Ravi Zacharias The Existence of God part 2 of 6

[PartyCommunist]

Iraqui body count of around 1,000,000 and forced exiled "ex-patriots" of 4.5 million forced out of Iraq since the illegal invasion.

Ravi Zacharias is amazing, but he is sadly obviously blinded by the politically motivated USA Imperialist bloodthirsty wars. Will he further blindly follow Yankee oil-driven mammon as it declares untold wars on the poor and vulnerable?

[skygurung13]

GOD BLESS HIM :)

[FaceOfGod2]

Why can't I post?

[Xylogeist]

@sbgrox11 You watched this video with a pair of clouded glasses, you have no right to speak on the matter.

[Xylogeist]

@sbgrox11 Unlike this disgusting bigot. I actually recognize modernized moral constructs.. Get the hell out of here, Kthxbai.

[Tobytrim]

I have listened to this guy quite a few times and I've yet to see him make a rational point, nor, for that matter, any intellectually honest premise,.

He seems to rely on his congregation's inability to think clearly

[MrAudacious21]

@Tobytrim Look into Dr. William Lane Craig. :)

[Tobytrim]

@MrAudacious21 "Look into Dr. William Lane Craig. :)"

I am very familiar with Dr W.L. Craig.

A man who makes very dishonest, well rehearsed, but ad hoc arguments with a very arrogant dismissal of better thinking, often without explanation. His propositions are circular and do not survive any very thorough examination, and rely on a presupposition, axiomatically, without reasoning, or evidence that his "God" simply exists. In this, he relies on the faith in those he tries to convince.

[MrAudacious21]

@Tobytrim LOL! You sound more bitter than anything else my friend. I could address your accusations against Craig, however, considering your predisposition I doubt it would do any good. I assume you have read very little of his work and merely watched the debates? If I am wrong, I apologize.

[Tobytrim]

@MrAudacious21"I assume you have read very little of his work and merely watched the debates? If I am wrong, I apologize."

Not bitter - disgusted maybe.

Yes you may apologise, but only after you have first tried out a few of his arguments on me if you like? I'll be HAPPY to show you what's wrong with his reasoning!!

I am so familiar with his dishonesty, that I have been restricted and blocked from every blog, thread, and channel, where I have attempted to challenge or question it.

[REDRAGON12345]

@Tobytrim Wow, you've found something wrong with all WLC's arguments? You must truly be a legend among atheists! According to most scholars, and even most atheists, WLC has won the vast majority of his debates. Richard Carrier, a prominent atheist, admitted he lost to WLC in their debate. Sam Harris even said that WLC is "the one Christian apologist who has put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists" You should debate WLC and share your amazing findings!

[REDRAGON12345]

@Tobytrim haha check the quote from Sam Harris yourself. You should really look into the Four Horsemen if you consider yourself an atheist my friend... As for his arguments, I would say the argument from contingency, the cosmological argument, the argument from Jesus Christ death, burial and resurrection, and the teleological argument are more plausible from a theistic worldview.

[Tobytrim]

@REDRAGON12345 "if you consider yourself an atheist my friend"

"CONSIDER" myself an atheist??? - Is non belief in a god likely to be a mistaken claim I could make about myself??

Besides, I could be a theist and still find Craigs arguments unsustainable.

As for Craigs arguments, I didn't ask you for a list of headings. Make an argument, so I know you understand it, so I can be sure you'll understand the fallacy I'll point out to you!

You can pick your favourite, or even them all, if you like!

[REDRAGON12345]

@Tobytrim "Make an argument, so I know you understand it, so I can be sure you'll understand the fallacy I'll point out to you!" No thanks. I understand them perfectly well and I see no major fallacy in any of them.

[Tobytrim]

@REDRAGON12345 "No thanks. I understand them perfectly well and I see no major fallacy in any of them. "

Ha ha! - Why don't you attempt to make your case anyway, and see what I come up with. Then we will know which of us is wrong?

Is there some reason why you don't want to test these argument against commonly held inductive reason and commonly observable circumstance?

[REDRAGON12345]

@Tobytrim You have every right to voice your disagreements with WLC's argument. I'm not going to waste my time,however, writing out his entire arguments. Which books of his have you read? I'm sure you've read 4-5 of his books if you feel you have such profound arguments that no other atheist has come up with...

[REDRAGON12345]

@Tobytrim Also even if all these arguments could be proven more plausible from a atheistic/naturalistic worldview, I would not by default become an atheist because there seems to be a number of problems with that view. Such as the lack of objective morality, and Plantinga's argument how evolution if concerned only with survival and not truth. So if their is only evolution and matter, then we have no idea if what we believe is truth or if it just benefits our survival and is completely false

[Tobytrim]

@REDRAGON12345 "Such as the lack of objective morality"

There is no objective morality, whether you believe in god or not. It is observably, and logically a purely human concept.

How can a theist measure his god's morality, except against his own concept of what moral justice is?

[REDRAGON12345]

@Tobytrim "There is no objective morality" haha wow that's quite a bold statement. You realize even a number of atheist would disagree with you?

[Tobytrim]

@REDRAGON12345 ""There is no objective morality" haha wow that's quite a bold statement. You realize even a number of atheist would disagree with you? ,"

No intelligent, intellectually honest person, atheist or otherwise, could claim morality to be objective. It is observably a subjective human concept, albeit axiomatic within a given time or culture.

For example, the "God" of the O.T. endorsed, and even commanded, what modern civilisation would consider an abomination. Slavery, for example.

[REDRAGON12345]

@Tobytrim "No intelligent, intellectually honest person, atheist or otherwise, could claim morality to be objective. It is observably a subjective human concept, albeit axiomatic within a given time or culture." Well then I guess I have nothing to offer you since its clear you've made up your mind.

[Tobytrim]

@REDRAGON12345 "Well then I guess I have nothing to offer you since its clear you've made up your mind"

Well yes I have. It is the only direction in which I can make up my mind. It is OBSERVABLY true that morality is a subjective concept of human intellect,etc.I have no choice but to reason this!

Man's definitions of what is morally right, is inconsistant between circumstance, culture, historical era, and even between individuals.

Where is your evidence it is an objective constant?

[Tobytrim]

"and Plantinga's argument how evolution if concerned only with survival and not truth"

Another version of the "science tells how but not why?" Suppose you demonstrate that "Why?" is necessary in a model which explains existence?

This argument needs to presuppose the existence of "God" to demonstrate a possibility of "God". - And as you said- That's Plantinga's argument, not Craigs!

[Tobytrim]

@REDRAGON12345 "So if their is only evolution and matter, then we have no idea if what we believe is truth"

And you think someone else's concept of a creator, believed on faith, is a more reliable test of what is true? It's an observable fact that you are evolved chemicals whatever you believe. If you believe something which ISN'T an observable fact, as in a conceptualised "god", with nothing to distinguish it from fantasy, how can you be sure it doesn't mean you harm rather than good?

[REDRAGON12345]

@Tobytrim Yes I think my belief, based on the evidence at hand, is a more reliable test of what is true. The Christian belief is that man is made in God's image and given free will. This is a stark difference from the atheist' view that we live in a deterministic world. So yours and my beliefs are determined; you fizzled up from the chemicals to become an atheist, and I became a theist. Its a harsh worldview, but one an atheist has to take. It also make the search for truth somewhat bleak haha

[Tobytrim]

@REDRAGON12345 "So yours and my beliefs are determined"

Correction: - You believe in a god - I don't. Outside of that, you haven't a clue what my beliefs are! .

I do accept the observations of science,(But not on faith) I have no choice! - Don't you?

[REDRAGON12345]

@Tobytrim You are clearly not understanding the argument. You need to read Plantinga's books or watch his lectures online. You are not understanding what I mean when I say on a naturalistic worldview you have no reason to trust your cognitive faculties for truth when evolution and natural selection is concerned only with survival

[Tobytrim]

@REDRAGON12345 " you have no reason to trust your cognitive faculties for truth when evolution and natural selection is concerned only with survival"

Of course I do!! My cognitive faculties are a characteristic of human survival. "Truth" is the verification that the faculties ARE reliable.

However, even if this wasn't an obvious fact, there are many human foibles which are by- products of survival traits (art, religion), or which are not strictly required for our survival. (male nipples)

[REDRAGON12345]

@Tobytrim "In Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism, he argues that the truth of evolution is an epistemic defeater for naturalism (i.e. if evolution is true, it undermines naturalism). His basic argument is that if evolution and naturalism are both true, human cognitive faculties evolved to produce beliefs that have survival value (maximizing one's success at the four F's: "feeding, fleeing, fighting, and reproducing"), not necessarily to produce beliefs that are true" cont

[Tobytrim]

@REDRAGON12345 " if evolution and naturalism are both true, human cognitive faculties evolved to produce beliefs that have survival value......... not necessarily to produce beliefs that are true" .

I am astounded Plantinga tries to get away with this equivocation and assuption! Evolution has NO plan. "Truth" is simply verification that our cognitive skills are reliable. Our survival traits ONLY require us to survive, but they remain to be whatever by-production we can impliment in them.

[REDRAGON12345]

@Tobytrim '"Truth" is simply verification that our cognitive skills are reliable'

Truth is defined as "conformity with fact or reality" or "a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like" or "the true or actual state of a matter". Evolution is concerened with survivial, not truth. As Plantinga has said, we could be living is a sort of dream world on a naturalistic viewpoint. Of course atheists will try and find a way around this because we all trust our conitive faculties

[REDRAGON12345]

@Tobytrim Example:"Perhaps Paul very much likes the idea of being eaten, but when he sees a tiger, always runs off looking for a better prospect, because he thinks it unlikely the tiger he sees will eat him. This will get his body parts in the right place so far as survival is concerned, without involving much by way of true belief... "

[REDRAGON12345]

@Tobytrim "Or perhaps he thinks the tiger is a large, friendly, cuddly pussycat and wants to pet it; but he also believes that the best way to pet it is to run away from it... Clearly there are any number of belief-cum-desire systems that equally fit a given bit of behaviour"

[REDRAGON12345]

@Tobytrim Another big problem I see with Naturalism "If there is no God, then all that exists is time and chance acting on matter. If this is true then the difference between your thoughts and mine correspond to the difference between shaking up a bottle of Mountain Dew and a bottle of Dr. Pepper. You simply fizz atheistically and I fizz theistically. This means that you do not hold to atheism because it is true , but rather because of a series of chemical reactions" Cont

[Tobytrim]

@REDRAGON12345 ""If there is no God, then all that exists is time and chance acting on matter"

Not "chance" - DETERMINATION. It's only chance from the perspective of a limited human brain, which lacks the knowledge or powerful enough equative powers to make any prediction. This determination takes time.

The rest of the argument is silly. Logic is a tool of the brain. It allowed us to survive in a primaeval state because we developed the ability to make predictions from experience.

[REDRAGON12345]

@Tobytrim "Morality, tragedy, and sorrow are equally evanescent. They are all empty sensations created by the chemical reactions of the brain. If there is no God, then all abstractions are chemical epiphenomena. This means that we have no reason for assigning truth and falsity to the chemical fizz we call reasoning or right and wrong to the irrational reaction we call morality. If no God, mankind is a set of bi-pedal carbon units of mostly water. And nothing else"

[REDRAGON12345]

@Tobytrim I always find it fascinating when people like you try and deny this deterministic view that comes with believing in naturalism. Its interesting because we all want to trust our brains and we think we should be able too, but in the end its a self defeating/inconsistent view.

[Tobytrim]

@REDRAGON12345" I always find it fascinating when people like you try and deny this deterministic view........"

I HAVEN'T denied it. Our brains ARE, observably the result of natural determination, NOT pre-concieved design - Whether I trust my brain or not is moot - It's all I have to appraise reality. It's all YOU have to read the bible and believe it on faith. I prefer to accept what is observable and verifiable. I'm happy you're fascinated though.???????

[Tobytrim]

Don't you or Plantinga understand that evolution isn't a purposeful pre ordained plan by an intelligence??

Consider the ativisms, and vestigal organs, that find other uses which don't serve their original purpose but is re-used. Religion can be explained as a clash between 2 survival characteristics, for example. Predictability through pattern recognition. (The inevitability of death) Vs Self survival instinct (fear of non existence).

There is no naturalistic mystery in human intellect.

[Tobytrim]

@REDRAGON12345 "As Plantinga has said, we could be living is a sort of dream world on a naturalistic viewpoint."

If Plantinga wants to invoke Cartesian "cogito" or reduce the whole of human perception of reality down to solipsism, he pretty much negates his own decision (within the SAME perception of reality) to read the bible, hear all he has learned about it, and decide to believe on faith and assume THAT to be reality. The argument is silly and self refuting!

[Tobytrim]

@REDRAGON12345 " If no God, mankind is a set of bi-pedal carbon units of mostly water"

Whether there is a god or not, such is an observable fact! Although , these carbon atoms and protein molecules have become a far more complex chemical process by now-Lol!

However, your personal faith, and unverifiable incredulity, aside, you have STILL to deliver OBSERVABLE evidence for a god to make your argument fly!

[REDRAGON12345]

@Tobytrim "Thus, since human cognitive faculties are tuned to survival rather than truth in the naturalism-cum-evolution model, there is reason to doubt the veracity of the products of those same faculties, including naturalism and evolution themselves. On the other hand, if God created man "in his image" by way of an evolutionary process (or any other means), then Plantinga argues our faculties would probably be reliable."

[REDRAGON12345]

@Tobytrim Its an interesting point to say the least and one worth thinking about. btw I just copied a piece of the argument. I would highly recommened reading his book. Then again most atheists are not interested in reading books from the more respected Chrisitan philosophers.

[Tobytrim]

@REDRAGON12345 "Then again most atheists are not interested in reading books from the more respected Chrisitan philosophers. "

Oh , I think you'll find many of us are familiar with the appeal to faith preaching, disguised as argument, from the "respected" Christian "philosophers". I've read a great deal. The difference seems to be they are not ALL I've read! - I read secular and unbiased arguments too!

As I've already offered many times, try one of your best and see where it gets you?

[Tobytrim]

"Its a harsh worldview, but one an atheist has to take

The truth is the truth. Why fight it? Fantasy doesn't make it any less harsh, or any less true.

[Tobytrim]

@REDRAGON12345 "You should debate WLC and share your amazing findings!"

Craig wouldn't dare debate someone like me. He wouldn't know enough about how I think to design a sophistry around it, and force me to waste time decoding and debunking whatever strawman he has constructed. He would have to justify and defend his own point of view instead. - And that, he doesn't do too well. It requires intellectual honesty he doesn't have.

[Xylogeist]

Lol, this guy is outdated and retarded.

[1988TheHitman]

I only said il "see" Ravi in heaven not rejoice lol. The bible says we will recognise people in heaven. All I said was "see" : )

[DandBMonk]

@1988TheHitman

Where, in the Bible, does it say this? I guess I haven't com across this verse.

[1988TheHitman]

@DandBMonk

There are lots my friend, read 2 Samuel 12 where david talks about going to be with his son in heaven when he dies...... and also the pharases tried to catch Jesus out by asking him who will this women be married to in heaven and Jesus says there will be no marriage in heaven but you will recognise the person read John 14 : )

[DandBMonk]

@1988TheHitman

Oh, okay...I appreciate it man. I guess I need to read that again, cause John 14 is, in my opinion, the greatest chapter in the entire Holy Bible.

[1988TheHitman]

@DandBMonk

Yea no problem i mean there are lots of places that talk about it and what we have to remember is we are all members of Christs body, we are brothers through his blood so if we die IN CHRIST we will know exactly who people are in heaven because we are ALL members of his body : ) to be honest its a very deep thing and very wonderful at the same time.

[1988TheHitman]

@DandBMonk

Sorry my friend is isnt John 14, Its Matthew 22 verses 25 - 30

[christilover]

God bless you ravi , you put somoe peace in my heart. Excellent and so powerful.

[prettyemofreak]

the fella is one of the most sometimes i believe the most Smartest men i've had the pleasure of knowing. Not only by his study and all the work and teaching's he's done but also his speech as well. Very intelligent man.

[1988TheHitman]

Really? How are you sure? If God has said in his word that he goes to prepare a place in heaven for all them that love him then who shall I put my trust in? You? Or Him that created us? You can see heaven one day too if you ask Jesus to forgive you of yor sins : )

[1988TheHitman]

Ravi is amazing id love to meet him : ) if i dont meet him on earth il see him in heaven anyway so thats good : )

[coos678]

@1988TheHitman No you won't

[ThatsWhatDreSaid]

@1988TheHitman Trust me Heaven you will not rejoice over Ravi in Heaven, you will rejoice over Jesus Christ!! not over apostle Paul not over Peter or anyone but Christ!

[jen4um]

@1988TheHitman I met him face to face at a small gathering in Pennsylvania, about 30 people in attendance. He is full of warmth and the Spirit. It emanates from him.

[1988TheHitman]

@jen4um

Wow, i must say i am jealous : ) hes just great i could listen to him all day long!

[ohgidgetz]

:) :)

[HowdyNrealLife]

This is good (: