and after this humiliation Craig will stand up, smile and continue his list of "arguments"... he doesn't mind getting some mud on his face as long as you give him 5 mins to talk about his rubbish, after all he's a professional debater.
@GodTheHypothesis try replying earlier and I really don't give a damn what you think is arrogant. If you want to complain about me using the words win or lose give yourself a hug. I respect Dacey, but was not impressed with his performance.
How can anyone say that Dr. Craig lost. It is obvious that Dacey's arguments are totally silly and his further arguments show that he loses on the logical ground because he swaps from logical question to questions like, why would God decide to create universe in 13 billions of years and not rather 5? Those who don't see the decreasing intellectual level of his argumentations must be blind. Yet still some stupid people feel that he's winning because it satisfies their atheistic view.
Reading this comment, I think you should take a step back and realise that people tend to see a debate in light of the side they happen to hold. Making comments like X clearly won, is often just juvenile- cos clearly a lot of people disagree. People always look for reasons to back up their current beliefs. Try and look past that and be objective. As far as I can see, no-one won or lost this.
@GodTheHypothesis Then you probably can see not too far, because in objective view, you must admit that Dr. Craig stood on the logical ground while Dacey contradicted himself and couldn't held consistent opinion. For atheism is inconsistent in its very principle. You can believe atheism only when you give up intellectual honesty. That's very clear. That's why theist debater wins every debate with atheist debater. For the evidence in on his side.
The statement "believe atheism" is utterly meaningless. Atheism isn't a proposition, it's the rejection of a proposition. And before you claim that atheism is actually the claim that god doesn't exist, look up the article on about.com that collects the various dictionary definitions- craig constantly misuses the word so he can try and shift the burden of proof.
@GodTheHypothesis That is nonsense. You have to believe that atheism is true, because there is no proof whatsoever, you have to take it by faith. Atheism is a proposition that God doesn't exist and it's accepted by faith only. It is not a rejection of a proposition.
So that's twice now you've ignored what I've said. Please look at the article "What is the definition of atheism?" on about.com. Almost every dictionary defines 2 different kinds of atheism. You are using the definition that almost no-one in the modern world agrees with- please be polite enough to ask people what they mean instead of telling them. Oxford english dictionary: Atheism - "Disbelief in OR denial of a God".
@GodTheHypothesis exactly, I know this definition very well, or you thought that I didn't? But it means nothing. You could also say "belief that God doesn't exist" that's the same because there is no evidence on their side while there is an evidence on theist side so they must take by faith that God doesn't exist. Atheism is faith. Period. No proof, no evidence, no reasonable doubt whatsoever.
Well no it doesn't mean nothing. Disbelief in something isn't a position that requires evidence, that's the point. You don't need evidence to disbelieve in the flying spagetti monster, you just need to respond to any claims that he exists. So lets hear what this evidence for theism? I'm not sure you understand the idea of burden of proof exactly. Do you have evidence against zeus?
@GodTheHypothesis why don't you check some of your well known atheist sites who disagree with you, sir. Now if there were someone to take down Craig I'm sure you and your colleagues would do a little chant and dance. One can say you're backing your belief system by trying to push a neutral outcome. I say this with confidence because when looking at this objectively Dr. Craig presents and defends his ideas more effectively. So, to maintain your integrity you won't go as far to say Dacey won.
I don't think you made a single argument there that I feel worthy to respond to, you just gave your opinion. Thanks very much for that, hope it made you feel better.
@GodTheHypothesis The famous behavior of an Atheist. Passing someone off because they did not give what is a worthy argument or example in their eyes. I'm glad I got you to show this behavior.
So by pushing neutrality you're not "losing" so to speak. I know you don't like that term. This is a common behavior among atheist, to pass off one's opposing beliefs as not good enough. A lot of atheist look for some ultimate evidence to convert them and when they don't get it they pass off the conversation/debate. The ultimate evidence is intrinsic to the believer. You're wasting your time arguing for a neutral outcome.
@GodTheHypothesis do you understand arguing against the use of a word or someone's stance in a manner you're doing passes you off as not worth for our time? You don't present any material worth debating. You merely want to induce utopian behavior in an unfair manner. Tell your atheist friends to objectively look at debates and internalize their opinion... since an opinion has little value outside of the beholder.
I've never seen an atheist express his lack of belief in God in such a manner that it impressed me. Even the most intelligent men who deny God will resort to childish antics within a debate. You can say that about Christians as well. However, those who believe have Dr. Craig and those who don't have... gentlemen like Atkins who makes a major ass out of himself... oh and the big one, that coward Dawkins.
It's funny so many of you claim Craig loses this debate. Most of you probably cannot understand the material presented by either side. Most intelligent non-believers would disagree with your opinion. I can point you to an atheist website that analyzes the debates and disagrees with you.
Rather condescending to suggest that people don't understand the material. It's not exactly sophisticated philosophy- it's just the same arguments for God that you find from every other theologian. They all seem very impressive to people who already believe and incredibly desperate to those who don't. Personally, I don't really know what it means to "lose" a debate- the general opinion is that it's who argues the best. That kinda seems irrelevant to me.
Because Dacey is an obvious nervous fruit-cake (note his voice from the OFF warbbeling/shaking like a kitten just out of its nest) he loses the lecture even before Craig stands up to destroy him!!! ;-)
@h2321 laughingly says: Person who gets emotional first, loses.
*
Thats strange, my next door nieghbor talks to me just like this chappie dacey (when I speak to them about Christ) but he believes every conspiricy theory of David Eycke and not usual atheistic evolution get-out of responsiibilty syndrome? So does he win the argument because he speaks like dacey?
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
AT LAST Willy has been PWND by someone who actually know what he is talking about... further, Dacey did it with so much style, he stayed calmed and did not shout or used an of the showy discursive techniques that craig uses....
Autism Dacey failed. Craig addresses every one of Dacey's arguments and refutes them effortlessly. Dacey's arguments are airy and sophomoric. The only way you can bring a laptop to a debate and still lose is if you have a weak argument.
Craig asserts that the resurrection has been proven - It hasn't.
Craig asserts that if it did happen (it didn't) then it would prove jesus's divinity - It wouldn't.
Dacey's cogent arguments about suffering, his hiddenness, evolution are dismissed with a banal assertion that we don't know god's mind so therefore these arguments don't hold weight.
If you think that constitutes a victory then you are more feeble minded than most theists.
@1878EFC2008 Not only were Dacey's "arguments" were thoroughly and effortlessly dismantled but Dacey didn't address all of craigs arguments. Ha, almost everything Dacey argued about the fine tuning of the universe is an assertion.
We dont know the mind of God so how is that an assertion??
@1878EFC2008 Haha Daceys arguments DON"T hold weight b/c we DON'T know Gods mind. Dacey isn't even in the same intellectual ball park as Craig. Lol, everything you've said is an assertion.
Craig is a much more charismatic and experienced debater. Dacey has some good points and has potential, but it's obvious he is inexperienced compared to Craig (he is also half Craig's age). So even if Dacey's points were better than Craig's (which they aren't), his lack of energy and enthusiasm would cause him to lose the debate. Half of debating at this level is the delivery, not just the ideas.
Craig presents the same stupid '5/6 good arguments' in every debate, despite having already been shattered by reputable scientists and common sense. I'd say Dacey effectively refuted Craig's arguments better than most, as he went beyond a lack of evidence (which is usually enough).
Simply on the basis of calling everything in the bible 'fact,' Craig proves himself a good snake-oil salesman. That's not an admirable quality, I'd say.
Never heard of this guy Austin Dacey, but he's the first person I've heard that undeniably annihilated, and thoroughly humiliated, Craig's arguments. After this savage beating, Craig probably had to take one of those rape showers.
@redchango "Undeniably annihilated, and thoroughly humiliated"??
It was refreshing to hear a coherent argument from an atheist (surprisingly rare), but it wasn't a beatdown either way. Some honest atheists concede it was close. From commonsenseatheism: "In general, Dacey does a better job of being clear and organized than most of Craig’s other opponents, but in the end Craig is still more organized and had good-sounding responses to Dacey’s arguments that Dacey didn’t get a chance to rebut."
@pcgamerjoe - Commonsenseatheism isn't a good place to go for debate reviews. Everyone knows that the author of that site has a man-crush on William Lane Craig. The truth is that WLC tried to frame the debate, and Dacey didn't allow him too. "It was refreshing to hear a coherent argument from an atheist" - what I said wasn't an "argument" - it was more like a taunt. Get it straight.
@redchango Um, I wasn't talking about YOU when I talked about the refreshing coherent argument. I was talking about Dacey, and I said it with 0% sarcasm...so I'm not sure what your taunt has to do with anything.
Everytime I see WLC in action, I feel like the man who watches his mother-in-law going over a cliff while driving is brand new Mercedes! On one hand, I enjoy greatly seeing WLC, as he ALWAYS does, reduce the atheist-de-jour to ribbons.The very best in the atheist arsenal bounce harmlessly off of Craig like BB's off a boxcar. On the other hand, I cringe when I hear him state that the universe is 13.6 billion years old, rejecting the six-day Genesis account for an evolutionary "Big Bang"! Whaat?
Dacey doesn't substantively engage Craig's arguments. He engages on a supericial level and deflects off without ever really addressing the core substance.
He seems much more rational and sensible than most Atheists, but he is just bouncing around deflecting off serious challenges that deserve serious answers.
I think he's playing to survive the debate and avoid embarrasment.
1) How can God create time without the time to do it?
(fact) Time itself is simply an attribute of our physical Universe. Our Universe began to exist in the absolute. Therefore Time is contingent. Time is not binding upon that which transcends the Universe to cause time, space and matter into existence. That which is contingent upon the existence of the Universe (Time/space/matter) cannot rationally pre-exist the existence of the contingency ( Universe).
1) what absolute are you even talking about? absolute what? nobody even knows what was before the big bang...you can't say there was a time before time because it contradicts itself.
consciousness & causality all requires time to occur...if there was a conscious creator then there needs to be a moment in time for a cause to occur or it never occurred at all...God theory then proposes a logical paradox begging the question by asserting GOD properties without actually proving the God exists. cont
Because a will would be necessary to bring about a Universe of physical Time Space Matter where nothing physically existed. The absolute beginning (from physical nothingness) of the Universe is exactly what the Big Bang Theory and validating theorums all confirm.
2) Nobody knows what was before the big bang & when physicists say "there was nothing" they meant there was a void of black hole amass in a sea of energy in matter & they say nothing for a lack of a better term for black holes of void...Craig is commiting equivocation fallacy since began to exist does NOT equal created out of nothing & that would break the first law of thermodynamics.
your arguing by equivocation.
explains the term "nothing" made by physicists ---> /watch?v=u_676IeyJNQ
2) (PART2) --> saying a will is necessary also begs the question since when does the will happen? thought also require time to be thought up....& why is it necessary?
will is a function of the brain, thus begging the question again with the disembodied mind theory.
There is no free will if the mind is reducable to nothing but a byproduct of electrochemical activity. Chemicals don't have a will.
"will is a function of the brain" is begging the question in it's purest form.
Your assertion that God's will would require physical time is silly. Again, time is ant attribute of our Universe - We experience Time in our physical Universe, but Time is not a necesary condition of that which transcendends time.
There is no free will if the mind is reducable to nothing but a byproduct of electrochemical activity. Chemicals don't have a will.
"will is a function of the brain" is begging the question in it's purest form.
Your assertion that God's will would require physical time is silly. Again, time is ant attribute of our Universe - We experience Time in our physical Universe, but Time is not a necesary condition of that which transcendends time.
"There is no free will if the mind is reducable to nothing but a byproduct of electrochemical activity. Chemicals don't have a will"
what's wrong with that? just because it's hard to accept for you doesn't mean that a disembodied mind exists.
"but Time is not a necesary condition of that which transcendends time"
This disembodied mind transcending time is still unproven therefore you are begging the question by assuming it in the premises...show me a brainless mind & abolish all doubt
No free will is not a proof of God, but it is evidence of the absurdity of Atheism. If you thoughts are merely an illusory byproduct induced by electrochemical activity, what poosible basis do you have for claiming any illusion is 'true' . Why do you argue with my electrochemical byproducts? You must make a tacit exception for the objective truth of your own illusions - denying your own Atheistic Naturalism.
"No free will is not a proof of God, but it is evidence of the absurdity of Atheism"
we weren't discussing your thoughts on atheism my friend, we can discuss that after we reach a conclusion regarding kalam on God's existence...let's focus on this topic first...& I am not a naturalist either...I have some silly irrational superstitious beliefs of my own.
"then show me evidence...both observable, tangible, & testable...otherwise we cannot conclude it in the premise."
Contingent Universe
Evidences for design: specified complexity, integrated interdependences for third purposes, irreducible complexity, Failure of Naturalism to logically explain origin and organization of life.
You simply don't know what the hell you're talking about here.
You are dead wrong on the physics. Black holes dont pre-exist the Universe itself. Thermodynamics applies to behavior within a closed system. The Universe itself did not exist, so Energy (within the Universe) did not pre-exist the Universe.
An absolute beginning of the Universe means physical Time, space and matter did not exist beyond the boundary (singularity) demarcing the beginning of the Universe.
"An absolute beginning of the Universe means physical Time, space and matter did not exist beyond the boundary (singularity) demarcing the beginning of the Universe"
pls read the 1st law of thermodynamics
a time before time would be logically contradictory & impossible to even discuss rationally since if there were no time then causes could not have happened for it to eventually happen requires time.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics only apply to pre-existing matter & energy & NOT spacetime.
Further, If our thoughts are merely electrochemically induced illusion, there is no objective right and wrong or any basis for moral duties to exist. Even raping and torturing children would be moraly justifiable if the child rapist's biochemical illusions permit it.
Hitler would be morally justified gassing 7 million Jews if he thought it was the right thing to do - or Stalin starving 12 million Ukranians.
We apprehend a real of moral Truth - only Atheism cannot permit it.
ah...now that you fail to give evidences & proof for timeless brainless super-powered mind you've switched your position to argument from morality.
I say the moral guide & moral truth lies in our own ability to love, to empathize & sympathize & reflect on our own actions...our own compassion & the understanding of the rules of our society...why would a deity be necessary?
NOW, PROVIDE YOUR EVIDENCES that no non-physical intelligence exists ? No excuses or stupid atheist talking points to exempt yourself from the evidences you demand of Theists.
I already gave you the reason why some of your evidences beg the question & shown you how they are founded on logical fallacies...it is now up to you to give a logically sound premise for your proposition.
asking me to prove a negative eh? that's a fallacy.
Argument from ignorance - is an informal logical fallacy. It asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false.
I don't know why you can't get your head around the FACT that thermodynamic laws pertain to a closed system. Think of the Universe as a balloon with a finite amount of available chemical energy placed within it - that energy can be converted to gas, heat, expansion or various purposes. The laws of Thermodynamics pertain to the behavior of energy available inside the balloon (closed system) . Now, realize that balloon and chemical energy once DID NOT EXIST, but began to exist
"The laws of Thermodynamics pertain to the behavior of energy available inside the balloon (closed system)
Thermodynamics does not apply to the system itself...it only applies to the content of the system, the pre-existing matter & energy inside it...so you can't apply it to the system in question...energy, matter & spacetime have different properties.
Fallacy of Composition - Arguing from some property of constituent parts, to the conclusion that the composite item has that property.
Argument from ignorance - is an informal logical fallacy. It asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false.
This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option: there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven to be either true or false.
In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.
I have already explained to you & written down why your so-called evidences is logically unsound...it is now up to you to make a logical premise instead of resorting to fallacies.
The burden of proof lies on you...the premise may be true or false but you have failed to give a logical reason why they are correct, since they are founded on fallacies.
fallacies in philosophy are by definition invalid logic...& you have commited so many of them...I point them out for you to correct your arguments.
"The burden of proof lies on you..." [Dishonest Atheist talking point #1 - to exempt yourself from evidence you don't have]
(fact) Only knowledge claims bear a burden of evidence - not beliefs. Theism is no more a claim to knowledge than Atheism. Both are equal.
In fact, another operative principle places the burden on the "controversial claim". In this case the burden rests squarely on the Atheist. You're dishonest Atheist bretheren failed to inform you of this.
"The burden of proof lies on you..." [Dishonest Atheist talking point #1 - to exempt yourself from evidence you don't have]
(fact) Only knowledge claims bear a burden of evidence - not beliefs. Theism is no more a claim to knowledge than Atheism. Both are equal.
In fact, another operative principle places the burden on the "controversial claim". In this case the burden rests squarely on the Atheist. You're dishonest Atheist bretheren failed to inform you of this.
My patience is thin. Again, I have nothing to learn from you in this area of discussion. If you have some serious questions and want to learn you better straighten up and get serious. I won't waste time on silly Atheist nitwits jackassing around with childish antics..
LOL why are you getting so angry when you are the one proposing explanations to the assumptions of the kalam & when I refute them you resort to an angry rant about atheism...Why is an unconscious unexplained/unknown cause an impossiblity? & where is the evidence for this eternal brainless mind?
Your out of firepower and excuses, so you've devolved into arbitrary labeling of my valid arguments to avoid the onslaught you cannot honestly handle.
I'll be strait with you. I have nothing to learn from you. I've defeated the low-grade rubbish you're peddling many times. You're in over your head, but you could learn from me. I would be happy to help you out of your confusion agreeably, but I don't suffer pretenses and BS of Internet Atheists who refuse to learn.
Yeah don't waste your time with mountains of evidences. There's nothing I'll learn from Atheistic radical decunstructionist BS - except how silly Atheists can be. JUST DON'T claim we don't have evidences. We most certainly do.
Where is your evidences? All you have are excuses.
Ad hominem - also known as argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.
You've constructed to fit your "Argument from ignorance" with an "Ad Hominem"
Argument from ignorance - is an informal logical fallacy. It asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false.
Your thermodynamics doubletalk is silly and meaningless.
Thermodynamic Laws are not violated by a Universe with an absolute beginning. The Naturalist is stuck with the absurdity of an absolute beginning (Big Bang) that cannot be allowed to actually begin - or began caused by Nothing - not the Theist.
"Thermodynamic Laws are not violated by a Universe with an absolute beginning"
This begs the question of.. how can you possibly know that the universe had a time when it did not exist in another form within the unknown properties of the quantum field? any cosmologist will tell you that it was an unknown what was before the big bang & the unknown is NOT nothing.
Just like your particles was already in existence before you existed as a human.
I'm actually a very happy guy most of the time. In fact, "Happy" is a nickname some have given me at work.
The same sloppy dishonest rubbish regurgitated hundreds of times by those who obviously don't understand the subject is exasperating.
You guys are clearly unaware of the silliness of your protests. Your protests are not even serious points much less arguments - even less refutations. I cringe as you repeat the same lines - like zombies impervious to correction.
3) How can a consciousness be eternal & exist w/out a brain?
That just begs the question. The brain is a physical 'tool' necessary for our spiritual being to interact within the physical realm. It is absolutely essential within our physical realm, but cannot logically be binding upon that which transcends the Physical.
Rational absurdities begin when the logical implications of Atheism are taken seriously - reducing all thoughts to biochemically induced illusions of the brain.
4) Where is the proof that magical GOD powers does exist?
Dr Craig never claims magical powers exist. That's just a silly characature. Magic would be something happening uncaused. God is a causal agency - not an appeal to magic.
BTW there are many evidences for God. Dr Craig presents some of them. There are no evidences for "no God". This is precisely why Dr Craig wins his debates.
5) Where is proof that a non-conscious unexplainable cause cannot possibly be?
4) "There are no evidences for "no God". This is precisely why Dr Craig wins his debates"
of course there is also no evidences for no unicorns, does that mean they exists? his "proofs" simply begs the question by assuming it in the premises...some an appeal to ad populum.
Let me rephrase...where is proof that GOD powers even exists?
you can't say it's a causal agent because you still haven't proven it's existence...you can't just define it into existence.
5) Where is proof that a non-conscious unexplainable cause cannot possibly be?
Proof of impossibility? That's a ridiculous (false) standard. The evidences and rational merits we do have point to certain plausible conclusions.
Sure, we can entertain any speculative possibility if we throw out the evidences, logic and reason. Most of us recognize we live in a Universe with a rational order imposed upon it. This is why Christians developed the modern scientific method.
5) "The evidences and rational merits we do have point to certain plausible conclusions"
Your conclusion regarding GOD theory is invalid for reasons explained in my responses to 1,2,3 & 4 therefore we can't use it as a valid conclusion for your response to number 5.
& yes we can entertain speculative possibilities but deduction of possibilities require knowing the impossibilities...now how is it an impossibility? simply because GOD is assumed in the premises?
Basically, your lost and confuced on every level. I'll be happy to help untangle it, but you'll need to show some attempt to actually understand the arguments. You're kicking up a bunch of ill-considered nonsense that only reveals you have little clue on this subject.
Trust me, Dr Craigs arguments are not invalid nor will they be defeated by shallow rubbish.
The evidences and logic consistently point in certain direction - towards a Physical Universe with an absolute beginning (Big Bang). This has been repeatedly and successfully confirmed by scientific testing.
Sure, committed Atheist speculators committed to Naturalist dogma are working hard to find some plausible deniability to the absolute beginning of the Universe. However, contrived unsupported unverifiable speculations are not science. The actual science supports Theists.
if we wanted to be as morally good as god, why don't we just cease trying to alleviate suffering? god doesn't do anything about it, maybe we should follow his lead!
I have to point out that IF God is not present...then where is the fault lain to all the suffering....but somehow if God then enters the picture it is then transferred onto Him? This is terrible by any judicial system standards.
@hexusziggurat "I have to point out that IF God is not present...then where is the fault lain to all the suffering....but somehow if God then enters the picture it is then transferred onto Him?"
Correct. If you're saying a god exists who created everything in nature, then he is accountable for all the faults within his creation. As an atheist, I wouldn't blame the earth for being rough and uneven, but I would blame the council if my roads were made with bumps and cracks.
@aliasbrush if you are an atheist....you must have a course that lays where the source of suffering comes from right now for humanity. I already know the answer is humans, and events (those beyond our control). Those are still the same sources of blame even with God present. If you even tempt the notion that God exists...then you must also tempt the notion that things were different in the beginning and humanity earned its way to where we are now.
@hexusziggurat The main source of suffering right now is from nature. Nature is not conscious and does not have any will, intent, or omniscient plan. It simply does what it does without choice.
However, as soon as you introduce a creator - a being that purposely designed nature to be the way it is - that being has to be responsible for his creation. He actively chose to make it this way.
You couldn't blame a river for overflowing, but you could blame the designer of a canal (a man-made river).
@aliasbrush Even with the creator I still blame events on the sake of events. If God set it all up this way...then there must be a reason. To even qualify God as a being to be named "god", He'd have to meet the prerequisites of what it means to actually BE a "god". Those qualifiers mean "supreme being", that means the ultimate source for knowledge, power, presence...now since a being as such would have immense awareness...His "actions" would seem almost alien to us to carry out long term logic.
@hexusziggurat Okay, I agree with most of what you are saying here (which is at a tangent from the original point of God's accountability) - God, if he exists would be a mystery to us, and his reasons for creating things the way they are would also be a mystery to us.
However, this introduces a new problem, and this was touched upon in the debate. How do we know his reasons are good? Since he is far beyond our comprehension, we cannot know his true intent. We can only go by what we observe.
@hexusziggurat Not really - because God is supposed to be all powerful, able to cause or stop anything he likes. It's basically "with great power comes great responsibility". And it's not necessarily saying that it's god's fault - it's that it's immoral for him NOT to stop it if he can... Like if you know your neighbor is torturing their children in the basement but you can't be bothered to call the cops. That's why the blame is laid at least partly at god's feet. If you say god is almighty.
@Stairc I do say He is almighty. What i don't say is that i can understand the entire butterfly effect of every happening on the face of the planet simultaneously....He can though. If God did stop the suffering constantly...where would be the understanding we gain from falling from grace. You'd never be a "just" parent if your child did bad then you decided that its too harsh to punishment them so they'd learn. You're giving an example of how humans just want everything their way, like a child.
@hexusziggurat Now you're making a fallacy - two really. First, if god's reasons for anything can go beyond our comprehension and thus it's impossible to judge if his actions are moral... How do we know he's good? According to that, he could easily be evil - we can't examine his reasons.
Second, god MADE the rules. He could easily create other ways for humans to understand about falling from grace. And anyway this is about meaningless suffering, like disease - not suffering that's human's fault
@Stairc now just b/c we're unable to examine His reasoning doesn't make any of His reasoning invallid either. We could never invallidate His actions (good/evil) based on our own very limited version of judgement capabilities on His being either. It'd be as if saying what an entire puzzle looks like from examining one piece. "meaningless suffering" is an assumption. We can't say something is meaningless neccessarily without understanding the entirey of its impact on the world or individual(s).
@hexusziggurat Precisely! You've just answered your own question. If god is beyond understanding like you say, and his reasons are too, we can't make any judgments what's so ever about god being good or evil or what he would do in ANY situation. This means that there is no proof POSSIBLE that could validate or invalidate the existence of god. This is effectively what Craig says. This means that by definition, no such proof can exist... And all of Craig's points are over with, just like unicorns.
@Stairc unicorns?! why would you believe in unicorns?
"This means that there is no proof POSSIBLE that could validate or invalidate the existence of god" thats extrapolating rather greatly...my reference in "not understanding God" is based on not understanding His LOGIC. WLC also points out that it is a fallacy to believe "that if there is no proof for X, therefor that is proof that X doesn't exist". Just b/c you don't have the proofing you desire doesn't invallidate anything.
@hexusziggurat Magical unicorns are just as valid a reason for creating the universe under Craig's defnitions as god. I used them here to say his points are laughable and false, like those supporting unicorns.
And yes, god's logic. But all craig's proof is predicated on the idea that he thinks he knows what god would do, that god WOULD fine-tune a universe for life, that god WOULD raise jesus from the dead... If he says we can't predict what god would do, he invalidates his point.
@Stairc stating "what God has done" is different than saying "we understand what God would do based on God's logic"...completely different. In all seriousness...go to his web site and pose your questions...if its so "laughable" as you state then you have sound reason to basically demolish his arguements where no other one who has debated him on this topic has been able to do in complete success. Oh and don't forget to bring up the unicorns too...that should definately set you a peg up!
@hexusziggurat You've completely missed Craig's points. By citing the universe as fine-tuned for life as proof of god, he is assuming that the god whose logic he says is presumptuous to attempt to predict would act in a specific way - namely finetuning the universe for life. He is taking states of affairs and trying to attribute them to his god based on how he thinks god would act. However, when Dacey does the same thing, he calls it presumptuous. This nullifies his own arguments.
@hexusziggurat Stating that we cannot make claims about what god would do or what the universe would look like if God existed because his logic is beyond us automatically rules out any way you can prove him through referring to that universe. It would be like me saying that I have a friend who is a genius, a genius who knows everything. You have him take a test and he gets a bunch of answers wrong. But my friend's genius is beyond your capacity to examine. You can't prove or disprove it.
I'm pointing out that stating "what has already happened" is different than "what we think would happen". In the case of your friend we'd deduce based on references to what HAS transpired before us...the test. No that would not prove he is not a genius. 1 test is not neccessarily enough in that particular case unless the test was perhaps a billion questions long. Then we draw a conclusion based on "what we've gathered", not "what could be".
@hexusziggurat No, you're still missing the point. Stating what has happened is indeed different than predicting something. However, Craig's reasons for attributing what has happened to god are all based on a notion of understanding how god would operate. He is saying "the universe is like this. The best explanation of the universe being like this is god, because god would make a universe that is like this." That is a rational argument ONLY if you claim to understand the logic of god.
@Stairc "That is a rational argument ONLY if you claim to understand the logic of god."
His claim is based off what has already transpired. he goes from the bottom up...and you are trying to say we don't understand from the top dwn. WLC explains this in many of his debates.
@hexusziggurat Now, I don't believe that we can't make statements about the logic of god - but that IS what Craig and you have said. I understand why you'd say that, but you must see now why it's flawed - since it outlaws any concievable way to prove or disprove god's existence. He might jsut as easily have made something one way as another if we can't know. This means that the universe being the way it is can't possibly be evidence for god, since what god would is unknowable.
@hexusziggurat Finally, my Genius example is not necessary to my point - but I'd like to explore it a bit anyway. I'm puzzled by why any number of tests would be sufficient to disprove that my friend knows everything and is always correct. By the very definition of my friend's abilities, he is ALWAYS correct. If the test agrees with him, the test is right. If the test disagrees, the test is wrong. Since his logic is higher than the people who made the test, they cannot possible prove or disprove
@Stairc "If the test agrees with him, the test is right. If the test disagrees, the test is wrong" Now theres also some other factors involved such as "is your friend human" is your friend knowable and testable by those around him? Now just b/c you say his logic is "higher" doesn't neccessarily make it so unless we actually CAN see an example of such logic...even if it doesn't make absolute sense to us. Thats what i'm getting at...the friend must perform "something" rather than "nothing".
@hexusziggurat this is the same fallacy we hit with god's logic being beyond human comprehension. If that is the case, there is no way that any state of the universe could possibly prove or disprove his existence - because we aren't allowed to make judgments on what we think a universe designed by god would look like. Craig calls such claims 'presumptuous' despite the fact he does the same himself. Naturally, we MUST be able to trust our understanding, else my friend is also all-knowing.
@Stairc I thik we're running into a problem b/c i am trying to say we can understand a "small portion" of the logic based on the examples manifested...while you are (if i may) saying that it won't make sense to understand the smallest portion unless we understand the source in its entirety.
imagine a complex math problem that takes 1000 years to finish & is complex....but i can look at a section of what has gone by in calculations & i spot 2+2...i understand part..but not the whole apparatus.
@hexusziggurat I understand, but it doesn't work like that - because once you throw any of the understanding into question we have no reason to trust the rest of it either. In the math example, we take it for granted that the universe stays in tune with the basic mathematical rules and that it's all understandable - it's just very complex. If we suddenly twist these assumption and claim that they're not founded - then all the claims are entirely suspect.
@Stairc i hear ya. I don't really want to use the "its beyond our understanding" but once we adopt a multitude of complexities into the equation ...the whole apparatus is really beyond us. I am on page with you in saying we do take the universe for granted..considering how many finely tuned adjustments there needs to be for it to work the way it does & that they need to work harmoniously with each other is the bigger stumper. I'd never claim to say i could "fully" understand a supreme being.
@hexusziggurat Ah, well that's something completely different. So long as we agree that we can make practical guesses as to what a god would be more likely to do than something else (such as the fine-tuning of life) that's fine. I'm just pointing out that Craig's attack on Dacey's own reasoning on these lines is self-defeating. I agree that, wile we can't know anything for sure, we must be able to assume that we can at least make educated guesses.
@hexusziggurat I'll be happy to talk to you about why I think the 'it's really improbable' argument for fine-tuning isn't a great argument for an intelligent creator soon - but I have to leave in a few minutes. For now, glad we got this first point nailed down.
@hexusziggurat One final note in this chain. The argument for god's logic being unknowable discounts all of Craig's points except for one - his first and most famous, the Kalaam Cosmological argument. We don't need to understand god's logic if all we are trying to prove that a supernatural force was REQUIRED to exist. Of course, any further argument that would attempt to use the universe to prove that such a force is the christian god would be futile, but if you want to explore this end, we can.
@hexusziggurat Because my friend's genius is beyond your capacity to comprehend or examine, and he's always right, you can't prove or disprove that this claim of his intelligence is correct. And guess what, now he's saying that William Craig's arguments are wrong. Do you accept these claims, even though you can't disprove them and they follow the same logic Craig tries to apply to god? Either way, you lose the argument here. Making logic unexaminable makes it impossible to base proof on it.
@Schnebit It presupposes that innocent suffering is unwanted and undeserved and that God has the ability to prevent it but chooses not to. It would thus be considered an amoral act to allow it to happen.
As an example, I am a trained first aider, and note as well here the law protects people giving first aid. I would thus consider it amoral if I saw someone in need of help and I choose not to help them.
Dacey is just a reductionist who dismisses serious arguments with silly excuses that only nip at the edges or evade the substance or arguments completely.
@4TruthMatters So dacey is a reductionist? Craig explains the Big Bang in 1 minute, evolution in 30 seconds and dismises the as impossible with no good arguments to back up himself . Basicly anythisng in science can disprove god, therefore he exists. If anyone is a reductionist that's Craig.
@namasteywhat If the answer to suffering is "greater purpose", then God is clearly incompetent or sadic (maybe both), because he is incapable or don´t want to stop suffering to achieve his goals. If the answer to evil is that the world is a stage for us to have an oportunity to do moral actions, why God supposedly show himself to us? A person who thinks that is being watched by a judge is not entitled to do any sincere moral action. If that´s the case, only atheists can go to heaven.
@namasteywhat Would you provide a link and ideally time, I have seen most of Craig's video's on youtube, and would be interested to hear his thoughts on that.
I am a strict atheist, but frankly would rather have a conversation with Craig than the vast majority of atheists on youtube.
He is quite a skilled debater and conducts himself with respect and professionalism.
@CliffStamp I am honestly just curious, what does it mean exactly to be a "strict atheist"? Does that mean you are hard-headed to Christian facts, or is it akin to calling yourself a "scientist"?
@Dado75 Atheism has a number of divisions, the main split tends to be on one end there are those that claim that the evidence does not support a claim for a God, on the other end there are those that claim that the evidence shows that there can not be a God. Dawkins for example is on one end and Hitchen's the other. Hitchens rejects even the concept of a God as a being worth of Worship even if it did exist and thus would not acknowledge it as a God.
@namasteywhat Assuming that god has infinite power, wisdom and knowledge, why would he have to utilize suffering of innocents (or any other absolutely amoral action)? If he is limited then by definition he is not god.
Thus God by definition can easily work without innocent suffering, but does so regardless and thus is amoral, and extremely so as he is amoral when he could prevent it trivially (again his power is limitless).
He is the obviously the most amoral being in existence.
@CliffStamp all that suffering, but not once do we think that God perhaps did not want to be "owed" anything...He left us to our own accord..to far or to walk....to be greedy or giving....to hate or show kindness...to be bitter or show forgiveness. We can walk through life and continue to blame it on others and God by no means would ever escape those willing to lay blame...at what time can you honestly "own" your own life? Did God not want us to come freely to Him?
@CliffStamp i think "psychotic break" pretty much means "insert wild card here" I think if God was always intervening on our behalf...humans would soon say...can't we just do it our way?
"family" in that sense of a brother or sister etc... who you can laugh and run with or help build a house is a far cry off than a "divinty" who is capable of shattering the world.
and after this humiliation Craig will stand up, smile and continue his list of "arguments"... he doesn't mind getting some mud on his face as long as you give him 5 mins to talk about his rubbish, after all he's a professional debater.
greekmanos 2 months ago
@GodTheHypothesis try replying earlier and I really don't give a damn what you think is arrogant. If you want to complain about me using the words win or lose give yourself a hug. I respect Dacey, but was not impressed with his performance.
JohnnieLouisRoesel 2 months ago
How come atheists usually look creepy?
avgjoeshmo 3 months ago
How can anyone say that Dr. Craig lost. It is obvious that Dacey's arguments are totally silly and his further arguments show that he loses on the logical ground because he swaps from logical question to questions like, why would God decide to create universe in 13 billions of years and not rather 5? Those who don't see the decreasing intellectual level of his argumentations must be blind. Yet still some stupid people feel that he's winning because it satisfies their atheistic view.
Arainion 3 months ago
@Arainion
Reading this comment, I think you should take a step back and realise that people tend to see a debate in light of the side they happen to hold. Making comments like X clearly won, is often just juvenile- cos clearly a lot of people disagree. People always look for reasons to back up their current beliefs. Try and look past that and be objective. As far as I can see, no-one won or lost this.
GodTheHypothesis 3 months ago
@GodTheHypothesis Then you probably can see not too far, because in objective view, you must admit that Dr. Craig stood on the logical ground while Dacey contradicted himself and couldn't held consistent opinion. For atheism is inconsistent in its very principle. You can believe atheism only when you give up intellectual honesty. That's very clear. That's why theist debater wins every debate with atheist debater. For the evidence in on his side.
Arainion 3 months ago
@Arainion
The statement "believe atheism" is utterly meaningless. Atheism isn't a proposition, it's the rejection of a proposition. And before you claim that atheism is actually the claim that god doesn't exist, look up the article on about.com that collects the various dictionary definitions- craig constantly misuses the word so he can try and shift the burden of proof.
GodTheHypothesis 3 months ago
@GodTheHypothesis That is nonsense. You have to believe that atheism is true, because there is no proof whatsoever, you have to take it by faith. Atheism is a proposition that God doesn't exist and it's accepted by faith only. It is not a rejection of a proposition.
Arainion 3 months ago
@Arainion
So that's twice now you've ignored what I've said. Please look at the article "What is the definition of atheism?" on about.com. Almost every dictionary defines 2 different kinds of atheism. You are using the definition that almost no-one in the modern world agrees with- please be polite enough to ask people what they mean instead of telling them. Oxford english dictionary: Atheism - "Disbelief in OR denial of a God".
GodTheHypothesis 3 months ago
@GodTheHypothesis exactly, I know this definition very well, or you thought that I didn't? But it means nothing. You could also say "belief that God doesn't exist" that's the same because there is no evidence on their side while there is an evidence on theist side so they must take by faith that God doesn't exist. Atheism is faith. Period. No proof, no evidence, no reasonable doubt whatsoever.
Arainion 3 months ago
@Arainion
Well no it doesn't mean nothing. Disbelief in something isn't a position that requires evidence, that's the point. You don't need evidence to disbelieve in the flying spagetti monster, you just need to respond to any claims that he exists. So lets hear what this evidence for theism? I'm not sure you understand the idea of burden of proof exactly. Do you have evidence against zeus?
GodTheHypothesis 3 months ago
@GodTheHypothesis why don't you check some of your well known atheist sites who disagree with you, sir. Now if there were someone to take down Craig I'm sure you and your colleagues would do a little chant and dance. One can say you're backing your belief system by trying to push a neutral outcome. I say this with confidence because when looking at this objectively Dr. Craig presents and defends his ideas more effectively. So, to maintain your integrity you won't go as far to say Dacey won.
JohnnieLouisRoesel 2 months ago
@JohnnieLouisRoesel
I don't think you made a single argument there that I feel worthy to respond to, you just gave your opinion. Thanks very much for that, hope it made you feel better.
GodTheHypothesis 2 months ago
@GodTheHypothesis The famous behavior of an Atheist. Passing someone off because they did not give what is a worthy argument or example in their eyes. I'm glad I got you to show this behavior.
JohnnieLouisRoesel 2 months ago
@JohnnieLouisRoesel
Cool, I'll take that as a compliment actually.
GodTheHypothesis 2 months ago
So by pushing neutrality you're not "losing" so to speak. I know you don't like that term. This is a common behavior among atheist, to pass off one's opposing beliefs as not good enough. A lot of atheist look for some ultimate evidence to convert them and when they don't get it they pass off the conversation/debate. The ultimate evidence is intrinsic to the believer. You're wasting your time arguing for a neutral outcome.
JohnnieLouisRoesel 2 months ago
@GodTheHypothesis do you understand arguing against the use of a word or someone's stance in a manner you're doing passes you off as not worth for our time? You don't present any material worth debating. You merely want to induce utopian behavior in an unfair manner. Tell your atheist friends to objectively look at debates and internalize their opinion... since an opinion has little value outside of the beholder.
JohnnieLouisRoesel 2 months ago
I've never seen an atheist express his lack of belief in God in such a manner that it impressed me. Even the most intelligent men who deny God will resort to childish antics within a debate. You can say that about Christians as well. However, those who believe have Dr. Craig and those who don't have... gentlemen like Atkins who makes a major ass out of himself... oh and the big one, that coward Dawkins.
JohnnieLouisRoesel 2 months ago
It's funny so many of you claim Craig loses this debate. Most of you probably cannot understand the material presented by either side. Most intelligent non-believers would disagree with your opinion. I can point you to an atheist website that analyzes the debates and disagrees with you.
JohnnieLouisRoesel 4 months ago
@JohnnieLouisRoesel
Rather condescending to suggest that people don't understand the material. It's not exactly sophisticated philosophy- it's just the same arguments for God that you find from every other theologian. They all seem very impressive to people who already believe and incredibly desperate to those who don't. Personally, I don't really know what it means to "lose" a debate- the general opinion is that it's who argues the best. That kinda seems irrelevant to me.
GodTheHypothesis 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Person who gets emotional first, loses."
*
Because Dacey is an obvious nervous fruit-cake (note his voice from the OFF warbbeling/shaking like a kitten just out of its nest) he loses the lecture even before Craig stands up to destroy him!!! ;-)
Bigpheet 4 months ago
Person who gets emotional first, loses.
h2321 4 months ago in playlist DOES GOD EXIST? William Lane Craig vs Austin Dacey
This has been flagged as spam show
@h2321 laughingly says: Person who gets emotional first, loses.
*
Thats strange, my next door nieghbor talks to me just like this chappie dacey (when I speak to them about Christ) but he believes every conspiricy theory of David Eycke and not usual atheistic evolution get-out of responsiibilty syndrome? So does he win the argument because he speaks like dacey?
Bigpheet 4 months ago
An atheist being bald again. lol
MoonwalkerWorshiper 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you want evidence that God exists, or are interested in 9/11 search Jonathan Cahn 1 - Harbinger the Warning, on youtube here
IwillhonorGod 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 6 months ago
AT LAST Willy has been PWND by someone who actually know what he is talking about... further, Dacey did it with so much style, he stayed calmed and did not shout or used an of the showy discursive techniques that craig uses....
94jmcorrea 7 months ago 4
@94jmcorrea craig has been pwned many a time before this, in my opinion sam harris destroyed him and bart erdman also destroyed him.
guitarcar911 7 months ago
@guitarcar911 don't forget victor stinger
94jmcorrea 7 months ago
@94jmcorrea STENGER
94jmcorrea 7 months ago
(2:43 - 3:14) If God stay hidden, there´s, indeed, a way to perceive it: a little humility.
jefersontorres 8 months ago
Autism Dacey failed. Craig addresses every one of Dacey's arguments and refutes them effortlessly. Dacey's arguments are airy and sophomoric. The only way you can bring a laptop to a debate and still lose is if you have a weak argument.
mytuber81 9 months ago
@mytuber81
But he didn't lose.
Craig asserts that the resurrection has been proven - It hasn't.
Craig asserts that if it did happen (it didn't) then it would prove jesus's divinity - It wouldn't.
Dacey's cogent arguments about suffering, his hiddenness, evolution are dismissed with a banal assertion that we don't know god's mind so therefore these arguments don't hold weight.
If you think that constitutes a victory then you are more feeble minded than most theists.
1878EFC2008 8 months ago
@1878EFC2008 Not only were Dacey's "arguments" were thoroughly and effortlessly dismantled but Dacey didn't address all of craigs arguments. Ha, almost everything Dacey argued about the fine tuning of the universe is an assertion.
We dont know the mind of God so how is that an assertion??
mytuber81 7 months ago
@mytuber81
Craig's arguemnts are so fatuous they don't deserve teh dignity of a response.
"God exists, cos like, people said he did and, like, other people, like, died for him and shit"
Except delivered in a pseudo intellectual fashion for retards like to gobble up.
You also can't read. I said Craig makes the assertion that Dacey's arguments don't hold weight because we don't knwo God's mind.
Another fatuous fallacy from Craig.
1878EFC2008 7 months ago
@1878EFC2008 Haha Daceys arguments DON"T hold weight b/c we DON'T know Gods mind. Dacey isn't even in the same intellectual ball park as Craig. Lol, everything you've said is an assertion.
mytuber81 7 months ago
@mytuber81
Why are you using 'assertion' as a pejorative? DO you even know what it means? Strange.
You're right about Dacey not being in the same intellectual ball park. :)
1878EFC2008 7 months ago
@1878EFC2008 Are you using 'strange' as a pejorative?
mytuber81 7 months ago
@mytuber81
Erm, did you even watch the debate?
l3lip 5 months ago
Craig is a much more charismatic and experienced debater. Dacey has some good points and has potential, but it's obvious he is inexperienced compared to Craig (he is also half Craig's age). So even if Dacey's points were better than Craig's (which they aren't), his lack of energy and enthusiasm would cause him to lose the debate. Half of debating at this level is the delivery, not just the ideas.
BachScholar 9 months ago
@BachScholar
Which they aren't? Weren't you paying attention?
Craig presents the same stupid '5/6 good arguments' in every debate, despite having already been shattered by reputable scientists and common sense. I'd say Dacey effectively refuted Craig's arguments better than most, as he went beyond a lack of evidence (which is usually enough).
Simply on the basis of calling everything in the bible 'fact,' Craig proves himself a good snake-oil salesman. That's not an admirable quality, I'd say.
BattleshipAgincourt 7 months ago
3:32 .... windows blue screen!
navespacial 9 months ago
Man, Austin Dacey really has some excessive hand sweating going on there, his tie must be totally soaked!
dannywizz 10 months ago
Never heard of this guy Austin Dacey, but he's the first person I've heard that undeniably annihilated, and thoroughly humiliated, Craig's arguments. After this savage beating, Craig probably had to take one of those rape showers.
redchango 11 months ago 8
@redchango "Undeniably annihilated, and thoroughly humiliated"??
It was refreshing to hear a coherent argument from an atheist (surprisingly rare), but it wasn't a beatdown either way. Some honest atheists concede it was close. From commonsenseatheism: "In general, Dacey does a better job of being clear and organized than most of Craig’s other opponents, but in the end Craig is still more organized and had good-sounding responses to Dacey’s arguments that Dacey didn’t get a chance to rebut."
pcgamerjoe 10 months ago
@pcgamerjoe - Commonsenseatheism isn't a good place to go for debate reviews. Everyone knows that the author of that site has a man-crush on William Lane Craig. The truth is that WLC tried to frame the debate, and Dacey didn't allow him too. "It was refreshing to hear a coherent argument from an atheist" - what I said wasn't an "argument" - it was more like a taunt. Get it straight.
redchango 10 months ago
@redchango Um, I wasn't talking about YOU when I talked about the refreshing coherent argument. I was talking about Dacey, and I said it with 0% sarcasm...so I'm not sure what your taunt has to do with anything.
pcgamerjoe 10 months ago
@pcgamerjoe - Sorry, honest mistake.
redchango 10 months ago
Everytime I see WLC in action, I feel like the man who watches his mother-in-law going over a cliff while driving is brand new Mercedes! On one hand, I enjoy greatly seeing WLC, as he ALWAYS does, reduce the atheist-de-jour to ribbons.The very best in the atheist arsenal bounce harmlessly off of Craig like BB's off a boxcar. On the other hand, I cringe when I hear him state that the universe is 13.6 billion years old, rejecting the six-day Genesis account for an evolutionary "Big Bang"! Whaat?
tigerlilly66 1 year ago
awww....poor little guy, he should get a medal for trying
DonJay777 1 year ago
All craig does is attribute certain qualities to an unproven being...thereby begging the question over & over again...
begging the question & claiming victory...how dishonest off him
Abgef 1 year ago
5) Where is proof that a non-conscious unexplainable cause cannot possibly be?
answer those logically & you may just be the first person to prove God's existence.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
Dacey doesn't substantively engage Craig's arguments. He engages on a supericial level and deflects off without ever really addressing the core substance.
He seems much more rational and sensible than most Atheists, but he is just bouncing around deflecting off serious challenges that deserve serious answers.
I think he's playing to survive the debate and avoid embarrasment.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
Yes, in fact Dacey is a reductionist. That's an inescapable fact of Atheist metaphysical assumptions.
Craig's argument is logically valid. Your unintelligible protest is not a refutation
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
you kidding? Craig's argument is INVALID because
Causes need time to have an effect, therefore:
1) How can God create time without the time to do it?
furthermore...
2) Why does the cause need to be conscious?
3) How can a consciousness be eternal & exist w/out a brain?
4) Where is the proof that magical GOD powers does exist?
5) Where is proof that a non-conscious unexplainable cause cannot possibly be?
answer those logically & you may just be the first person to prove God's existence.
Abgef 1 year ago
@Abgef
1) How can God create time without the time to do it?
(fact) Time itself is simply an attribute of our physical Universe. Our Universe began to exist in the absolute. Therefore Time is contingent. Time is not binding upon that which transcends the Universe to cause time, space and matter into existence. That which is contingent upon the existence of the Universe (Time/space/matter) cannot rationally pre-exist the existence of the contingency ( Universe).
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
1) what absolute are you even talking about? absolute what? nobody even knows what was before the big bang...you can't say there was a time before time because it contradicts itself.
consciousness & causality all requires time to occur...if there was a conscious creator then there needs to be a moment in time for a cause to occur or it never occurred at all...God theory then proposes a logical paradox begging the question by asserting GOD properties without actually proving the God exists. cont
Abgef 1 year ago
@Abgef
2) Why does the cause need to be conscious?
Because a will would be necessary to bring about a Universe of physical Time Space Matter where nothing physically existed. The absolute beginning (from physical nothingness) of the Universe is exactly what the Big Bang Theory and validating theorums all confirm.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
Comment removed
Abgef 1 year ago
2) Nobody knows what was before the big bang & when physicists say "there was nothing" they meant there was a void of black hole amass in a sea of energy in matter & they say nothing for a lack of a better term for black holes of void...Craig is commiting equivocation fallacy since began to exist does NOT equal created out of nothing & that would break the first law of thermodynamics.
your arguing by equivocation.
explains the term "nothing" made by physicists ---> /watch?v=u_676IeyJNQ
cont.
Abgef 1 year ago
2) (PART2) --> saying a will is necessary also begs the question since when does the will happen? thought also require time to be thought up....& why is it necessary?
will is a function of the brain, thus begging the question again with the disembodied mind theory.
Abgef 1 year ago
@Abgef
"will is a function of the brain"
There is no free will if the mind is reducable to nothing but a byproduct of electrochemical activity. Chemicals don't have a will.
"will is a function of the brain" is begging the question in it's purest form.
Your assertion that God's will would require physical time is silly. Again, time is ant attribute of our Universe - We experience Time in our physical Universe, but Time is not a necesary condition of that which transcendends time.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@Abgef
"will is a function of the brain"
There is no free will if the mind is reducable to nothing but a byproduct of electrochemical activity. Chemicals don't have a will.
"will is a function of the brain" is begging the question in it's purest form.
Your assertion that God's will would require physical time is silly. Again, time is ant attribute of our Universe - We experience Time in our physical Universe, but Time is not a necesary condition of that which transcendends time.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
"There is no free will if the mind is reducable to nothing but a byproduct of electrochemical activity. Chemicals don't have a will"
what's wrong with that? just because it's hard to accept for you doesn't mean that a disembodied mind exists.
"but Time is not a necesary condition of that which transcendends time"
This disembodied mind transcending time is still unproven therefore you are begging the question by assuming it in the premises...show me a brainless mind & abolish all doubt
Abgef 1 year ago
@Abgef,
You're bouncing around like a gnat. FOCUS!
No free will is not a proof of God, but it is evidence of the absurdity of Atheism. If you thoughts are merely an illusory byproduct induced by electrochemical activity, what poosible basis do you have for claiming any illusion is 'true' . Why do you argue with my electrochemical byproducts? You must make a tacit exception for the objective truth of your own illusions - denying your own Atheistic Naturalism.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
"No free will is not a proof of God, but it is evidence of the absurdity of Atheism"
we weren't discussing your thoughts on atheism my friend, we can discuss that after we reach a conclusion regarding kalam on God's existence...let's focus on this topic first...& I am not a naturalist either...I have some silly irrational superstitious beliefs of my own.
Abgef 1 year ago
@Abgef
Hey Abgef, I see you're here too?
There is nothing silly, superstitious or irrational about belief in non-physical reality.
That is a modernist myth. This is why I rip into Atheism on it's many rational incoherencies.
As best you can identify what's your objection to Kalaam?
What do you expect Kalaam to be? It's a valid argument. Few things can be proven absolutely.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
I already stated the 5 questions that kalam fails to answer or provide valid evidence for..
1) How can God create time without the time to do it?
furthermore...
2) Why does the cause need to be conscious?
3) Where is proof of eternal immaterial mind?
4) Where is the proof that GOD powers does exist?
5) Where is proof that a non-conscious unexplainable cause cannot possibly be?
so far it only assumes these questions as answered in the premises.
Abgef 1 year ago
@Abgef
"Show me a non-physical mind."
Why should you expect to see a non-physical mind?
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
"Why should you expect to see a non-physical mind?"
then show me evidence...both observable, tangible, & testable...otherwise we cannot conclude it in the premise.
Abgef 1 year ago
@Abgef
"then show me evidence...both observable, tangible, & testable...otherwise we cannot conclude it in the premise."
Contingent Universe
Evidences for design: specified complexity, integrated interdependences for third purposes, irreducible complexity, Failure of Naturalism to logically explain origin and organization of life.
(cont)
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@Abgef
You simply don't know what the hell you're talking about here.
You are dead wrong on the physics. Black holes dont pre-exist the Universe itself. Thermodynamics applies to behavior within a closed system. The Universe itself did not exist, so Energy (within the Universe) did not pre-exist the Universe.
An absolute beginning of the Universe means physical Time, space and matter did not exist beyond the boundary (singularity) demarcing the beginning of the Universe.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
"An absolute beginning of the Universe means physical Time, space and matter did not exist beyond the boundary (singularity) demarcing the beginning of the Universe"
pls read the 1st law of thermodynamics
a time before time would be logically contradictory & impossible to even discuss rationally since if there were no time then causes could not have happened for it to eventually happen requires time.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics only apply to pre-existing matter & energy & NOT spacetime.
Abgef 1 year ago
@Abgef
Further, If our thoughts are merely electrochemically induced illusion, there is no objective right and wrong or any basis for moral duties to exist. Even raping and torturing children would be moraly justifiable if the child rapist's biochemical illusions permit it.
Hitler would be morally justified gassing 7 million Jews if he thought it was the right thing to do - or Stalin starving 12 million Ukranians.
We apprehend a real of moral Truth - only Atheism cannot permit it.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
ah...now that you fail to give evidences & proof for timeless brainless super-powered mind you've switched your position to argument from morality.
I say the moral guide & moral truth lies in our own ability to love, to empathize & sympathize & reflect on our own actions...our own compassion & the understanding of the rules of our society...why would a deity be necessary?
Abgef 1 year ago
@Abgef
No, I didn't fail. I provided the evidences.
NOW, PROVIDE YOUR EVIDENCES that no non-physical intelligence exists ? No excuses or stupid atheist talking points to exempt yourself from the evidences you demand of Theists.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
"No, I didn't fail. I provided the evidences"
I already gave you the reason why some of your evidences beg the question & shown you how they are founded on logical fallacies...it is now up to you to give a logically sound premise for your proposition.
asking me to prove a negative eh? that's a fallacy.
Argument from ignorance - is an informal logical fallacy. It asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false.
Abgef 1 year ago
@Abgef
BTW don't start Bullshitting me with dishonest crap like you just attempted to pull. You are failing to answer - not me
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@Abgef
I don't know why you can't get your head around the FACT that thermodynamic laws pertain to a closed system. Think of the Universe as a balloon with a finite amount of available chemical energy placed within it - that energy can be converted to gas, heat, expansion or various purposes. The laws of Thermodynamics pertain to the behavior of energy available inside the balloon (closed system) . Now, realize that balloon and chemical energy once DID NOT EXIST, but began to exist
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
"The laws of Thermodynamics pertain to the behavior of energy available inside the balloon (closed system)
Thermodynamics does not apply to the system itself...it only applies to the content of the system, the pre-existing matter & energy inside it...so you can't apply it to the system in question...energy, matter & spacetime have different properties.
Fallacy of Composition - Arguing from some property of constituent parts, to the conclusion that the composite item has that property.
Abgef 1 year ago
@Abgef
Fine tuning of Universe
Intelligence in Nature
Apprehension of Moral Law
Knowledge of reliable Natural Laws
Massive Historical evidences of witnessed Miracles, visions, fulfilled prophecies,
Christ’s resurrection
Ubiquitous NDE’s, supernatural phenomen
NOW, SHOW ME YOUR EVIDENCE NO NON-PHYSICAL MIND EXISTS.
No talking points or excuses - show me your evidences.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
"NOW, SHOW ME YOUR EVIDENCE NO NON-PHYSICAL MIND EXISTS"
it's impossible to prove a negative...it is not my job to disprove a claim...it is the claimants job to provide evidence.
it will take up a terrible amount of space to cover my refutations of all these already debunked claims...
Jesus Story - Hearsay is only hearsay, in extraordinary, wild claims it's not sufficient at all.
Fine tuning of Universe - Attributing something to an unproven proposition thus begging the question.
Abgef 1 year ago
@Abgef
"it's impossible to prove a negative"
Nonsense. I can prove I am not 38 years old. I can prove that no elephants are in my car....
You are dead wrong. Now, produce your evidence - no more excuses.
...it is not my job to disprove a claim...it is the claimants job to provide evidence.
Theism is no more a claim to knowledge than Atheism is a claim to knowledge.
Knock off the excuses and put up your evidences. YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCES - ONLY EXCUSES
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
Argument from ignorance - is an informal logical fallacy. It asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false.
This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option: there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven to be either true or false.
In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.
another logical fallacy from you.
Abgef 1 year ago
Comment removed
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
I have already explained to you & written down why your so-called evidences is logically unsound...it is now up to you to make a logical premise instead of resorting to fallacies.
The burden of proof lies on you...the premise may be true or false but you have failed to give a logical reason why they are correct, since they are founded on fallacies.
fallacies in philosophy are by definition invalid logic...& you have commited so many of them...I point them out for you to correct your arguments.
Abgef 1 year ago
@Abgef
"The burden of proof lies on you..." [Dishonest Atheist talking point #1 - to exempt yourself from evidence you don't have]
(fact) Only knowledge claims bear a burden of evidence - not beliefs. Theism is no more a claim to knowledge than Atheism. Both are equal.
In fact, another operative principle places the burden on the "controversial claim". In this case the burden rests squarely on the Atheist. You're dishonest Atheist bretheren failed to inform you of this.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@Abgef
"The burden of proof lies on you..." [Dishonest Atheist talking point #1 - to exempt yourself from evidence you don't have]
(fact) Only knowledge claims bear a burden of evidence - not beliefs. Theism is no more a claim to knowledge than Atheism. Both are equal.
In fact, another operative principle places the burden on the "controversial claim". In this case the burden rests squarely on the Atheist. You're dishonest Atheist bretheren failed to inform you of this.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
"(fact) Only knowledge claims bear a burden of evidence - not beliefs"
you claim to know a God exists & I do not...your claim of knowledge then requires proof.
unless there is proof...your whole claim of knowledge is invalid
Abgef 1 year ago
@Abgef
......Childish drivel.
My patience is thin. Again, I have nothing to learn from you in this area of discussion. If you have some serious questions and want to learn you better straighten up and get serious. I won't waste time on silly Atheist nitwits jackassing around with childish antics..
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
LOL why are you getting so angry when you are the one proposing explanations to the assumptions of the kalam & when I refute them you resort to an angry rant about atheism...Why is an unconscious unexplained/unknown cause an impossiblity? & where is the evidence for this eternal brainless mind?
Abgef 1 year ago
@Abgef
Your out of firepower and excuses, so you've devolved into arbitrary labeling of my valid arguments to avoid the onslaught you cannot honestly handle.
I'll be strait with you. I have nothing to learn from you. I've defeated the low-grade rubbish you're peddling many times. You're in over your head, but you could learn from me. I would be happy to help you out of your confusion agreeably, but I don't suffer pretenses and BS of Internet Atheists who refuse to learn.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@Abgef
Yeah don't waste your time with mountains of evidences. There's nothing I'll learn from Atheistic radical decunstructionist BS - except how silly Atheists can be. JUST DON'T claim we don't have evidences. We most certainly do.
Where is your evidences? All you have are excuses.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
Ad hominem - also known as argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.
You've constructed to fit your "Argument from ignorance" with an "Ad Hominem"
Argument from ignorance - is an informal logical fallacy. It asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false.
Abgef 1 year ago
@Abgef
Your thermodynamics doubletalk is silly and meaningless.
Thermodynamic Laws are not violated by a Universe with an absolute beginning. The Naturalist is stuck with the absurdity of an absolute beginning (Big Bang) that cannot be allowed to actually begin - or began caused by Nothing - not the Theist.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
"Thermodynamic Laws are not violated by a Universe with an absolute beginning"
This begs the question of.. how can you possibly know that the universe had a time when it did not exist in another form within the unknown properties of the quantum field? any cosmologist will tell you that it was an unknown what was before the big bang & the unknown is NOT nothing.
Just like your particles was already in existence before you existed as a human.
Abgef 1 year ago
@Abgef
Now I see the problem.
Unfortunately, I cant fix stupid.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
hahaha...that's it?
man you are one angry person...why do you have so much hate in your heart?
Abgef 1 year ago
@4TruthMatters
I'm actually a very happy guy most of the time. In fact, "Happy" is a nickname some have given me at work.
The same sloppy dishonest rubbish regurgitated hundreds of times by those who obviously don't understand the subject is exasperating.
You guys are clearly unaware of the silliness of your protests. Your protests are not even serious points much less arguments - even less refutations. I cringe as you repeat the same lines - like zombies impervious to correction.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@Abgef
3) How can a consciousness be eternal & exist w/out a brain?
That just begs the question. The brain is a physical 'tool' necessary for our spiritual being to interact within the physical realm. It is absolutely essential within our physical realm, but cannot logically be binding upon that which transcends the Physical.
Rational absurdities begin when the logical implications of Atheism are taken seriously - reducing all thoughts to biochemically induced illusions of the brain.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
3) LOL spiritual being? where did that come from?
you are the one begging the question by saying that spiritual beings exists without proving it actually exists.
you need to show me that this "spiritual being" even exist before we can say it's valid in the premises.
Abgef 1 year ago
Comment removed
Abgef 1 year ago
@Abgef
4) Where is the proof that magical GOD powers does exist?
Dr Craig never claims magical powers exist. That's just a silly characature. Magic would be something happening uncaused. God is a causal agency - not an appeal to magic.
BTW there are many evidences for God. Dr Craig presents some of them. There are no evidences for "no God". This is precisely why Dr Craig wins his debates.
5) Where is proof that a non-conscious unexplainable cause cannot possibly be?
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
Comment removed
Abgef 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
4) "There are no evidences for "no God". This is precisely why Dr Craig wins his debates"
of course there is also no evidences for no unicorns, does that mean they exists? his "proofs" simply begs the question by assuming it in the premises...some an appeal to ad populum.
Let me rephrase...where is proof that GOD powers even exists?
you can't say it's a causal agent because you still haven't proven it's existence...you can't just define it into existence.
cont
Abgef 1 year ago
@Abgef
5) Where is proof that a non-conscious unexplainable cause cannot possibly be?
Proof of impossibility? That's a ridiculous (false) standard. The evidences and rational merits we do have point to certain plausible conclusions.
Sure, we can entertain any speculative possibility if we throw out the evidences, logic and reason. Most of us recognize we live in a Universe with a rational order imposed upon it. This is why Christians developed the modern scientific method.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
5) "The evidences and rational merits we do have point to certain plausible conclusions"
Your conclusion regarding GOD theory is invalid for reasons explained in my responses to 1,2,3 & 4 therefore we can't use it as a valid conclusion for your response to number 5.
& yes we can entertain speculative possibilities but deduction of possibilities require knowing the impossibilities...now how is it an impossibility? simply because GOD is assumed in the premises?
Abgef 1 year ago
Comment removed
Abgef 1 year ago
@Abgef
Basically, your lost and confuced on every level. I'll be happy to help untangle it, but you'll need to show some attempt to actually understand the arguments. You're kicking up a bunch of ill-considered nonsense that only reveals you have little clue on this subject.
Trust me, Dr Craigs arguments are not invalid nor will they be defeated by shallow rubbish.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@Abgef
The evidences and logic consistently point in certain direction - towards a Physical Universe with an absolute beginning (Big Bang). This has been repeatedly and successfully confirmed by scientific testing.
Sure, committed Atheist speculators committed to Naturalist dogma are working hard to find some plausible deniability to the absolute beginning of the Universe. However, contrived unsupported unverifiable speculations are not science. The actual science supports Theists.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
Fuck finding god......I've found Austin Dacey!
BenG549 1 year ago
if we wanted to be as morally good as god, why don't we just cease trying to alleviate suffering? god doesn't do anything about it, maybe we should follow his lead!
(obviously sarcasm)
CamronJohn 1 year ago
I have to point out that IF God is not present...then where is the fault lain to all the suffering....but somehow if God then enters the picture it is then transferred onto Him? This is terrible by any judicial system standards.
hexusziggurat 1 year ago 8
@hexusziggurat "I have to point out that IF God is not present...then where is the fault lain to all the suffering....but somehow if God then enters the picture it is then transferred onto Him?"
Correct. If you're saying a god exists who created everything in nature, then he is accountable for all the faults within his creation. As an atheist, I wouldn't blame the earth for being rough and uneven, but I would blame the council if my roads were made with bumps and cracks.
aliasbrush 1 year ago
@aliasbrush if you are an atheist....you must have a course that lays where the source of suffering comes from right now for humanity. I already know the answer is humans, and events (those beyond our control). Those are still the same sources of blame even with God present. If you even tempt the notion that God exists...then you must also tempt the notion that things were different in the beginning and humanity earned its way to where we are now.
hexusziggurat 1 year ago
@hexusziggurat The main source of suffering right now is from nature. Nature is not conscious and does not have any will, intent, or omniscient plan. It simply does what it does without choice.
However, as soon as you introduce a creator - a being that purposely designed nature to be the way it is - that being has to be responsible for his creation. He actively chose to make it this way.
You couldn't blame a river for overflowing, but you could blame the designer of a canal (a man-made river).
aliasbrush 1 year ago
@aliasbrush Even with the creator I still blame events on the sake of events. If God set it all up this way...then there must be a reason. To even qualify God as a being to be named "god", He'd have to meet the prerequisites of what it means to actually BE a "god". Those qualifiers mean "supreme being", that means the ultimate source for knowledge, power, presence...now since a being as such would have immense awareness...His "actions" would seem almost alien to us to carry out long term logic.
hexusziggurat 1 year ago
@hexusziggurat Okay, I agree with most of what you are saying here (which is at a tangent from the original point of God's accountability) - God, if he exists would be a mystery to us, and his reasons for creating things the way they are would also be a mystery to us.
However, this introduces a new problem, and this was touched upon in the debate. How do we know his reasons are good? Since he is far beyond our comprehension, we cannot know his true intent. We can only go by what we observe.
aliasbrush 1 year ago
@hexusziggurat Not really - because God is supposed to be all powerful, able to cause or stop anything he likes. It's basically "with great power comes great responsibility". And it's not necessarily saying that it's god's fault - it's that it's immoral for him NOT to stop it if he can... Like if you know your neighbor is torturing their children in the basement but you can't be bothered to call the cops. That's why the blame is laid at least partly at god's feet. If you say god is almighty.
Stairc 1 year ago
@Stairc I do say He is almighty. What i don't say is that i can understand the entire butterfly effect of every happening on the face of the planet simultaneously....He can though. If God did stop the suffering constantly...where would be the understanding we gain from falling from grace. You'd never be a "just" parent if your child did bad then you decided that its too harsh to punishment them so they'd learn. You're giving an example of how humans just want everything their way, like a child.
hexusziggurat 1 year ago
@hexusziggurat Now you're making a fallacy - two really. First, if god's reasons for anything can go beyond our comprehension and thus it's impossible to judge if his actions are moral... How do we know he's good? According to that, he could easily be evil - we can't examine his reasons.
Second, god MADE the rules. He could easily create other ways for humans to understand about falling from grace. And anyway this is about meaningless suffering, like disease - not suffering that's human's fault
Stairc 1 year ago
@Stairc now just b/c we're unable to examine His reasoning doesn't make any of His reasoning invallid either. We could never invallidate His actions (good/evil) based on our own very limited version of judgement capabilities on His being either. It'd be as if saying what an entire puzzle looks like from examining one piece. "meaningless suffering" is an assumption. We can't say something is meaningless neccessarily without understanding the entirey of its impact on the world or individual(s).
hexusziggurat 1 year ago
@hexusziggurat Precisely! You've just answered your own question. If god is beyond understanding like you say, and his reasons are too, we can't make any judgments what's so ever about god being good or evil or what he would do in ANY situation. This means that there is no proof POSSIBLE that could validate or invalidate the existence of god. This is effectively what Craig says. This means that by definition, no such proof can exist... And all of Craig's points are over with, just like unicorns.
Stairc 1 year ago
@Stairc unicorns?! why would you believe in unicorns?
"This means that there is no proof POSSIBLE that could validate or invalidate the existence of god" thats extrapolating rather greatly...my reference in "not understanding God" is based on not understanding His LOGIC. WLC also points out that it is a fallacy to believe "that if there is no proof for X, therefor that is proof that X doesn't exist". Just b/c you don't have the proofing you desire doesn't invallidate anything.
hexusziggurat 1 year ago
@hexusziggurat Magical unicorns are just as valid a reason for creating the universe under Craig's defnitions as god. I used them here to say his points are laughable and false, like those supporting unicorns.
And yes, god's logic. But all craig's proof is predicated on the idea that he thinks he knows what god would do, that god WOULD fine-tune a universe for life, that god WOULD raise jesus from the dead... If he says we can't predict what god would do, he invalidates his point.
Stairc 1 year ago
@Stairc stating "what God has done" is different than saying "we understand what God would do based on God's logic"...completely different. In all seriousness...go to his web site and pose your questions...if its so "laughable" as you state then you have sound reason to basically demolish his arguements where no other one who has debated him on this topic has been able to do in complete success. Oh and don't forget to bring up the unicorns too...that should definately set you a peg up!
hexusziggurat 1 year ago
@hexusziggurat You've completely missed Craig's points. By citing the universe as fine-tuned for life as proof of god, he is assuming that the god whose logic he says is presumptuous to attempt to predict would act in a specific way - namely finetuning the universe for life. He is taking states of affairs and trying to attribute them to his god based on how he thinks god would act. However, when Dacey does the same thing, he calls it presumptuous. This nullifies his own arguments.
Stairc 1 year ago
@hexusziggurat Stating that we cannot make claims about what god would do or what the universe would look like if God existed because his logic is beyond us automatically rules out any way you can prove him through referring to that universe. It would be like me saying that I have a friend who is a genius, a genius who knows everything. You have him take a test and he gets a bunch of answers wrong. But my friend's genius is beyond your capacity to examine. You can't prove or disprove it.
Stairc 1 year ago
@Stairc "You can't prove or disprove it"
I'm pointing out that stating "what has already happened" is different than "what we think would happen". In the case of your friend we'd deduce based on references to what HAS transpired before us...the test. No that would not prove he is not a genius. 1 test is not neccessarily enough in that particular case unless the test was perhaps a billion questions long. Then we draw a conclusion based on "what we've gathered", not "what could be".
hexusziggurat 1 year ago
@hexusziggurat No, you're still missing the point. Stating what has happened is indeed different than predicting something. However, Craig's reasons for attributing what has happened to god are all based on a notion of understanding how god would operate. He is saying "the universe is like this. The best explanation of the universe being like this is god, because god would make a universe that is like this." That is a rational argument ONLY if you claim to understand the logic of god.
Stairc 1 year ago
@Stairc "That is a rational argument ONLY if you claim to understand the logic of god."
His claim is based off what has already transpired. he goes from the bottom up...and you are trying to say we don't understand from the top dwn. WLC explains this in many of his debates.
hexusziggurat 1 year ago
@hexusziggurat Now, I don't believe that we can't make statements about the logic of god - but that IS what Craig and you have said. I understand why you'd say that, but you must see now why it's flawed - since it outlaws any concievable way to prove or disprove god's existence. He might jsut as easily have made something one way as another if we can't know. This means that the universe being the way it is can't possibly be evidence for god, since what god would is unknowable.
Stairc 1 year ago
@hexusziggurat Finally, my Genius example is not necessary to my point - but I'd like to explore it a bit anyway. I'm puzzled by why any number of tests would be sufficient to disprove that my friend knows everything and is always correct. By the very definition of my friend's abilities, he is ALWAYS correct. If the test agrees with him, the test is right. If the test disagrees, the test is wrong. Since his logic is higher than the people who made the test, they cannot possible prove or disprove
Stairc 1 year ago
@Stairc "If the test agrees with him, the test is right. If the test disagrees, the test is wrong" Now theres also some other factors involved such as "is your friend human" is your friend knowable and testable by those around him? Now just b/c you say his logic is "higher" doesn't neccessarily make it so unless we actually CAN see an example of such logic...even if it doesn't make absolute sense to us. Thats what i'm getting at...the friend must perform "something" rather than "nothing".
hexusziggurat 1 year ago
@hexusziggurat this is the same fallacy we hit with god's logic being beyond human comprehension. If that is the case, there is no way that any state of the universe could possibly prove or disprove his existence - because we aren't allowed to make judgments on what we think a universe designed by god would look like. Craig calls such claims 'presumptuous' despite the fact he does the same himself. Naturally, we MUST be able to trust our understanding, else my friend is also all-knowing.
Stairc 1 year ago
@Stairc I thik we're running into a problem b/c i am trying to say we can understand a "small portion" of the logic based on the examples manifested...while you are (if i may) saying that it won't make sense to understand the smallest portion unless we understand the source in its entirety.
imagine a complex math problem that takes 1000 years to finish & is complex....but i can look at a section of what has gone by in calculations & i spot 2+2...i understand part..but not the whole apparatus.
hexusziggurat 1 year ago
@hexusziggurat I understand, but it doesn't work like that - because once you throw any of the understanding into question we have no reason to trust the rest of it either. In the math example, we take it for granted that the universe stays in tune with the basic mathematical rules and that it's all understandable - it's just very complex. If we suddenly twist these assumption and claim that they're not founded - then all the claims are entirely suspect.
Stairc 1 year ago
@Stairc i hear ya. I don't really want to use the "its beyond our understanding" but once we adopt a multitude of complexities into the equation ...the whole apparatus is really beyond us. I am on page with you in saying we do take the universe for granted..considering how many finely tuned adjustments there needs to be for it to work the way it does & that they need to work harmoniously with each other is the bigger stumper. I'd never claim to say i could "fully" understand a supreme being.
hexusziggurat 1 year ago
@hexusziggurat Ah, well that's something completely different. So long as we agree that we can make practical guesses as to what a god would be more likely to do than something else (such as the fine-tuning of life) that's fine. I'm just pointing out that Craig's attack on Dacey's own reasoning on these lines is self-defeating. I agree that, wile we can't know anything for sure, we must be able to assume that we can at least make educated guesses.
Stairc 1 year ago
@hexusziggurat I'll be happy to talk to you about why I think the 'it's really improbable' argument for fine-tuning isn't a great argument for an intelligent creator soon - but I have to leave in a few minutes. For now, glad we got this first point nailed down.
Stairc 1 year ago
@hexusziggurat One final note in this chain. The argument for god's logic being unknowable discounts all of Craig's points except for one - his first and most famous, the Kalaam Cosmological argument. We don't need to understand god's logic if all we are trying to prove that a supernatural force was REQUIRED to exist. Of course, any further argument that would attempt to use the universe to prove that such a force is the christian god would be futile, but if you want to explore this end, we can.
Stairc 1 year ago
@hexusziggurat Because my friend's genius is beyond your capacity to comprehend or examine, and he's always right, you can't prove or disprove that this claim of his intelligence is correct. And guess what, now he's saying that William Craig's arguments are wrong. Do you accept these claims, even though you can't disprove them and they follow the same logic Craig tries to apply to god? Either way, you lose the argument here. Making logic unexaminable makes it impossible to base proof on it.
Stairc 1 year ago
Austin just defeated all Craig's points in a single swoop. Great work. And so calm.
Domzdream 1 year ago
@brownbigb are suggesting th
Schnebit 1 year ago
@cliffstamp I'm not sure that I understand why the existence of innocent suffering makes God amoral. Can you please elaborate?
Schnebit 1 year ago
@Schnebit It presupposes that innocent suffering is unwanted and undeserved and that God has the ability to prevent it but chooses not to. It would thus be considered an amoral act to allow it to happen.
As an example, I am a trained first aider, and note as well here the law protects people giving first aid. I would thus consider it amoral if I saw someone in need of help and I choose not to help them.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
Austin Dacey is my favorite atheist.
Forkroute 1 year ago
Dacey is just a reductionist who dismisses serious arguments with silly excuses that only nip at the edges or evade the substance or arguments completely.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@4TruthMatters yeah, right. you're full of shit. or just an idiot
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@4TruthMatters So dacey is a reductionist? Craig explains the Big Bang in 1 minute, evolution in 30 seconds and dismises the as impossible with no good arguments to back up himself . Basicly anythisng in science can disprove god, therefore he exists. If anyone is a reductionist that's Craig.
DaGavinX 1 year ago
@namasteywhat If the answer to suffering is "greater purpose", then God is clearly incompetent or sadic (maybe both), because he is incapable or don´t want to stop suffering to achieve his goals. If the answer to evil is that the world is a stage for us to have an oportunity to do moral actions, why God supposedly show himself to us? A person who thinks that is being watched by a judge is not entitled to do any sincere moral action. If that´s the case, only atheists can go to heaven.
lfzadra 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lfzadra "If the answer to suffering is "greater purpose", then God is clearly incompetent or sadic (maybe both)"
How is it so clear to you? or have you been able to be omnipresent, & omniscient?
hexusziggurat 1 year ago
@namasteywhat Would you provide a link and ideally time, I have seen most of Craig's video's on youtube, and would be interested to hear his thoughts on that.
I am a strict atheist, but frankly would rather have a conversation with Craig than the vast majority of atheists on youtube.
He is quite a skilled debater and conducts himself with respect and professionalism.
CliffStamp 1 year ago 4
@CliffStamp I am honestly just curious, what does it mean exactly to be a "strict atheist"? Does that mean you are hard-headed to Christian facts, or is it akin to calling yourself a "scientist"?
Dado75 1 year ago
@Dado75 Atheism has a number of divisions, the main split tends to be on one end there are those that claim that the evidence does not support a claim for a God, on the other end there are those that claim that the evidence shows that there can not be a God. Dawkins for example is on one end and Hitchen's the other. Hitchens rejects even the concept of a God as a being worth of Worship even if it did exist and thus would not acknowledge it as a God.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@namasteywhat Assuming that god has infinite power, wisdom and knowledge, why would he have to utilize suffering of innocents (or any other absolutely amoral action)? If he is limited then by definition he is not god.
Thus God by definition can easily work without innocent suffering, but does so regardless and thus is amoral, and extremely so as he is amoral when he could prevent it trivially (again his power is limitless).
He is the obviously the most amoral being in existence.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp all that suffering, but not once do we think that God perhaps did not want to be "owed" anything...He left us to our own accord..to far or to walk....to be greedy or giving....to hate or show kindness...to be bitter or show forgiveness. We can walk through life and continue to blame it on others and God by no means would ever escape those willing to lay blame...at what time can you honestly "own" your own life? Did God not want us to come freely to Him?
hexusziggurat 1 year ago
@hexusziggurat How do you rationalize acts of suffering which remove choice, such as death of extreme violence which induces a psychotic break?
Further would it not be logical then for people to behave similar and not help each other because they would not wish to be "owed" either?
Thirdly why would we owe God. When you help your family do they owe you?
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp i think "psychotic break" pretty much means "insert wild card here" I think if God was always intervening on our behalf...humans would soon say...can't we just do it our way?
"family" in that sense of a brother or sister etc... who you can laugh and run with or help build a house is a far cry off than a "divinty" who is capable of shattering the world.
hexusziggurat 1 year ago