notice how Craig calls Atkins view as."radical" while atkins keeps referencing Craig's belief in God is "stupid", "lazy", "elementery"...and more..
KoBred1 1 week ago
to all craig fans "stop pretending to be aware of science please". Thank you :-)
greekmanos 3 weeks ago
@greekmanos Haha at least he makes it easy for us to understand.
MrLinkinparkrules 1 week ago
For Craig to say that speculating parallel universes is no better than speculating god is absolutely false.... the difference is, that we can logically speculate other universes, because we ourselves are already in one, we know as a matter of fact, that at least one already exists.... nothing like this could be said of the God concept.
hawkinscraig05 4 weeks ago
Ohhhhhhhh, Whooooo! That was HOOOTTT! Craig flat out REFUTED.......Mr. Atkins.
Purity03 1 month ago
"Dr. Atkins, says nothing exists." Lane Craig relies on confusion. Atkins did NOT say nothing exists. He cherry picks phrases to pretend he has knowledge he does not have.
daleshankins 1 month ago
@daleshankins that is in fact exactly what atkins said. It is atkins that is relying on confusion. His blotchy, overstated rant about charges was nothing short of ridiculous. Even if you write down and study what atkins said it makes no sense. It is merely the argument of a man who has been beaten into a corner.
211bEanS112 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@greekmanos "we do see something created out of nothing in many quantum mechanics"
The quantum field is energy (i.e. something) so previously non existing materials do not come out of it and mechanics implies a mechanic. I am also dying to hear these refutations you speak of. I've poured through tons. I've never seen a truly convincing argument against Craigs.
CloverfieldMonster95 2 months ago
Yes bill if you owe me 1 million dollars and you have 1 million dollars in your bank, you own no money. Work on your logic please
greekmanos 2 months ago
@greekmanos that doesnt make sense....so if you owe 1m dollars and you have 1m dollars it doesn't mean that the money and th e debt doesn't exist
Falcondick69 2 months ago
@Falcondick69 a debt does not imply existence of money. The money you really posses is what is left after you pay your obligations/debt. Ignore this and you run in to a crisis. You don't own the house until you have paid back the mortgage. We do often say though this is my house, which is wrong. The existence of a debt alone doesn't prove anything and it has nothing to do with cosmology, energy or quantum physics. Bad analogies
greekmanos 2 months ago
@greekmanos you didn't listen to him. the analogy was "if i have debt that is X and money that is Y and X=Y it doesn not mean that X and Y do not exist" so if i have 100 dollars in the bank and i owe 100$ it doesn't mean the 100$ i have no longer exists. honestly now under the view atkins gave atoms don't exist because the electron/protron ratio cancel eachother out.
Falcondick69 2 months ago
Comment removed
greekmanos 1 month ago
@Falcondick69 I don't know if you guys can see the twist of Atkins arguments by Craig. The existence of the universe is not denied. When Atkins says rearrangement of nothing doesn't mean the denial of existence of the opposite counterparts. 100 dollars credit and 100 debt sums up to a zero balance. Yes it doesn't deny that money or debt exist as notions. Craig creates strawmen by misquoting his debaters. Intellectual honesty is not your field Craig...
greekmanos 1 month ago
@greekmanos From Dr. Atkins' previous argument:
"Nothing really did come from nothing" and "There is truly nothing here."
Either Dr. Atkins is equivocating "zero" and "nothing" or he needs to be much more careful in throwing around the word "nothing."
Theophilus823543 1 month ago
@Theophilus823543 you're fighting with ghosts I'm afraid, or strawmen just like Craig. When Atkins says "there's nothing here", it can't be any more obvious that he's simply working against a false simplistic intuition, as any serious scientist would do, in an attempt to point out that all that stuff that we believe is so great, is a mere product and a rearrangement of nothing. Of course Craig would easily exploit this; he's an expert in demagogy.
greekmanos 3 weeks ago
@greekmanos Directly quoting someone in appropriate context constitutes the exact opposite of a strawman. I assume the "false simplistic intuition" to which you refer is that of "ex nihilo nihil fit." Considering that the entire body of emperiometric science is based upon this assumption (that nothing can come from nothing), it seems inappropriate to refer to this as a "false" without undermining virtually every piece of inductive knowledge that "serious science" possesses.
Theophilus823543 3 weeks ago
@Theophilus823543 well in fact you quoted someone exactly out of context my friend. If really Atkins would try to suggest what you say, he'd be a fool. I think for anyone with a bit of sense this is obvious. Maybe you need to update your science background. In quantum physics they observe photons popping out of nothing all the time. What you say is false. This assumption doesn't exist. Maybe you should go and read what are the preconditions of a scientific body of work.
greekmanos 3 weeks ago
@greekmanos If I am quoting out of context, I invite you to enlighten me as to the proper context. As a bachelor of physics and chemistry, I am quite familiar with the intricacies of quantum physics, and I am also quite familiar with the fact that no one has ever observed a photon coming out of nothing. Until the 1800s, biologists believed in spontaneous generation of organisms because they had no evidence of microbes. Something appearing to come from nothing does not make it so.
Theophilus823543 3 weeks ago
@Theophilus823543 picking one of the possible interpretations of a specific phrase is equal to out of context quoting. Atkins would be silly to literally mean that the universe or our planet IS nothing. The context is the re-arrangement of nothing. Not that me or you are nothing. If you explain me the difference then between nothing and vacuum (the best nothing we can have in laboratory), maybe you can doubt about the validity of the Casimir effect findings. Photons do pop out of nothing.
greekmanos 3 weeks ago
@greekmanos If he does not literally mean the universe is nothing, then it is silly of him to say "there is truly nothing here." Furthermore, "re-arrangement of nothing" is a completely meaningless concept, since SOMEthing would have to dictate how the NOthing was rearranged. Regarding Casimir effect, photons seem to pop out of quantized space-time, which is hardly nothing. Laboratories cannot identify "nothing" and therefore cannot verify something coming from nothing.
Theophilus823543 3 weeks ago
@Theophilus823543 I think you come slowly to the very point. Nothing is a philosophical concept. The best nothing you observe in a lab is the vacuum, where things pop out spontaneously without a cause. Complex numbers, Riemannian space or hyperbolic geometry are founded upon counter-intuitive assumptions, and yet they work. Saying "we all know..." as Craig often does, is not even an argument. Ask a farmer about quantum mechanics then... he knows photons do not pop out of vacuum...
greekmanos 3 weeks ago
@greekmanos You come to the very point that I made from the start, that "nothing" is a philosophical concept (and is therefore, not identical to "zero," "masslessness," "vacuum," etc.). "The best nothing" is as meaningless a statement as "rearrangement of nothing," as such things are still not nothing. It seems you take your turn to create a strawman, as Craig is appealing to self-evident ("we all know") logical axioms such as the law of causality, not a farmer's physics background.
Theophilus823543 3 weeks ago
@Theophilus823543 therefore talking about something we cannot observe is unscientific. Statements like "nothing" and "ether" have been binned by science long time ago. No need to create "arguments" out of "nothing" :-) You may know that Riemannian and hyperbolic geometry rely on the denial of a simple intuitive axiom. That from one point outside a line there's only one parallel to this line that passes through this point. In fact there are no self-evident axioms...
greekmanos 3 weeks ago
@greekmanos If "nothing" has been binned by science, then Dr. Atkins and you have no reason to use them in the context of a scientific discussion at all. Of course, non-Euclidean geometry is based upon that one intuitive axiom. However, that axiom is intuitive AND correct, in the context of planar geometry, which does not invalidate the axiom. If one was working on an ellipse or hyperbola, one would see "evidently" that that axiom would not apply in those settings.
Theophilus823543 3 weeks ago
@Theophilus823543 I don't remember Atkins pointing to any study dealing with "nothing". Obviously another issue is that Craig's nothing may be far away from how science sees nothing. Therefore I don't understand how someone can quote and abuse science so hard. Well according to your statement it may be true that in this universe nothing is created out of nothing, and then if we are in a universe created out of nothing that this intuitive axiom is untrue. This could be our universe though :-)
greekmanos 2 weeks ago
@greekmanos You hit the nail on the head. Craig's "nothing" is FAR from how someone like you sees nothing. He approaches from a supernaturalist philosopher's standpoint, and never claims to use science as a major support for his argument. Atkins, who believes science can account for everything, does indeed abuse science hard, pulling data out of the realm of science and attempting to use it in the realm of philosophy and rhetoric.
Theophilus823543 2 weeks ago
@Theophilus823543 See I've tried to have a serious look at Craig's line of arguments, however I just see pseudo-science instead of science and demagogy instead of rhetoric. He uses pseudo-science all the time. Most of the times the science he cites (with confidence I must admit) to give a reasonable foundation in his viewpoint, is obsolete, debunked etc. Pretty much most of the studies of the discovery institute are pseudo-science. Can a farmer see the difference? probably not...
greekmanos 2 weeks ago
@Theophilus823543 by the way I just remembered your previous comment about the casimir effect. IS quantised time-space "something" ? because this is what you implied and it made me laugh out loud :-) so assuming an entity to be discrete or in quanta makes it something? is this what you imply? And how you define vacuum? It's not the "best nothing" we can get, it is the only one we have :-) have a good day
greekmanos 3 weeks ago
@greekmanos It is not the quantization that makes it something. It is by virtue of being space-time. Do you find it laughable that space-time changes, contracts, and expands in the presence of mass as described in general relativity theory? It is contradictory to say that "nothing" can bend around large masses or that "nothing" can have any kind of geometry at all. Again, calling it the "best nothing" or the "only nothing" is meaningless, because it is something. Good day, my friend.
Theophilus823543 3 weeks ago
@Theophilus823543 you just might be able to understand that expansion of time is not the same as expansion of a ball. Bending of time might not be the same as bending a ruler. In science we use models, far too simplistic to capture what is really happening in nature. The vacuum has no mass my dear friend. Yet we observe photons popping out of it. Observing it as a continuous or a discrete phenomenon has nothing to do with the reality of it.
greekmanos 2 weeks ago
@greekmanos I never said space-time behaves like a ball or a ruler. But it BEHAVES, and "nothing" cannot behave at all. Vacuum, light, energy, force, electric and magnetic fields, gravity, space, time, all these do not have mass. Therefore, by your defintion, they do not exist either. If this is what our discussion has come to, then I believe we must accept our mutually exclusive axioms and call it a day. You may have the last word. May you be guided in your search for Truth.
Theophilus823543 2 weeks ago
@Theophilus823543 space-time is pretty different from energy or light. I like thinking of it as the frame of the picture, which is pretty much definition dependent as well. Although 3-d space may be straightforward to conceive, 11-d space isn't. And time, modern theories have discarded the notion of "beginning of time". Space-time cannot enter the debate of something-nothing. While you can send me a certain amount of energy, light, force etc, you can't deliver me 2 kilos of space or time :-)
greekmanos 2 weeks ago
@94jmcorrea I said refute not provide good counterarguments.
CloverfieldMonster95 2 months ago
@greekmanos why has none of the top leading Atheists refuted them in one of the many debates they've had with him?
CloverfieldMonster95 2 months ago in playlist More videos from Christianjr4
@CloverfieldMonster95 some have, austine dacey, keith parsons, victor stenger, peter millican
94jmcorrea 2 months ago
@CloverfieldMonster95 they have all been refuted. Craig is just a professional debater, he will go on and on using his full time with confidence. When scientists say that indeed we do see something created out of nothing in many quantum mechanics, he will say "we all know that nothing comes from nothing". Is this even an argument? He doesn't understand science
greekmanos 2 months ago
I love the way Craig speaks. He is very clear, straight to the point, and animated. Very engaging.
MarshmallowFluff200 2 months ago
Craig thinks his deductive arguments are true, it takes 5 mins to refute each one of them.
greekmanos 3 months ago
@greekmanos And yet all the top atheists were given a chance and could not refute them all. Some of them were able to refute an argument or two, but never all of them. Craig has the same argument every single time. If the atheists had the answers, they could pick him apart easily. You know exactly what you are walking into every single time.
jbourg333 2 months ago
@jbourg333 All of them have been refuted. When you have a debate the issue becomes "his word against mine". The reality is Craig can't talk about quantum mechanics, he is not a natural scientist. His assertion "we all know that nothing can be created out of nothing" is in fact a lie. He's of course a professional debater, he will use his full time to deliver his dishonesty, pocket the money and go home. The evangelist supporters will also feel another victory was obtained.
greekmanos 2 months ago
@greekmanos Can you please point me in the direction of where I can find all of them refuted? I've watched every one of the debates here on youtube. I'm not religious, but I still think that it might be possible for a god to exist. I feel the only intellectually honest answer is "We don't know". So if you can provide me with some evidence to refute his statements, I'd greatly appreciate it.
I'm just trying to look at it from all possible angles.
jbourg333 2 months ago
@jbourg333 "We don't know" is the honest answer about what created the universe. I'm saying "what" simply because the "prime mover" issue doesn't presuppose a personal creator. Craig's arguments (Kalam, moral etc) are all refuted. I refuted the moral one myself in 5 mins. Craig says "nothing is created out of nothing", so I point you to the casimir effect for example. Photons popping out of vacuum (the best scientific nothing we can observe). This box is too small to talk about everything
greekmanos 2 months ago
Craig always offers the same bit about his opposition needing to argue that a god does not exist (like he makes the rules), even when Atkins specified he was not arguing as such. Craig aslo treats atheist and agnostic as mutually exclusively terms, refusing to acknowledge the weak atheist position and agnosticism outside the existential god issue. He uses labels and cherry picks their definitions to claim victory on straw men. Further, comparitive plausibility doesn't merit belief.
urcorrect 3 months ago
@urcorrect He has to argue as such because Atkins is an atheist, not an agnostic. Craig provided a quote from Kai Nielsen to back up his assertion that it's not enough to just refute arguments for God's existence.
"To show that an argument is invalid or unsound is not to show that the conclusion of the argument is false....All the proofs of God’s existence may fail, but it still may be the case that God exists."
- Kai Nielsen, atheist philosopher
Drgamedood 2 months ago
Comment removed
urcorrect 2 months ago
@Drgamedood Agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive terms. It's absurd to expect one to argue against a god of the gaps. Atkins in fact stated this, which is an admission of agnosticism with respect to the subject, making him an agnostic (negative/weak) atheist. Craig's assertion about how Atkins must proceed is completely irrelevant anyway, because it does not support his own position, and he hasn't the right to moderate from the affirmative. Btw, see argumentum ad verecundiam.
urcorrect 2 months ago
@Drgamedood Pro tip: Read the whole post before responding it; that way people don't need to repeat themselves for you.
urcorrect 2 months ago
I bet if Dawkins turned Christian, 50 percent of the atheist population would fade.
danielkirk1 4 months ago
@danielkirk1
Are you planning a bribe?
davewatcher 4 months ago
@davewatcher lol wish i was rich enough :P
danielkirk1 4 months ago
@danielkirk1
I don't think so. The majority of atheists come to the decision through their own logic and intelligence.
I remember rejecting this biblical crap whilst still a young kid at school. Incidentally so did all of my friends...we are now all 'captains of industry' so to speak, so maybe the two are correlated.
As a side note, the only two guys I know who are ardent believers, grew up in strict religious households. Indoctrination seems the only way this disease perpetuates
MrGunwitch 1 month ago
"I doubt therefore I am" hahahaha brilliant!
YoussefS 4 months ago
even Richard Dawkins will believe in God after seeing Dr. Craig.
ikawpipa 5 months ago
@ikawpipa He refuses to debate with Craig
YoussefS 4 months ago
«Theism is a simpler explanation in that it provides a unifying view of the world...»
Yes, in the way Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Methodists, Baptists, etc. are unified.
PrincepsNemesis 5 months ago
Craig, do you have evidence of multiverses that are probable to permit life? Also the only reason we are able to live on this earth is because we adapted to it, it wasn't made for us.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 5 months ago
Bigot? Non sequitur.
Anyway, the statement you struggled to find was "You shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test."
Well of course not because that would be a dead giveaway.
davewatcher 5 months ago
@davewatcher What verse is that?
Blackopjeff 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK (DONATED) FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
They should have tried: "Dear God, if you exist, please set fire to the bush in front of this podium". The bush will not catch fire.
davewatcher 6 months ago
@davewatcher What an ignorant statement.
assasincomedy 5 months ago
@assasincomedy
No it isn't. Argument about the existence of god is futile. What we need is hard evidence. There isn't any.
Ipso facto there is no god. Just natural law.
davewatcher 5 months ago
@davewatcher What you need is hard evidence against the existance of God, which you don't provide.
assasincomedy 5 months ago
@assasincomedy
"Dear God, if you exist, please turn the sky green for one day tomorrow".
It's all arranged, if the sky turns green tomorrow, we'll know that god exists. If not, then we can pretty safely conclude he doesn't.
davewatcher 5 months ago
@davewatcher And Jesus answering, said to him: It is said: Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
assasincomedy 5 months ago
@assasincomedy
I'm glad you said that. It's proof that the whole thing is bollocks.
davewatcher 5 months ago
@davewatcher You're entitled to your own opinion. Just don't be a bigot.
assasincomedy 5 months ago
@davewatcher God does not play your childish science games; in fact you are doing the same fariseists in Jesus times, asking a signal to believe (so self centered). Let's better say that if you don`t show a plausible example of evolution ocurring nowadays, evolution doesn't exist.
"A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign, and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonah." And He left them and departed."
Matthew 16:4
Mvillano13 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mvillano13
"God does not play your childish science games". Of course not. he can't.
"...show a plausible example of evolution..." Drug-resistant bacteria.
As for implying that I am wicked and adulterous, I am neither. I demand an apology.
davewatcher 4 months ago
William Lane Craig=Monster Debater
briandawkinsforever 6 months ago
wow, William Lane Craig is such a good debater. The guy is so quick on his feet.
REDRAGON12345 6 months ago
I think the real reason that Dawkins did not want to debate Dr. Craig is because he shats himself every time he sees that beard.
SouthCarolinaSon 6 months ago
remember in the simpsons lisa makes genesis tub,she watches over them and then says they are evolving so fast.lisa was still the creator tho and lol bart was the devil.that was some funy shit "the devil is your brother" well they thought bart was the devil.lol and then they start asking "why do you allow bad things to happen to good people"
ha "why am i so fat"
pinball281 7 months ago
Craig doesn't want a debate. He wants to give a speech. And thats exactly what he's doing.
SezSays 7 months ago
Team Craig
ThorFan4Life 7 months ago
bullShit, please look it up.
adamsochLA 7 months ago
It is silly, futile to believe in existence of G/d, an entity that now is punishing people and now is rewarding them. Nature and people are the most powerful elements of this wonderful life. No ned to prove anything at all. You only need common sense and freedom to think.
adamsochLA 8 months ago
@adamsochLA
"you don't need to prove anything you just need common sense"
Common sense in my opinion is that you should try to validate anything that you can. Atkins was never able to refute and show that anything Craig said was illogical. If I were to go by just the arguements presentented there it would be the obvious choice to be a theist because the athiest looks like a fool. So common sense says that god exist because there isn't suffiecient evidence against. If evidence that absolutly..
derth4 7 months ago
@adamsochLA destroys the idea of their being a god then that should be the truth but so far as I can see athiest stupidly rely on the fact that there will eventually be evidence.
derth4 7 months ago
@derth4 A god can NOT exist, period. It is futile, comic and ridiculous. What exists is you, me, them & our actions. Does not matter how we got here or why? We are too small of the puzzle in this enormous universe. We people invented god. Why would anyone belibe in something was invented so many thousands of years ago. Religion, in the name of god is the most violent, evil and destructive institution on the face of the earth. It serves only the poor, uneducated and feeble.
adamsochLA 7 months ago
@adamsochLA
ha someone has issues. You clearly know nothing about religion and as far as I can see athiest have yet to actually dissprove god let alone validate athiesm.
derth4 7 months ago
@derth4 You certainly do not know that I've grew up in the church, read the Bible, believed in god for the first 20 years of my life and than saw the light: Reason. I become a humanist. Even if I am an atheist, I still study world religions out of curiosity. Most thinkers and intelligent people are non believers. WLC is a smart opportunist. If you need god in your life, dear friend, go for it. I certainly do not need god or superman or Ironman, I manage just fine without them
adamsochLA 7 months ago
@adamsochLA
most? I disagree. You cleary understand nothing about metaphysics and all philosophy for that matter. Atkins believes in materalism. That the universe sprang from nothing. That is illogical as everybody with an IQ of at least ten knows that a sandwhich cannot make another sandwhich no matter how much he wills it and wants it. Science has outstripped its own boundries and has become itself a form of mystesism. Based entirely of the belief that proof will inevtiably arise.
derth4 7 months ago
@adamsochLA
When faced with the options to believe in nothing (athiesm) which believes the universe is irational (which makes science self defeating) and theism (and christianity by extention) which belives the unvierse is rational (thus making science and philosophy prime methods of validating of our beliefs) I would jump wihout question at the obvious answer which theism. Any two-bit hillbilly knows that non-matter cannot create matter because then the non-matter must have quatlities...
derth4 7 months ago
@derth4 You should NEVER say "atheist believe in nothing". It is wrong. You are not ONE so you do not know. I believe in PEOPLE, in KINDNESS, in GOOD, in NATURE in HUMANITY and mostly I believe in myself. Why can't you get that? Here is the difference between me and religious people, they say: there is an invisible man who never shows himself and is living in the sky who made everything, very simple. I believe in what you read earlier. There is a huge difference.
adamsochLA 7 months ago
@adamsochLA
he he you said invisible man in the sky.
derth4 7 months ago
@derth4 Well, YOU talk about HIM, I do not, but have you seen him, actually see him? of course not. so, invisible.... inexistent but in your imagination. Next you will tell me, this invisible man is talking to you. That is called delusion in my opinion.
adamsochLA 7 months ago
@adamsochLA
Metaphysics... look um up.
derth4 7 months ago
@adamsochLA Can you see the wind? No, but you can see its effects.I tried to induldge what Atkins stated, but he was correct when he said in part 3,that I would be dissapointed.I respect your right to choose to not believe in a God. I think you do believe in something, just as you said you did.Atkins seems to, by his own reasoning, reduce us all to nothing,which at the very least would be in conflict with your own perspective, because you seem to recognize that we do have value, and thats good.
WrknClssHero 7 months ago
@WrknClssHero --Everyone believes in something, BUT NOT EVERYONE believes in GOD. Your Christian God. there are 7 billion people in the world. Countless religions and beliefs. My values are human, down to earth, real values. I do not conduct my life out of FEAR, as christians do, or for eternal reward in heaven, as christians do. I am good for goodness sake, not for an imaginary God. I believe in people, art and nature. No need for untouchable Jesus as long as I have people i can touch.
adamsochLA 7 months ago
@adamsochLA I know thousands of Christians & none of them live out of fear,so try not to generalize me & I will offer you the same courtesy. I understand your values, and they're are self-defined and no less real than my own, for that very reason. We are all trying to persue truth so lets understand that some of these perceptions are in fact relative to the inividual and thats fine. Just remember that the "goodness" you speak of can have varying definitions among all people including athiests.
WrknClssHero 7 months ago
@WrknClssHero You know thousands? Only? Out of Billions of GOD FEARING christians? Muslims, woman especially live in FEAR, I lived with fear when I was religious. If you are an exception, good for you but it is a drop in an ocean. Punishment in HELL is real for most religious people. Again, I AM GOOD, not for a reword or because someone is watching me from above. Unlike billions of christians. of course, You are an exception. Do not get offended.
adamsochLA 7 months ago
@adamsochLA Listen, I know you dont actually know BILLIONS of christians.Lets start from what you do know.You should not have been led to believe that you need live in fear as a person of faith(when you were of faith).That was wrong, and unbiblical if I may say.That said, the earth is filled with people with flaws & inevitably they find themselves into all areas of philosophy, science AND religion.I appeciate that you can dialog about this so openly & friendly.Maybe this can go someplace good.
WrknClssHero 7 months ago
@adamsochLA of matter thus making the non-matter actually a form of matter. Atkins' reason for why the universe exists is that the universe exists. That is his arguement. Particles floated around until they collided making the big band. That gives no explanation for where the universe came from. He can only say that the reason we came into being doesn't matter. Thus making him in all intesive purposes a buddhist.
derth4 7 months ago
@adamsochLA
also how we got here is important because if the universe is rational then finding how we came to be then it should be a scientific and philisophical priotrity. It's funny to see an athiest say that science isn't important because we just exist and that is all that matters. So that is the equivalent of "please don't ask questions. we don't know anything just believe in us no matter how futile and irational what we say. Please religous people will burn you alive ---- beg beg beg"
derth4 7 months ago
there is an invisible man who never shows himself and is living in the sky who made everything .....simple....lol
twoface4 9 months ago
@twoface4
wait are you talking about greek mythology? I think you have mixed up your theological views.
derth4 7 months ago
luv this guy!!!
VDMpeniel 10 months ago
Hats of to Dr. Lane! He made mush of Atkins! Dr. Atkins is honest in what he understands and dishonest in what he does not. He is not fit for his office of scientist!
benjaminshope 10 months ago
@Americant47 PLEASE DON'T GO!!!!! WE WILL ALL MISS YOU SO MUCH RANDOM PERSON!!!!
TheLyricsGuy 10 months ago
dude atkins jst got dismantled
yhwhizlife1 10 months ago
@Americant47
For the 3rd and last time) Evolutionary sciences are still limited, we know it, they know it.
However, I'm pretty sure it will have some small revolutions of its own in the future, maybe in a way of discovering "feedback mechanisms", which allow the influence of remote information transfered into the genes, as certain thought processes are known to influence the brain structure.
Even that would well within the boundaries of evolution and nothing of a hint to any "god designer".
sooperfukker 10 months ago
@sooperfukker So believing in evolution requires Faith and you will admit this?
TheBbg83 10 months ago
@TheBbg83
Don't let grammar fool you. Evolution itself requires noone to witness or to believe in it. It exists, irregardless of our observations of it.
What we put faith in, is the science which observes it, its methodology, its intellectual capacity and honesty to deliver the best descriptions and explanations.
And in opposite to putting faith into explanations of the supernatural, it is REASONABLE to put faith into science, because every single aspect of it is transparent and examinable.
sooperfukker 10 months ago
@sooperfukker LMFAO, you hold onto that conviction.
TheBbg83 10 months ago
@TheBbg83
What conviction ?
sooperfukker 10 months ago
@sooperfukker Ok your acting ignorant is childish and beyond typical.
TheBbg83 10 months ago
@TheBbg83
I have no clue what you're talking about. I lay open every single one of my thoughts with the corresponding background. You don't ... get on par with me or get lost.
sooperfukker 10 months ago
@sooperfukker You do no such thing, god bless.
TheBbg83 10 months ago
@TheBbg83
I despise trolls, especially on issues as the one above. You're hereby expelled.
sooperfukker 10 months ago
@sooperfukker
no it is real faith. Like faith in a god. There is no difference between faith in a scietific theory and faith in an all powerful being.
derth4 7 months ago
@Americant47
Is it so hard to think that a single "piece" of the universal potential can develop a complexity of its own, while still being in the boundaries of the universe's potential complexity ?
When I see pollen carried away by the wind, all I can see is a single rather simple object, which eventually will turn into a field of beautiful flowers in the future.
I see nothing in this universe which is more complex than the universe itself (or could be).
sooperfukker 10 months ago
@Americant47
Well, I'm not a scientist, but what I do know is that, cells can be used in many different ways, even between different species, when their DNA is replaced. And even stem cells with the same DNA can develop into many different succeeding cells.
I seriously can't see your "basic" problem with evolution, maybe you can elaborate on that. (I just don't hope this is going towards "intelligent design" ???).
sooperfukker 10 months ago
this amoeba gets to go to heaven :). primates may have a lot similar to us but when they dont get to. Jokes on you everything else in the universe, it was all about some humans going to school to know rapes bad before they get head of the class and get to go to heaven.
Willtur 10 months ago
@Americant47
(1) I would replace "greater" with "more complex". That's pretty much all. If we describe it as "greater", we really mean "its complexity is a bigger cognitive challenge for us".
We appreciate cognitive challenges, because we know how they ultimately affect us : They make us better.
(2) Why would humans be "greater" than the universe ? Because we have a rough idea of its attributes ?
sooperfukker 10 months ago
(3) The beginning of life seems to be a bit similar to the beginning of the universe... We can trace them both back to a point where we have to admit, that our sciences are terribly bad at reconstructing one time phenomena.
If life was created every day in front of our eyes or if we could witness the birth of universes more often, its origins would become accessible to us. Since that doesn't happen, we're left with very good guesses, until we get more information and can re-evaluate.
sooperfukker 10 months ago
@Americant47
Why do you say that? Throughout the "animal kingdom", we can witness different states of complexity and also of consciousness. Our closest "relatives" among the apes certainly have a level of consciousness that is comparatively similar to our own. We've been just lucky enough to develop bigger and better brains, since we changed our ways of food intake.
sooperfukker 10 months ago
Maybe you make the same mistake I made before: To accept the nonsensical biologist statement, that evolution doesn't know principles like "purpose" aka "goal orientation", because it's obvious it exists as a method of decision making among all complex living beings and is therefor certainly rooted in our genes.
And just because the scientific view of evolution is still limited (as I mentioned before), it doesn't mean that evolution is no appropriate explanation.
sooperfukker 10 months ago
BTW...
Don't forget that each and everyone of us has developed from 1 single unconscious cell into a quite complex being, that's how procreation works.
sooperfukker 10 months ago
@Americant47
Regarding the existence of the universe: It may exist despite of our ratio, but are we really allowed to say that ?
We are so limited in our linear perception of reality, that we can't really cope with the most simple "riddles" like dark matter. It's easily possible that the universe is so much richer, so much more active, so much more different and maybe non-unique without us ever being able to witness it.
sooperfukker 10 months ago
Who are we to attest the universe its existence, when we haven't really got the slightest idea of how much we might miss due to our limitations?
It's like a man who is locked up in a dark room since he was born, stating that an outside world exists, because the walls of his room keep him from going there. He may or may not be right, but he still knows nothing.
sooperfukker 10 months ago
The only "leap of faith" I could accept is the one, that humbly stands down from its intention to insert a "god of explanations" (not to mention the idiotic "god of the gaps") into this world.
You might be surprised how close I come to the views of some people like Father George Coyne (whose interview with Richard Dawkins is also available on youtube), but it doesn't make me a believer.
sooperfukker 10 months ago
@Americant47
It may be right to question the origin of thought and instances of it (purpose,reason,emotion etc.) but I don't see how these could possible defy the "evolutionary code".
I cannot see anything we humans are capable of, that is not enclosed in the structures of our very brains and there are 2 hard facts to support this view: (1) The capabilities of the human mind have evolved along the evolution of the brain and (2) The capabilities of the mind strongly differ among individuals.
sooperfukker 10 months ago
What you see as as reason, ambition etc. and do with it, might be trivial to one, or an impossible burden to another individual.
So why would I think that instances of thought are remote, absolute or outside of strictly evolutionary terms?
The only question which bothers me is : Will the human mind ever be complex enough to decipher itself completely ? Unfortunately, my own brain isn't capable of giving a definite answer to that. Our great grandchildren will have a different answer to that.
sooperfukker 10 months ago
@Americant47
Btw: Your first "reply" didn't meet the most simple requirements of a discourse : to layout one's thoughts in a way that is accessible to others. I'm not trying to hide or shut up anyone, but I do require people to approach me in a way that I can reasonably react to. That wasn't the case with your first statement, glad to see you changed that.
sooperfukker 10 months ago
@Americant47
Listen to Atkins again and you will find he IS INDEED a fence sitter. He knows that he cannot, and therefor doesn't even try, to disprove the existance of god; for the reasons he gave (and I quoted him on that).
His whole argumentation is based on a different idea : You don't NEED god in order to explain ANYTHING.
And that is a perfectly legitimate standpoint, because since god is simply left out of the picture, no explanation,description or proof of god is required in any way.
sooperfukker 10 months ago
It might be valuable to remind yourself of a few things:
The idea of "god" is only accessible to anyone of us through metaphysical exploration, since god is not available on a examniable physical, empirical level.
If religious people are serious about the attributes they assign to this entity ("omnipotence", "outside of this world","exists forever" etc), one huge semantic problem occurs: This entity would not be governed by -anything- we can reason.
sooperfukker 10 months ago
Such an entity could "act" against anything which could be predicted by any laws, may they be physical or logical. It could exist and inexist, create and destroy, make appear and fool, simply do ANYTHING by sheer will power. This universe could be 5 minutes old, all "evidence" in the universe could be staged and our memories could be a simple "injection" to fool us about simply everything.
By inserting an omnipotent entity, you destroy the very basis on which our rationality works.
sooperfukker 10 months ago
And that's the reason why I find WLC's whole approach so inferior:
He assigns certain attributes (intention & method) to this entity in the way it is supposed to have created this universe, WITHOUT saying WHY this entity is supposed to act this way and HOW he KNOWS that.
I take his approach to be deeply inconsistent and therefor dishonest.
sooperfukker 10 months ago
@Americant47
That's too clouded. If you want to layout an argument, do it, don't speak in puzzle tiles.
sooperfukker 11 months ago
I don't exist ?
I mean, there's lots of babble going on on youtube, but reciting Wikipedia is THE WORST possible idea for trying to approach this historically rich and loaded issue.
sooperfukker 11 months ago
A dogmatic agnostic like myself is indeed a fence sitter, not because I cannot decide for one side to jump down to, but because of something that Atkins cited with very much insight:
"The perception of god overwhelms any rational argument, for an omnipotent entity is the ultimate chameleon."
In consequence of that, any rational approach to approve or disprove "god" is ultimately impotent and therefor meaningless. It is indeed an intellectual void with no possible outcome.
sooperfukker 11 months ago
Just to be clear:
None (!) of the arguments for/against god is true or false, but every single one is invalid to begin with.
I don't refuse to take a side, I simply refuse the discussion itself.
I'm not caught in the middle between atheism and theism, I'm outside of it.
sooperfukker 11 months ago
@UnitedFan16 What the hell is an agnostic atheist...
agnostic = does not know if God exists
atheist = belief in no God.
???
FIFAStreetaddict 1 year ago
@FIFAStreetaddict
A lot of atheists I have met on youtube take great exception to someone describing atheism as a position. Atheism they say is merely a lack of belief in God. They don't say for certain there is no God, but do not accept belief in God because there is, as they see it, no sufficent evidence to warrant belief. Therefore they call themselves "weak atheists" or "agnostic atheists" as opposed to strong atheists (gnostic atheists) who say there is definately no God.
ukchristian28 11 months ago
@ukchristian28
*UHUM* The opposite is the case. Most youtube self proclaimed artists do claim, that this would be the ONLY (!) real existing atheism there is. In reality however, there is a topology of different atheistic approaches, most of them COMPLETELY unknown to these youtube atheists.
sooperfukker 11 months ago
@UnitedFan16 So let me ask you this. You had to choose between two beans: one poisonous, one not, but you don't know which one is poisonous. One bean has a chart showing a number of deaths after ingesting the bean, but this does not prove that the bean caused the death of the victims. The premise is that one bean is poisonous. Would you not choose the other bean? According to your argument, it shouldn't be fair, for you, to choose the bean that is most probable in not killing you?
unnecessaryremarks 1 year ago
@UnitedFan16 You imply that it is unfair for the audience to choose an argument because one argument, atheism, cannot be proven- yet, God's existence cannot be proven, thus creating a fair grounds for argument. It is understood that science, process of logic and other phenomena inclusive, simply points to a truth, but often fails to prove it. (character limit, continued on next post)
unnecessaryremarks 1 year ago
Comment removed
unnecessaryremarks 1 year ago
@UnitedFan16 To add onto my previous statement, you are in your own right to continue on with an argument, and I assure you I will read it, but I will not reply, as stated in my previous comment.
KainL33 1 year ago
@UnitedFan16 Exactly, but that is not the debate, which is why William Lane Craig is in no wrong. Secondly as you have stated Agnostic Atheist, which means he turns more towards atheism than theism. Which would give reason for Craig's statement, if he were just agnostic the situation would change, and Craig would be faulty in saying what he did. I think we ought not go on with this, who are we to defend or attack two people who are not even here to defend themselves?
KainL33 1 year ago
@UnitedFan16 The matter of the debate is the EVIDENCE for and AGAINST God...If it were different then I would agree with you. Also I am well aware of Peter W. Atkins is an agnostic atheist, and I highly doubt it came to William Lane Craig that anyone would be ignorant of the fact, it rarely does when someone is sure about something, you automatically assume that other people are or ought to be aware of it. (and in this case it would be right to assume that they ought to be aware.)
KainL33 1 year ago
One gets real tired of listening to Craig rattle on with his same prescribed arguments, presented in the exact same sequence over and over without ever really responding to the good questions. BORING!!
l1a2b 1 year ago
@UnitedFan16 As stated the question they were dealing with is the evidence for and against God. So Atkins had accepted the debate full well knowing his seat, and as I remember Atkins stated that he believed there was no evidence because there is nothing that exists, and then seems to ignore Craig's evidence for God. So Craig did nothing of the sort, he merely pointed out Atkins fallacies. Which is not 'appealing' to the audiences ignorance.
KainL33 1 year ago
@UnitedFan16 What William Lane Craig is stating and trying to get Atkins to realize is that atheism is unprovable, and then goes to show that there is more evidence for the existence of God then there is for the non-existence of God. Which, from what I've seen out of these, Atkins is refusing to note that atheism is a more foolish seat to hold than he assumes theism is. And that all Atkins can attempt to prove is agnosticism, which Craig also logically argues against.
KainL33 1 year ago
William doesn't believe in parallel universes so then what do you call heaven or hell they would have to be in a parallel universe of some kind thats a contradiction in his belief i think but i could be wrong.
wachnathan 1 year ago
@wachnathan Heaven and hell are considered Divine 'Universes' or perhaps even Divine 'Realms'. Simplistically, immaterial realms of divinity or sin.
koolio669 1 year ago
@koolio669 So then it would still have to be a parallel universes other wise it doesn't make since how they would exist.
wachnathan 1 year ago
It is because our approach to the subject as an object is wrong. God is the subject, not the object. Attempting to objectify God is an absurdity. You'll never find the divine in an argument. You can only come "across" the divine when you are not.Our fabricated sense of self is what blocks the entrance of our true nature which transcends all objectified data.Its really that simple.
vgraham44 1 year ago
That puzzle solving brain is an obvious needed tool in a world that rewards ingenuity, however, when it comes to the intangible, that same left brained thinking becomes less & less applicable. It becomes like a closed fist unable to grasp water, & ultimately dying of thirst.a fist is applicable when it comes to fighting, not drinking water. consequently, God will continue to elude, not however, Because God, or higher consciousness is evasive.
vgraham44 1 year ago
Man is basically applying that same hominid brain that helped weave him thru the dark ages into a much richer, vaster, tapestry of the universe & his place in it. The same reasoning brain, great for conceptualizing & construction of societies, of tools harnessed first by homo erectus, to the sophisticated devices & amenities of todays world, are products of developing brains that were needed to elevate man above the primal carnage taking place around him.
vgraham44 1 year ago
Man continually attempts to understand, to decode, to decipher. That is simply human nature, a direct result of our hominid brains. Reasoning & the application of ideas is what brought us out of the dark caves & predator filled jungles. This is why man is so adamant that he know everything there is to know, that no rock be left unturned, even when it comes to the inexplicable. Its like a facet that can't be turned off. How could all things begin from nothing? From purposeless to purposeful?
vgraham44 1 year ago
You're not responding to what I'm talking about (logical proofs for god's existence). Listen very closely to the first 30 seconds of what Craig says. The burden of proof is on Craig. He must provide independent evidence to support his argument for god, which he doesn't. All P.A has to do is show there isn't any evidence or a lack of evidence supporting the belief in the the existence of god. Finally, I don't say anything about W.C argument from experience. Read my arguments below if interested
l1a2b 1 year ago
Craig should try to understand one concept: Not being able to disprove god is not a positive argument for god's existence. The entire edifice of his deductively valid arguments rests on two fallacies: he disguises speculation as a logical proof. The problem is that their isn't any evidence confirming his speculations. Second: his arguments appear sound because speculation can not be proven to be false. Notice in all his debates he has the same response to a variety of attacks and it gets boring.
l1a2b 1 year ago
@l1a2b He does understand that. Not once does he say "Atkins has not showed any proof for Atheism, therefore God still probably exists" He says "Since I have had experiences of things which seemed very much to me to be of God, and Since Atkins has showed me no reason to believe God Does not exist, then I am justified in believing that those experiences were most likely of God, which would require God to exist" its an inductive argument... but he supplies other deductive arguments as well.
RememberLuke 1 year ago
@l1a2b "Craig should try to understand one concept: Not being able to disprove god is not a positive argument for god's existence."
He never said it was. He's just saying that if you can't disprove God, you're left with agnosticism.
Jugglable 1 year ago
@Jugglable I have made a statement in part one of this debate regarding your above inquiry regarding Agnosticism and Atheism.
l1a2b 1 year ago
@Jugglable Exactly.
koolio669 1 year ago
WOW! A Modus Ponens argument to prove beyond all doubt that god exist; talk about your miracles LOL.
l1a2b 1 year ago
Where did Craig ever get the idea that you have to be able to disprove god in order to be an atheist. "I do not believe in god". Does that not constitute atheism. Also, the proposition, "God exits" can neither be verified nor falsified; so in the realm of objective knowledge, the proposition is a meaningless one. David Hume: "Only believe a miracle if it would be more miraculous to not believe it; if that's not the case then the rational explanation is always more plausible". Common sense.
l1a2b 1 year ago
@l1a2b You said, ""God exits" can neither be verified nor falsified; so in the realm of objective knowledge, the proposition is a meaningless one."
That statement can be neither verified nor falsified, so by your own standards it's meaningless.
Jugglable 1 year ago
@Jugglable LOL The Statement has a meaning which you have obviously missed. I leave it to you to figure it out.
l1a2b 1 year ago
Dr. Craig states: He didn't prove God doesn't exist. Well I believe he stated that he can't prove god doesn't exist. He argues god is not a necessary component to explain natural phenomena. In other words, if phenomena can be explained and understood without reference to god then god is not necessary to our knowledge and understanding of how thing are;as a result, implying god is superfluous. Notice Craig does not respond to this dimension of P.A's argument. Craig simply repeats his arguments.
l1a2b 1 year ago
Jesus changed my life and i love Him. His reality in my life speaks even more loudly then this argument which echoes this truth.
colombia2009ish 1 year ago
Comment removed
qingloongwong 1 year ago
1) Cosmological Argument = Fautly premise
2) Fine Tuning = False trichotomy
3) Objective Morality = Baseless assertion from wishful thinking and/or fear
4) Miracles = Baseless assertion from accepting a work of fiction as fact
5) Experience of God = Insanity
Any questions? :)
spinycrayfish 1 year ago
@spinycrayfish Too bad Peter Atkins isn't as smart as you are.
99percentatheist 1 year ago