this argument from the theist perspective is WHY god exists, or why he doesn't. The ultimate defense of god is one's experience of god, not that IT exists. The physical arguments are spurious as best, regarding cosmological reasons. Science never asserts it explains non-physical things, and therefore never asserts anything beyond that. Many cosmological arguments talk about quantum fluctuations in 0 dimensional space, or multi-verse theories.
This is the most unprofessional debate I have ever seen. Dr. Craig kept his cool, like he always does, but his opponent and the moderator were rediculous.
They just kept allowing that guy with the squeaky clown thing to keep it up? Wow what a bunch of childish fools. Why were they doing it to Dr. Craig when he won the debate? Jealousy perhaps.
@7tylerjb Christianity is a dead man walking. Darwin killed it off about 150 yrs ago, sadly Christians won't accept that they've lost throughout almost all of the developed world- Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan. etc. The only countries where religious superstition is still strong are the developing countries, with the only exeption being the U.S. It can't lag behind forever though. it won't be long before it would be just too embarrassing to belief in God
@efeey he killed it by proposing a process that can account for the diversity of life. the fact that Darwinian evolution, i.e. random mutations and natural selection, can explain the origin of all species on earth, means that the strongest argument for God, which is the appearance of design, has been refuted
@AgeOfReasonXXI accounting for the diversity of life doesn't account for, a. the origin of the universe b. the fine tuning of the universe on which evolution depends. those in my view are the strongest arguments for god; and are immune to darwinian attack. also macroevolution still has no hard evidence for it, and even if it is proven certain does not refute christianity. moreover i wld argue that evolution is in fact evidence for the existence of god based on how ridiculous the odds are
@efeey biologists don't make a distinction between micro and macro evolution. only creationsits do. the evidence for common descent is so overwhelming that even ID-ers like Behe agrees with it, and even call this fact trivial!
to say evoution (which explains how species can come about naturally ) is evidence for Gos is the most idiotic thing that only a nut-case like Craig can say with a straight face. and what rediculous odds? for the origin of life? that's not evolution, but abiogenesis
@AgeOfReasonXXI everyone acknowledges the fact that there is macro and micro evolution...however evidence for both is significantly different and for macro is insufficient. if it was proven beyond doubt it wouldnt be called a theory. but my point is even if i do grant you that all evolution is true this does nothing to prove that God does not exist. with respect to the odds im not talking bout abiogenesis im talking about 10 necessary steps in the evolution of homosapiens. ad hominum on craig?
@efeey or the odds against evolution of humans? well that only shows that if you could run the process over again, some other creatures would appear. but so what? it's like playing a game of cards, say, for a day, and then caclulating the probablity of each player getting the particular hands they got. the odds would be rediculous, yet you won't appeal to the miraculous, right? it just shows that if you start over again you'd get different hands. same with human evolution
@AgeOfReasonXXI the argument here is not about what type of creature would develop but rather the time in which it would take for such a creature to develop the kind of characteristics that humans possess. and such processes if they were in fact completely unguided is remarkably improbable to happen within the tym limit that the universe has. plus its only ok 2 infer design if a. high odds (characteristics) b. independent pattern.(humans) if you wer dealt the same suit of cards u'd be suspicious
@efeey "if you wer dealt the same suit of cards u'd be suspicious"
sure. but we can't start evolution over to see if humans will appear once again. so the examples is irrelevant
then, no biologist would say the process is remarkably improbable, that's creationist propaganda and it's nonsense.
again, biologists do not distinguish between micro and macro evo. evolution descibes how species change due to random mutations and natural selection. evolution is a fact.
@efeey don't buy into this "it's just a theory" bullshit. science is all about theories that explain facts. does the theory of gravity (GR) makes you doubt gravitation?
true, evolution doesn't disprove God, it just makes him unnecessary to explain how all species originated.
to say evolution coudn't happen without guidence, as Craig does, is plain ignorance. and any reputable biologist would agree. as Dawkins has said: if one doubts evolution s/he is either an idiot, ignorant,(or wicked)
@efeey again: the theory of Darwinian evolution (descent with modification due to random mutations and natural selection) is accepted by virtually all reputable biologists as the best way to accounts for the FACT that all species have evolved from a common anscestor. In other words, biological evolution is a fact, best explained by the theory of Darwinian evolution. get it now?
If the theory was incorrect we would've never been able to develop, say, vaccines, because they are based on it.
@AgeOfReasonXXI again your missing the point lets say i agree with you completely that all evolution is a given fact. this does nothing to disprove Gods existence. also wat dr craig is saying abt evoulution is referencing barrow n tipler, two physicists in saying that the odds for evolution of homosapiens to occur by itself is some ridiculous number. the only difference between us is you think that its chance and i think its was influenced by a designer.
@efeey Borrow and Tipler are physicists, and the fact that Craig quotes them instead of evolutionary biologists concerning evolution is quite telling. virtually none of them takes the speculations of Borrow and Tiplet (who are mere laymen on the subject!) seriously.
the signifucance of the theory of Darwinian evolution is preciesly due to the fact it can explain the origin of all species without reffering to a designer. so even if God exists, he's not necessary to explain how we got here
@AgeOfReasonXXI finally we agree on something lol. exactly. God doesnt need to explain how evolution is directed and im not even advocating barrow n tipler. who cares what they say rite? what we DO need God for is the explanation of the universe, finetuning and the first complex cell from which evolution can take place.
@efeey yes, genetic mutaions occur mainly due to copying errors, but natural selection is not a chance process, so evolution is not equivalent to randomness
the calculations of B & T are bogus, don't make too much of them. true, we don't know how the first primitive cell originated. for now. but we also didn't know how lightning could occur without Zeus, right? so when you say we need God to explain "the universe, finetuning and the first complex cell" you're using God-of-the-gaps argument
@AgeOfReasonXXI lol on what basis are u asserting they are bogus? coz u dont lyk them? plz come up with a reasonable argument. and what B n T are calculating here is the chance that those 10 necessary random mutations would occur by chance which is how they arise. i.e. insertion,replication, deletion, etc of genes. i made no reference to natural selection.
@efeey if they're not bogus, how come biologists do not take them seriouly? But even if we don't know how it happended, it doesn't follow Goddidit. that's why I gave the example with lightning.
yes, there're gaps in our knowledge with regard to the fine-tunning, the BB, etc. to fill them with God, is God-of-the-gaps. 'I don't know' is the only honest answer when you do not know. nobody says 'nothing did it'. are you saying science should quit exploring the BB just bc Craig says GoddidIt?
@AgeOfReasonXXI right. it follows it happened by chance? those odds? U can stik to that assumption if u wish. i dont have that much faith. have u even read the borde guth and vilenkin theory? ANY universe that is in a state of cosmic expansion must have a cosmic origin. i believe our universe is such don't u? look it up.
@efeey so borde guth and vilenkin theory implies God exists? why is it that they haven't reached that conclusion? to use science as a support for God's existence is just laughable, given that it points to nothing of the sort. if scientific theories suggested even for a moment that God exist, then it wouldn't be the case that 93% of top U.S. scientists (NAS) are unbelievers, right? and sorry, but for a person of faith to say nonbelief requires faith is just pathetic
@AgeOfReasonXXI Lol here we go, argument from authority and random quotes not addressing the arguments. look, all these scientific arguments support a. the universe began to exist and b. whatever begins to exist has a cause. those are the arguments. what u want to do with them is up to you. either show they are false, accept ther implications or bury it and wait for science.
@AgeOfReasonXXI so what does the evidence point to lol? honestly i hope u do find truth/value that im sure ur looking for. all the best to u. i can only pray and hope u find a truth good enough for u. try reading the new testament u never know what might happen. i honestly believe that non-belief is mostly emotional n not based on argument/rationale. but hey wat do i noe
@efeey both premises of the kalam are suspect. even if we can say our Universe bagan to exist, it doesn't mean it's not part of a Multiverse. then, not everything that "begins to exist" has a cause. but even if you grant both pr, you're nowhere near showing the cause to be personal. Kalam fails at every step. that's why it's been dismissed as unconvincing (or outright fallacious) by cosmologists and physicists alike, as well as by philosophers.
@AgeOfReasonXXI the universe began to exist is suspect? science points to this very strongly. whatever begins to exist has a cause...really? premises are fallacious or improbable? again ur just asserting or doubting. how can a changeless, timeless impersonal entity bring into being a temporal effect at some point in the finite past? not logical. or if it is explain how.
@efeey I see nothing illogical in arguing that the cause of the Universe is a timeless, spaceless set of necessary conditions which brought about space-time. However, it's logically incoherent to say that such an entity freely chose to create space-time, since s/he would need time in order to do that. so time would have to exist before time!
Craig says God had a eternal determination to create the Universe. so God had a "freely chosen timeless determination"! which is pure nonsense
@AgeOfReasonXXI lol so u cant explain how such an impersonal cause would do it ur just saying that it seems logical to u....hmmm. again this point has been brought up before. an agent/cause can simultaneously bring into being its effect. Antecedence postulates that the cause must be prior to, or at least simultaneous with, the effect. i.e time is created at the same time as the universe. u mind referencing that dr craig statement? i wld say god is timeless by nature
@efeey I don't have to explain how it happened. all I'm saying is that it is not logically incoherent to have a cause that's the necessary condition for the origin of space-time, but it IS incoherent to suggest this cause freely chose to create time! Craig says God had a timeless determination to create the Universe and he also says that God freely chose to do so. So he's talking about God having a freely chosen timeless determination and that's just nonsense, it's contradiction in terms
@AgeOfReasonXXI once we get to the point that the universe had a cause, it can either be personal or non-personal. no other options. since it cant be impersonal therefore by default it is personal. i dunno wat u say craig is sayin never heard that b4 :S but i dont see how a timeless being has any restraints on freely choosing to create time. but i think i get wer ur coming from andi think it is simply an expression because we as finite minds cannot fathom the way in which the infine mind works.
that's logically incoherent, my friend. in order to make a free choice, you need time. so even if God created the Universe, he couldn't have freely chosen to do so. he could only have been the necessary mechanical cause for space-time, in the same way a person sitting on a cusion form eternity, is the mechanical cause for the depression in the cusion. otherwise the analogy wouldn't work with a ball. yet, ironically, that's exactly the one Craig uses.
@AgeOfReasonXXI i gta sleep now its almost 3am in australia. get bak to you soon. in the mean time mayb try giving Jesus a go. u'd make a tough christian apologetic 4 any atheist i rekon. and also consider when talkin bt the origin of universe and time its difficult to get a grasp on what God is doing with this timelessness etc. but im sure u will think abt it deeply. yawn
@AgeOfReasonXXI all that statement shows is we cant describe his omniscience and the mode of 'time' that God operates in. lets call this 'God time' or timelessness with respect to our concept. i like the water analogy better. if the temp is 0*C from eternity then the water will be frozen from eternity. how can a mechanical cause make the water then boil without intention? since it can't therfore its personal. u gta show how this is impersonal.
@efeey " if the temp is 0*C from eternity then the water will be frozen from eternity"
if by eternity you mean "infinity of time' the analogy is invalid. if you mean timelessness, then the 0 temp would be the analogous to the timeless cause of the Universe and the frozen water-- to the Univers & space-time itself. so what's the problem? (again, see the ball-cusion analogy). the objection you (and Craig reise) in the water analogy is due to equivocation on the two different def. of "eternity"
@AgeOfReasonXXI the question of time here is irrelevant. the analogy is supposed to demonstrate that u can get a cause simultaneous with effect. and that this must be intentional. i.e. frozen water doesnt just become boiling water with no intentional cause. can u show otherwise? i dont think so. universe cannot just come from a machine. and if it does then why doesnt this mechanical cause continue to produce random things all the time?
what I've shown is that even if the timeless cause is personal, the effect couldn't have been the result of free choice. i.e. God couldn't have had choice in the matter. just as the person sitting on the cusion never chose to sit there, hense he's the necessary mechanical condition for the depression. just like the ball is. notice that if the depression was the result of free will, the ball analogy wouldn't work, yet Craig uses it all the time.
@AgeOfReasonXXI the basis that you are saying it couldnt of been a choice is again assuming that God cant think without our concept of time. simply false.
@efeey "it can either be personal or non-personal. no other options."
I agree. but even if it was personal, it doesn't mean it's the person had any choice in the matter. and as I ponted out, all the bogus analogies for simultenious causation Craig uses, not only contradict his contention that time cannot be infinate in the past, but actually show that the cause, whether personal or not, was mechanical in the sense that it never freely chose to bring about the effect (the Universe)
@AgeOfReasonXXI ofcourse if it means that it had a choice what else could personal mean? again, time is 'our' time. God can have a mode of time that is in his nature of eternal existence which is our definition of God. u gta admit, it works.
@efeey it's also hard to make sense of simultaneous causation. Craig gives bogus analogies like a ball resting on a cusion, yet the the cause here (the ball) is neither spaceless, nor timeless, so the analogy is inadequate. not to mention the irony of using it in an argument which argues against the possibility of time extending infinately in the past, when the causation in this example is only simultaneous if the ball has been resting on the cusion from eternity past!
@AgeOfReasonXXI whats hard abt it? jus coz u dont understand it doesnt make it impossible. at the moment my fist (cause) punches the boxing bag the dent (effect) is caused.
@efeey even Craig concedes that 'God didn't chose to create the Universe in the sense that he changed his mind, rather he had eternal (i.e. timeless) determination to do so! ' the "changed his mind' part is a red-herring. the Q is can we say that God MADE UP his mind? well if we can't sensibly say God "changed his mind' (he's timeless!), we can't say he 'made up his mind'. but then, what free choice?! essentially Craig is talking about "freely chosen timeless determination!", which is NONSENSE
@AgeOfReasonXXI again all of this is just illogical. God did not change his mind he knew from eternity that he was going to make the universe and at time t=0 he exacted the effect. jus because he knew from eternity doesnt mean its not freely done. the question can God change his mind is meaningless. similarly here we are talking about metaphysics.
fine, I already said that's red herring. the Q is did God make up his mind to create the Universe. if not, then it's not free choice. but then if God's was in a timeless state (met. time leads to infinite regress, so it can't be used in Kalam! Craig also says God was timeless 'prior' to creation) he could have no more freely chose to do so, than the ball or the person sitting timelessly on the cusion. there no analogy with frozen/boiling water
@AgeOfReasonXXI lol u clearly dont get the purpose of the analogies. they arent supposed to be some insight into the mind/nature of God! they are supposed to demonstrate a. simultaneous causation and b. the need for a cause of the universe to be personal. all u've done is question the ability of God to 'decide' freely and say u cant make sense to say its Gods nature. We don't have to show how God has free will or thinks. its beyond our comprehension. its personal by default. unless u can prove?
@efeey "We don't have to show how God has free will or thinks"
I'm saying that it makes no sense to say a timeless God freely chose to create space-time, it's like arguing fot the existence of a married bachelor, and if you agree stop insisting that it's possible.
"summary: in the kalam argument it appears that the cause is personal"
that's rather ironic given your claim "no real understanding or comprehension of what that is like, or perhaps even of what it means" :)) cut the double-talk
@efeey we're not talking about the Universe changing from one state (frozen) to anohter (boiling), but about the cause: for ex. if the necessary cond. for causing the existence frozen water is present timelessly, the effect will appear. see again the ball/cusion analogy
"he knew from eternity"
knowing is not the same as freely chosing. that's why Craig is trying to do the trick with 'eternal determination', but then he's talking about 'freely chosen timeless determination' which is incoherent
@AgeOfReasonXXI "if the necessary cond. for causing the existence frozen water is present timelessly, the effect will appear." LOL how??!!! the only way i see it is if it was intentionally changed. show me how. 'freely chosen timeless determination' i agree that its incoherent. its meant to describe something that really cannot be fathomed (see other responses) I heard a kool idea of God time let me share it with u. dunno if i can make it make sense tho
@efeey " 'freely chosen timeless determination' i agree that its incoherent."
great. and since Craig says God is timeless and had an eternal determination to create the Universe, yet He freely chose to do so, you just agreed that Kalam is incoherent when it comes to arguing for the nature of this cause. that was my point.
Respond to this video... imagine a stick on the floor about 10 inches long.( i assume ur american lol so im using ur units of measurement) that stick represents time. God exists everywhere outside the stick but also exists at every single point on the stick from the beginning to the end at the same time!!so by this analogyGod exists 'now' in the 'future' and even after the world isGone. thats the sort of example that says when we are talking about God and time. wegot no idea wats goin on!
@efeey (cont.) So if that's all Hell is -- simply lack of God's presence, which for such person would be in fact Heaven, and it is Heaven where he might feel uncomfortable preciesly due to God's presence...and all the piety :)) -- I would agree that God has given us a free choice whether to accept him or not. And everybody gets what s/he wants.
@AgeOfReasonXXI yup its a lack of Gods exerting effect of goodness. and without that ther is only eternal suffering/misery. 2 b honest i grew up very close 2 God then when i was in my teens i started questioning all the stuff i believed in, doubted for a while then realised God is the only thing that makes sense of everything. I initially gave myself to him from logic, that grew into fear then eventually to utter joy. u'll neva noe till u try. u got nuthin 2 lose and everything 2 gain.
@efeey (cont.) But most people think of Hell as a place of torment, and they seem unwilling to accept the idea that someone can be happy without God, and therefore that person must experience unhappiness in Hell, which as I said cannot be the result of mere seperation from God, since that would be no torment at all. So, I guess it all depends on what are the consequences of rejecting the offer:
@AgeOfReasonXXI see what we believe is everything u are happy with now is because of God whether u choose to see it or not. he made the universe for us and everything that comes with that. wen u reject God u reject EVERYTHING he is and stands for, i.e. goodness,joy, love, happiness. so what u get in hell is the exact opposite. u are unconsciously living in Gods grace.
@efeey (cont) but then that's not just the lack of God's presence, since it's not God's presence that makes me feel joy and happiness, but other ppl or things. If he takes my ability to experience those feelings (you now, like with having a lobotomy), then that's a punishment. and for what? what's "pretty offensive"? the fact that I experience such eelings toward other persons and not him? that's incredible! in this case God is like a jealous father
@efeey (cont.) if it's punishment, then one has no more free choice than the person who 'freely' choses to part with his money when being robbed at a gunpoint. it's that simple
btw, I'm not spitting in God's face! I'm just saying 'No thanks, what you're offering (a relationship) is not something that I need. now, how is that bad, or sinful?? and how is it deserving of retribution (if we assume Helll is not simply the lack of God's presence)? I mean, come on...
@AgeOfReasonXXI unfortunately its not that simple. here the source of all goodness and joy is offering u to be with him. sadly choosing otherwise may mean that u get to live in an illusion of happiness for a while but when the end of days is here and all goodness and evil will be separated, and man u dun wana be on the evil side. dude if a guy came and gave u a a billion bux 2moro wld u jus say thanks and walk off?? God gave u life... seems pretty offensive 2 me
@efeey I also find it extreemly presumptuous for religious ppl to say (like Craig) that without God life is 'objectively' meaningless. I have no idea what makes them think that if relationship with God provides significance to their lives, that must be the case with everyone. well, for a musician it might be the case that it's music that matter. So to say that without God life is obj. meaninlgess, makes as much sense as saying without music life is obj. meaningless. it's all subjective
@AgeOfReasonXXI lol exactly!! if God exists then is the musicians life only focusing on music objectively meaningful? no. its meaningful 2 him not me. someone else may think medicine is, someone else thinks sports etc everyone has something they r doing. all subjective. like little animals in their habitat, eat drink enjoy urself and die thats it. u wldnt have an idea of how much significance it gives coz u havent tried dude. if u r truly lookin for truth i suggest u give it a genuine shot
@efeey (cont) who builds a torture chamber in his basement and threatens to subject his children to everlasting siffering if they chose not to continue their relationship with him, and go their own way. in fact the latter is what all children do when they grow up, right? they become autonomous and independent of their parents, and are not coersed by them to continue to do what they say, or demand being at the center of their lives for all times. I mean come on, what is this? that's tyranny man
@efeey or take Craig's moronic lecture "The absurdity of life without God". Since I find meaning in other things/activities, and not relationship with the Jesus, to me it is actually life WITH God that is absurd. All troughout the lecture not only is Craig assuming everyone is as existentially insecure as he is, but constantly abuses words like "objectivity" and "subjectivity". And what's really silly, is that Craig apparently thinks the words "subjectivity" and "illusion" are interchangable
@AgeOfReasonXXI lol i disagree with craig here. u can have an enjoyable meaningful life without belief in God. But if God exists then what ur doing is just busily trying to make ur limited life enjoyable and not finding the true meaning of ur existence which is 2 be in relationship with God.keep in mind that when christians talk here a. they r comparing eternity of joy with this life of suffering (romans 8:18) b. once they taste Gods amazing love they cant understand how they can live without it
@efeey (cont) so God would punish you if you doubt his infinite love or reject his offer? that sounds like a joke.
"u can have an enjoyable meaningful life without belief in God" is incompatible with "not finding the true meaning of ur existence". If I've found something that makes my life enjoyable and meaningful, then that's the 'true' meaning (or significance) of my existence, just as relationship with God makes yours enjoyable and significant. Now, why does God have a problem with that?
@efeey look, I'm not trying to convince you God doesn't exis or somethingt, but that the Christian doctrine of 'do what God says and let him be at the center of your life or suffer for an eternity" is so abhorent (which shows the Christian God cannot be morally perfect, rather quite the opposite), that it's bizzare that ppl from inside the faith, like you, cannot grasp it. I mean you wouldn't say the father with the torture chamber in the basement is moral, right? so...
@efeey if you're interested in these subjects check out the articles on Infidels. there are many good writings that can help you see through the fog of faith. unless of course your faith plays such an important role in your life, that the last thing you want to do is lose it. I understand it could be very hard when losing faith could lead to ending one's relationship with friends, family, etc. there's also what Dennett calls 'the sunk-cost fallacy". so, it's all up to you. bb
@AgeOfReasonXXI my faith is really awesome and i do enjoy experiencing God :) although i confess im not always the best Christian but God does give me purpose and meaning in life. having said that the reason I am not an atheist is actually not because of those experiences. its because to me the evidence points clearly in one direction. i jus hope one day u try and take a shot at faith in Christ and see where it takes u. if u are genuine. it will happen :) God bless
@efeey "but God does give me purpose and meaning in life"
fine. but different people find meaning in different things. for example if we were indeed created by God with a purpose: to enter into a relationship with Jesus, I'd consider my life pointelss, because that doesn't make my life meaningful. I hope you're not suggesting (as Craig always does) that unless someone else (like God) determines what we should live for, and what our goals should be, life is meaningless
@AgeOfReasonXXI meaningless in a cosmic sense (afterlife/eternity) but certainly not in this life i think because u believe that u r finite u may indeed treasure it more! see you cant say for sure that entering into a personal relationship wld be meaningless if u havent tried it. take a trivial example. say u never tried chocolate. here ther r heaps of ppl tellin u its awsum, but u really dont see the point its brown n lumpy etc. but then u taste! and boy do u want 2 keep goin. give it a try :)
@efeey but even if leave this aside and accept that the ball is analogous to the cause of the Universe,and the depression in the cusion is analogous to Universe & space-time, then this exampe actually shows that the cause is mechanical (not the result of free will). the ball never chose to sit there, right? even if you replace it with a person, the conclusion is the same: the person never chose to sit there, rather he's the necessary condition for the depression, i.e. a mechanical cause
@AgeOfReasonXXI what ur saying is God had no choice but to exist...thats simply illogical like a square circle. God exists by the necessity of his own nature. there is no such thing as him not having a choice to exist. thats like saying can God kill himself. its an illogical concept he exists necessarily and eternally.
@efeey "what ur saying is God had no choice but to exist..."
I never said that. I said he didn't have a choice in creating the Universe & space-time. to say that a timeless being freely chose to create space-time would be incoherent.
"lets call this 'God time' "
God time = timelessness? come on. the only way we can make sense of it is if we assume God existed in 'metaphisical time', prior to the Big Bang, which Craig deems a possibility. But this also leads to infinite regress!
@AgeOfReasonXXI "he didn't have a choice in creating the Universe & space-time" again ur assuming that he must operate under our time. God time is what i mean wen u say metaphysical time. but i say that this time is part of Gods nature and thus is eternal. hence no regress.
@efeey "but i say that this time is part of Gods nature and thus is eternal"
I'm not sure it makes sense to say it's part of God's nature, but if by eternal you mean everlasting, then yes, you get infinite regress (of God's discursive thoughts, say). eternal = timeless, then you get to all the problems (icluding no thinking ) that I indicated in the analogies.
@AgeOfReasonXXI AGAIN!! ur limiting God to you concept of time!!! Once we start to talk about existence without time or space, we have to be honest enough to admit that we can have no real understanding or comprehension of what that is like, or perhaps even of what it means.we can hav an idea about timelessness but we really dont noe wat it is like.what is it like for time not to exist?here we exceed the limits of ur experience and we have nothing to guide us. just speculation.
@AgeOfReasonXXI summary: in the kalam argument it appears that the cause is personal. U cannot show it is not therefore by default it is. U say it cannot think, choose and operate because that conflicts with being timeless and changeless. I say all ur reasoning breaks down wen u are applying ur conception of time to God. in everything u sed u presuppose or at least unknowingly introduce and apply our 'time' to God. In THIS regard God is not understandable. kalam appears to stand. anything else?
@efeey "all ur reasoning breaks down wen u are applying ur conception of time" The capacity that theists have for self inflicted idiocy for the purpose of maintaining his irrational beliefs in heaven never ceases to amaze me. When you ask for a personal being to be present in a state previous of our time in order to create the universe, YOU are the one that is demanding the application of our concept of time outside time. If God is unknowable, just shut up and stop telling that you know him.
@lfzadra oh jeez...looking back at what i knew five months ago...seems not 2 be that much...sorry I Ifzadra I dont understand what your objection is 2 the kalam arg...you mind tellin us which premise u deny?
@efeey I don´t need to deny any premise from Kalam. But you is the one who needs to explain how the first cause must be personal when you at the same time say we can´t apply our reasoning to a timeless state.
@lfzadra oh wow...so u agree wid both premises...ok....well that means you agree that there is a timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, beginningless powerful being? you just have difficulty wid the person part yeh?
@efeey I didn´t say that I agree with Kalam. What I´m saying is that I can grant you Kalam entirely and are only left with a cause. Immaterial, beginninless, spaceless and personal are not justified inside Kalam, and I simply don´t see any reason to add such things. What happened before the big bang is unknowable by contemporary physics. By saying that you know how things must be before BB, you are, in fact, lying.
@lfzadra lol....ok well lets look at a sub argument on behalf of the cause being immaterial (im assuming you grant me that , there was a cause of the universe since u just said so) 1. the universe had a cause (from 3 of the KCA) 2. the cause of the universe can either be material or immaterial (law of non-contradiction) 3. The cause of the universe cannot be material (since the universe as defined in the kalam includes all of matter) 4. therefore it must be immaterial....criticisms?
@efeey "the universe had a cause" Nothing in this universe shows that our universe had a cause. At least you will not get that from Kalam.
"The cause of the universe cannot be material" Can´t see how can you conclude that the source of our reality is immaterial either, unless you can show what came before the bigbang. As far as I know, no current knowledge of physics can show what came before the bigbang, or even if there is anything before the bigbang.
@lfzadra lol just saying that no1 noes doesn't refute the arg. 1. whatever begins 2 exist has a cause. 2. the universe began 2 exist. 3. the universe has a cause. u dont refute either premise...u say nothing IN our universe shows that our WHOLE universe had a cause....cumon man im sure u can come up with a better refutation than that. i can apply the same reasoning to my toaster. nothing IN my toaster shows how my toaster has a cause.therefore the toaster doesnt have a cause??
@efeey "1. whatever begins" Premise 1 is based in no knowledge whatsoever about reality. The only things that we see "beginning to exist" are permutations of matter/energy, not ignition of matter. The ignition of the Universe is not a permutation of something, so forget the idea of including this event in your "whatever" set. The "whatever" set we know is composed only by permutations, not a single instance of ignition. This renders Kalam a failed attempt to use deduction.
@lfzadra lol premise 1 is not based on reality? wow....lets define terms so we dont talk nonsense...i wana noe what exactly it is u mean by 'ignition' and 'permutations' . r u saying that all that exists is matter and it is simply re-arranged? if so, i wanna noe a few things...did my car ever begin 2 exist? what is the difference between a scrap of metal and my car? and when did the scrap become my car? has 'my car' existed since the big bang? p.s. look up mereological nhilism
@efeey "did my car ever begin 2 exist" YES. The problem is, your car is not ignition of matter, is permutation of previous matter. We NEVER saw ignition of matter beginning to exist. Show me JUST ONE car beginning from nowhere, a brand new quantity of matter/energy that you know it´s caused by something, then you can insert the ignition of our matterf (the universe) in KCA and claim that the Universe had a cause, since we would know that a cause is required for ignition events.
@lfzadra lol whats funny here is this is exactly what your saying...the whole universe just came from nowhere for no reason...according to the bigbang all matter came into existence at the singularity. u seem 2 be suggesting that the law of conservation is in conflict with the big bang theory. if so, then mayb u can win a nobel prize for discoverin somethyn all the physcisists missed lol.
@efeey "that the law of conservation is in conflict with the big bang theory." No, but it is in conflict with Kalam. The law of conservation guarantees that we never saw inside our universe an event of matter/energy ignition beginning to exist, only permutation of chunks of matter/energy. Since Kalam can only talk about causes for permutations (all permutations that begins to exist has causes), and not ignitions, the argument fails in premise 1.
@lfzadra bahaha....lol "The first law of thermodynamics observes the principle of conservation of energy. Energy can be transformed, i.e. changed from one form to another, but cannot be created nor destroyed." wiki...“the coming into being of the universe, as discussed in modern science . . . is not just a matter of imposing some sort of organization . . . upon a previous incoherent state, but literally the coming-into-being of all physical things from nothing.” pcw. davies...is p2 true then?
@efeey "is p2 true then?" No problem with p2. The fallacy lies in p1. Since you never saw any event of matter beginning to exist (ignition), only permutations beginning to exist (matter/energy transforming in something else), how do you now it needs a cause? Permutations needs causes. If matter/emergy ignition needs a cause, you can´t show it with Kalam.
@lfzadra lol sweet so we agree wid 2. premise 1 says (if we re-word it 2 try 2 explain it 2 u lol) anything that comes into existence from nothing must have a cause....(the universe came into existence from nothing-as pcw davies says)...if you want to deny this and say that things can simply pop into existence from ABSOLUTE nothing...then i guess we can't reason rationally anymore....coz now u've entered the realm of faith. 1 q. do u agree with p1 as i stated it...yes/no and y?
@efeey "anything that comes into existence from nothing must have a cause"
No current physics theory shows the nature of reality before the bigbang. What we know is that OUR matter can´t be past eternal, not that there can be no other type of matter that is the origin of our universe.
AND, the last time I remember, you accept that something can come from nothing. If you are saying that a cause can ignit such event, you are contradicting yourself.
@lfzadra "anything that comes into existence from nothing must have a cause" You really have some sort of brain damage. Since when Kalam´s p1 can be rewriten to fit this definition? My car began to exist from nothing? The Sun began to exist from nothing? You began to exist from nothing? Nothing inside the universe began its existence from nothing.
@efeey "do u really believe that there is this other matter" Since you think is rational to claim that minds can exist without brains, outside spacetime, and do the impossible task of creating something from nothing, then the supposition that we are the result of an immaterial fart of an leprechaun is perfectly rational.
"i dont accept that things come out of nothing" Again, no current physics theory says that we come out of nothing, only that all matter we see is not past eternal.
@lfzadra a) immaterial fart/lepechaun is a contradiction b) well i guess u noe more than pcwdavies c) whats truly impossible is nothing caused everything, if God exists its not impossible at all. d) this doesnt seem 2 be goin nywher...e) do some more research on the origins of the universe. f) tc man...hopefully u try 2 be as objective as possible
@efeey "a) immaterial fart/lepechaun is a contradiction" A mind igniting causal chains outside time is a contradiction, since causality, by definition, implyies time, agent and object. Where´s time before time? Your god creates ex nihilo. Where´s the object in the abscence of something?
"do some more research on the origins of the universe" My advice is to do the same. However, Dr. Craig´s books are not source of knowledge in physics.
@lfzadra "A mind igniting causal chains outside time is a contradiction"
Yes, but that's not what Craig is arguing. What this argument does not take into account is the fact that the passage of time is not always required for a causal relationship. A cause-effect relationship can be simultaneous, without the passage of time. Therefore, if God is essentially timeless, he could still be the cause of time itself without the passage of time being required for the cause-effect relationship.
@Mystagogia87 "A cause-effect relationship can be simultaneous, without the passage of time." Since we never saw a timeless state anywhere, any suposition about such state is pure voodoo physics. More than that, even if is the case that such thing is possible, the creator of the universe didn´t have a choice when he bigbang us. No time, no free will, sorry.
@lfzadra "any suposition about such state is pure voodoo physics" Actually it's not physics at all. It's actually the *space-time* continuum, so if anything is timeless it is also outside of space, so we're not dealing with a physical reality.
"Since we never saw a timeless state anywhere"
How would one see a timeless state?
"the creator of the universe didn't have a choice when he bigbang us. No time, no free will, sorry."
@Mystagogia87 "so if anything is timeless it is also outside of space" More voodoo physics.
"How would one see a timeless state?" We never saw quarks, but we know that such thing exists because it has a effect in reality. Show me an effect of immateriality in reality, after that you can claim that it´s not a dream.
"Why could a timeless being not have free will?" Choices are made in time. Outside of it anything would occur instantaneously or not occur forever.
@Mystagogia87 "Simply calling something "voodoo physics" does not amount to an argument." Simply claiming for a reality that you don´t know can exist just because it will make God appear does not amount to an argument too.
"This demands an efficient cause which is outside of time" You can´t show that our universe demands a cause or even if our arrow of spacetime is not the result of another.
@lfzadra "You can´t show that our universe demands a cause" It began to exist, therefore it requires an efficient cause. Even if another universe caused ours to begin to exist, that universe would have an average Hubble expansion of greater than zero, and therefore it also had to have had a beginning.
@Mystagogia87 "It began to exist, therefore it requires an efficient cause" There´s no possible way you can show that time/matter beginning to exist needs a cause.
"that universe would have an average Hubble expansion of greater than zero" You can predict that for inflations similar to our own only, or for a set of inflations, not for an unknown physical reality.
Respond to this video... then you say well i guess immaterial cause is no better. my arg is as follows. 1. the cause must b either material or immaterial. 2. it cant be material. 3 therefore its immaterial. the reason. the reason it cant be material is cause its a self-contradiction. "the cause of all matter is material" which means that matter exists before it existed. since self contradictions can't be true it follows that the only option left is immaterial. unless u can show thats impossible
@efeey "matter exists before it existed". No current physics theory shows what in fact reality was before our beginning. To say that we are the product of other type physical substance raises no contradictions. This would only imply that our current arrow of space/time had a beginning, and was ignited by this unknow state or substance, that could be as eternal as your imaginary friend, that created us from nothing, an impossible task, since something can´t come from nothing (your reasoning)
@lfzadra again ur playing away with my definition of the universe. the universe defined in the kalam is "ALL matter, space time and energy" not just our 'observable' universe so it makes no sense 2 ask if some other material thing caused it. if according to this precise definition of the universe u disagree with premise2 that the universe began 2 exist....i wana noe why. again another weasle word here is 'other type of physical substance' ...please define.
@efeey "other material thing caused it" There´s no material thing being caused to exist inside our universe, since it´s required by thermodynamic laws. What we see beginning to exist is permutations of matter, not matter itself. If you can´t see the difference between an rearrangement of elements inside a set and the creation of the set itself from nowhere, you should stop using hallucinogenic substances, like bibles or William Craig´s books.
@lfzadra lol you seem 2 be confusing wat u said and what i said, ur the one that said other material things caused it haha....again...what we are saying is according 2 bigbang cosmology all the matter that does all the 'permutations' began 2 exist at the singularity and so needs a cause of its existence lol....focus man.
@efeey "the universe defined in the kalam is ALL matter" There´s no mention of "matter" in KCA. Like all theists, you think you can make things pop into existence by definition. By definition, the universe is ALL that exists, which render your god incoherent, since it lies outside the set "all things that exist".
"'other type of physical substance" An unknow type of energy/matter that has a nature/behaviour that is different from what we see inside our universe.
@lfzadra looks like u dun understand the kalam in detail ....u noe the premises so i dun gta list em. but the definition of universe in the kalam is=all matter, space, tym and energy. and the definition of cause is= something sufficient to produce its effect.
given that definition we can argue for premises 1&2 from which it follows logically that 3. the universe has a cause. with regards 2 ur other matter a)even that must begin 2 exist (inifinite past is impossible)...
@efeey "we can argue for premises 1&2 from which it follows logically that 3." FAIL. Premise 1 talks about permutations, not ignitions, mixing apples with oranges. It´s like saying:
1) All eagles that begins to exist can fly
2) Monkeys began to exist.
3) Monkeys can fly.
If you can´t see what is wrong with a deductive argument with this structure, you need a brain check at once.
@efeey "everything that begins 2 exist has a cause is false" If everything that begins to exist has a cause, I don´t know. What I know is that Kalam can´t show you that matter/energy ignitions has causes. This would be a correct form of the argument:
1) Every permutation of matter that begins to exist has a cause.
2) A car is a permutation of matter that begins to exist.
3) Every car has a cause.
The Universe is NOT matter permutation beginning to exist, so p1 can´t apply.
@lfzadra a) immaterial fart/lepechaun is a contradiction b) well i guess u noe more than pcwdavies c) whats truly impossible is nothing caused everything, if God exists its not impossible at all. d) this doesnt seem 2 be goin nywher...e) do some more research on the origins of the universe. f) tc man...hopefully u try 2 be as objective as possible
@efeey "but certainly not in this life i think because u believe that u r finite u may indeed treasure it more"
so you agree that if life is finite (no eternal afterlife) then it's even more valuable? but then do you also agree that only if life is "purposeless" (i.e. there's no one to determine what we should live for but ourselves), we'd be truly free, and not fear retribution for not conforming with some deity's views on what our lives should be about? what could be better than that?
@AgeOfReasonXXI i dont agree that it IS more valuable. i agree that you may think that it is. The christian believes that wateva they do here determines their eternity and so values their life immensely. as for ur second q i think ive found wher ur tru objection to christianity may lie. look, you are free. God gave you free will. you can choose to get to know him or reject him. 'not conforming' is just a soft way of saying I reject God and don't want to follow him.
@AgeOfReasonXXI a useful analogy is this. God is like an all-loving billionaire .he finds u in jail, gives his only son to take up ur place and invites you to get to know him. u then choose to take him up on his offer, he gives u love, happiness and everything you cld ever want in a beautiful fulfilling relationship with him. he also affords u the chance to reject him and be on ur way. those that choose this he leaves on their way.
@efeey " God is like an all-loving billionaire .he finds u in jail"
I'm not sure how this is a good analogy. In what sense is a person, who doesn't have and doesn't need(!) a relationship with God, in jail? Now, if it's true that when a person rejects god's offer, he's simply left with the life he's chosen, then for a person who's perfectly happy without God (like me), being separated from God in this life or the next would be just fine. (cont.)
@AgeOfReasonXXI thats the analogy prison is like earth compared to heaven. whilst in prison ur just happy with wat u got oblivious to the goings on outside ur little bubble. u make short term goals friendships etc but thats not the tru meaning of ur life. and the fact that u choose to stay in prison whilst rejecting God bailin u out is rejecting him. again he will let u live away from him for eternity which is tru hell.
here 'true' makes no sense since meaning (i.e. significance) is always subj. you also agree that for the musician it's music that's the meaning of his life, so it makes no sense to say relationship with God gives 'true' significance. same with the "illusion of happiness": if I'm happy with my relationship with my girlfriend (and I am), it makes no sense to say it's an illusion.
@efeey you seem to agree that Hell si just separation from God. but then you insist I'll suffer in Hell without God, even though I'm perfectly fine without him now. I mean if I'm in Hell with my girl, then why would I be unhappy? I 'm not sure how to make sense of the suggestion that "what u get in hell is the exact oppositegoodness,joy, love, happiness." Do you mean God would make me unable to feel enjoy, love, happiness while being with my girfriend? (cont)
@AgeOfReasonXXI 'even though I'm perfectly fine without him now' dude thats my point. ur fine without 'knowing' or 'believing' in him now. not coz ur without him or he is not around. and u dont seem to understand what hell is man. the absence of ANYTHING that is good, coz all good is rooted in God. u may well be with ur girl but u cant experience joy etc coz its all been quarantined in heaven!
@efeey "may well be with ur girl but u cant experience joy etc coz its all been quarantined in heaven!"
so your God is so jealous that a person might care more about another human, than Him, that he takes that person's ability to experience joy. now, that's wicked. it proves that even if there's a morally perfect being it's not your God. it's as simple as that. and sorry, but the fact that you believe such Being is morally perfect only goes to show how badly religion can poison one's mind
@AgeOfReasonXXI He does all this for them and they say no thanks. He offers them money advice but they spit in his face and say we don’t need your help. God leaves them to the life they have chosen. they leave his treasure and wander the streets looking for fulfillment and joy but finding none except in the their shortsighted goals. yet after all this God sends them continuous messages saying whenever u wish i will never refuse u.
@AgeOfReasonXXI when you get to know God the way i do, you KNOW that true freedom is being with Him. because he wants wat you want. and knows what is best for you. you don't understand the amount of joy it gives you honestly. i feel sorry for people that don't get to experience this. I pray for you guys to stop looking for academic refutations and open the eyes of ur hearts. we dont see it as rules, we see it as a friendship. if ur friend asks u for somethyn u do it. he dusnt force. God loves u!
@efeey the chances are in the future we'll have good scientific explanation for the fine-tunning, the origin of life, etc. of course, some questions may never be answered. I guess we've got to wait and see. it's just premature to plug in God in areas where we lack understanding. besides, Goddidit is not an asnwer, it's lack of one
@AgeOfReasonXXI guth borde and valinkin in 03 have now proved that all cosmologists must face the reality of a cosmic beginning. also with regard to the fine-tuning i heard in one of craigs talks him quoting an astronomer royal of GB i think that saying the fine-tuning is almost irrefutable and any future assessment is likely to turn up the same numbers. try and look into that. nothing did it is not an answer and i don't know is not an answer. if u don't noe u follow the evidence that is present
@efeey you also seem not to understand what kind of process evolution is. when Darwin developed his theory, what he saw as its main aspect is actually the non-random process of natural selection. he didn't know how variations occured. for all he knew, it could've been caused by the food. only later we found out that the cause is genetic mutations, but still, it's natural selection (not chance) that effectively creates the illusion of desing by determining which characteristics would survive
@AgeOfReasonXXI so your saying there is no randomness in evolution at all? that its all natural selection? what about geneitc drift? random mutation? u are saying that natural selection applies to protein molecules as well? THAT is what barrow and tipler refer to. the odds that certain key mutations in the evolution would have occure by natural selection wld mean the sun would be out by now! they have every right to calculate this as you want mathematicians/physicists running ur odds lol.
The fine tuning argument is fallacious from the outset.
IF those are the conditions, and life exists under them to say that if we were to change them, life would not exist, is completely false and dishonest. Probabilistic extension onto absolutes can only fail.
Fairy tales and boogey men is all this clown believes in.
i mean REALLY, will there EVER be an atheist that can respond AT ALL to propositions, premises and conclusions? atheists are complete IDIOTS. from hitchens, to cooke, to pigliucci, they FAIL miserably answering ANY of dr. Craig's arguments. will an atheist EVER win a debate? brainless
@MalleusMaleficarum01 Maybe in a one hours debate. The points Craig use have been debunked over and over again by scholars over the years. Hawkins debunks his cosmology. History removes almost any chance that the gospels are literal truth. Morals are very well explained by biology, and not really explained at all by religion. The fact that people feel he won the debate speaks to his presentation skill more than any validity of his position.
your rebuttal is that hawking say so, and "history," debunks gospels, and morals are biological? what a poor attempt. in fact it's the opposite. the historicity of Jesus is stronger than almost ANY ancient accounts, given several criteria. moralks are not explained in psychobiology, and i have a degree in this area, so i know youre wrong. they try to explain morals as survival, but only works to a point. hawking didnt debunk anything, so youre wrong thrice. atheism = increasingly desperate.
People keep saying that, about the historicity, but where's the evidence? I studied the topic as a Christian for nearly ten years and I never found one shred of evidence that Jesus' supernatural nature was at all documented outside the gospel accounts, which are clearly not written with historical accuracy in mind.
Morals are only partly explained by biology...not specifically psychology. However I see no reason to jump to the conclusion that they are from a God.
that suggests how deeply amoral Westerners like you have become. That you dont have a visceral reaction when you see the filth on MTV, or hear the filth of rap, which our 13 yr olds lap up. That coke use, teen pregnancy, abortions, rape, murder, etc., has exploded since the seculars have pushed away religion from the square should say something. Our decdent societies are in melt down and is partly or mostly result of twisting our morals, tradition, and silencing religion
"that suggests how deeply amoral Westerners like you have become. That you dont have a visceral reaction when you see the filth on MTV, or hear the filth of rap, which our 13 yr olds lap up. "
I don't watch MTV, and I don't even have cable connected. Most of my friends don't watch TV and we'd never sit out kids in front of it.
" have pushed away religion from the square should say something"
No they haven't. You hear more from the religious right than you hear from secularists.
@synkronyk Atheism which ushered in communism, bolshevism, and it's 50 million murders in just this past century alone, is the symptom of a sick twisted mind. Thats why most thinking people have rejected atheism.
Atheism did not usher in communism, it had nothing to do with it. Only the belief in imaginary friends into adulthood is the symptom of a sick and diseased mind.
@synkronyk At liking the fantasies of atheism you may be expert, but an historian you are not. Communism was inextricably tied to atheism, and its stated aim was to usher in a utopian society void of Christianity and all religion. theists were slaughtered and churches burned. Do take my word for it. New atheism too advocates murder and we find these atheists praising the work of the slaughter of millions of babies via abortion. They laud euthenasia, and reckless lifestyles which lead to death
@synkronyk Wrong. Atheism gives validility to do things like war and murder. Atheism If left to continue will end up in a nuclear war because of stupid annoying atheist fools. It makes me ashamed that people like Dr. Craig have to explain things to idiot atheists because they are so retarded. Just accept Christianity so we can save the earth and live good lives.
@synkronyk If the minds of Christians are so sick and diseased, explain why William Willburforce and John Newton advocated for abolition of slavery out of Christian beliefs. Newton was even a slave trader until he came seriously into contact with Christianity. Then he wrote Amazing Grace.
The historicity of Jesus is not even a debate among seculars or Christians. All, but a few quacks know he existed and was some kind of teacher which sparked a religion like no other and faster than no other. Supernatural or not is a faith question and can be known that way, not in a beaker or ink. Morals are psychologically based and psychology is based on physical brain and immaterial mind
The biological for morals being the evolutionary reasons for behaviors.
I agree that his existence is well established. But certainly the details are not.
Morals have changed radically even in the last 100 years. So it would be crazy to say that they are mainly fixed by a creator OR by biology. Certainly there is some kind of ingrained moral sense in our biology, but considering that rate at which human morals are evolving, it's highly unlikely that it's the whole story.
many behaviors violate evolutionary theory on all fronts and are shown not to be able to be explained by evolution. science of the gaps is evolution, ie, "evolution did it." but this is lazy. i think morals dont shift, i think society's understanding of them does. nazis think it moral to cook jews alive, but that doesnt make it moral. apply that to cannibals, head hunters, etc. there is a true moral objectivism and in time we gravitate toward it as a function of morals seeking
Can you site an example of a behavior that violates evolution?
The answer to the Nazis is obvious...their moral system caused the rapid death of their society within about a decade of its adoption. Their morals were unstable to the extreme, and they were selected against by the extremely rapid death of their society.
Soviet Russia also was not stable enough. Historically almost every dictatorship has eventually been overthrown by its own people. Some moral systems really are unstable.
Sure: Any behavior the decreases the probability of a) one's survivability; b) propogation of one's genes. Christ's unique, "love thy enemy," is a good example, or any time that someone sacrifices for the aid of a stranger or enemy for that matter. This violates evolution.
The Nazi and Soviet examples show why socialism and communism/liberalism are unrealistic, however, the Nazis could have won, and would have won had the US not intervened. Genocide increases survivability which is evol
The Nazis were liberal? That's not even remotely true. The Nazis had a totalitarian society (for an extremely short time) which was anything but liberal.
Love thy enemy blindly applied might be against survival. But making peace even as a potential cost isn't.
How does genocide increase survival?
"the Nazis could have won"
Maybe...but I doubt that the German people would have put up with it much longer. Hitler's own generals turned on him. If they won it would have been a one man job.
i didnt say the nazis were liberal. they were socialists (communism light). communism is a lib form of economics and society. modern lib is edging toward socialism and is failing. genocide incr survival for the perpatrators. thats pure evolution (surv of fittest). Christianity says, no. took Christian societies to end wwii. i disagree w/ your last point and conjecture of this kind may be too spurious
Once the promise of a liberal & egalitarian society failed to materialize, Hitler would have lost his support. His public support was based on it, because so many people were poor and desperate.
It is funny that somebody living in a comparatively extremely liberal society like the US would call the Nazis liberal. (It's actually kind of sick.) While lagging behind other first world nations, you people are way more liberal than pretty much anybody was 100 years ago.
the US leads the 1st world whether technology, medicine, # of nobel laureattes, etc etc. on a few scales there is variance but those are minor. you misunderstand the points and so you think i called nazis liberals. you commit the fallacy of a straw man so it's meaningless to respond to that point
"modern lib is edging toward socialism and is failing."
How so?
There's a common myth in America that communist values were actually applied in Russia. That's kind of a misunderstanding...it was the "communists" that took over, but they didn't apply communist ideals because that wouldn't have made the leaders rich and powerful. Instead they abused their power (as will nearly always happen in that scenario). AKA: non communism.
You really haven't answered the questions I've asked either.
You have to realize though that the US/Canada embody socialist values far better than the other states you mention. They just aren't such spectacular failures that Fox news can really use them. (Although they use Sweeden, but some reason)
I don't understand how I'm using a straw man though. When I look at the success/failure of political systems I like to take into account that other factors besides socialist values are probably at fault.
Also, the US does not lead the world in medicine, unless you only count research. In a lot of ways, you guys are the best with actually coming up with the technology, but one of the worst at actually using it to extend the life of your citizens. The quality of your medical practice frequently ranks between 50th and 100th best in the world. Not first. Canada's does much better, and it's one of your evil government insured (but not government run) systems.
Canada amounts to no more than an American state, regarding economy, health care, etc., so youre trying to argue apples and oranges. People from Europe come to the US for better medical treatments, not Canada. Mortality rates, etc., are comorbid with variables that the state of Canada will not have to contend with. As Canadians have become brainwashed to thinking importing the 3rd wld is a virtue, they are discovering fast the probs big bro US must face, and Canada isnt liking it. we told em so
"Canada amounts to no more than an American state, regarding economy, health care, etc.,"
LOL...Canada has a single player socialized health care system which beats the shit out of yours. We have nearly 10 year higher life expectancy than you, and our medicare system consistently outranks yours. We are a completely sovereign nation and in no way are we one of your states, any more a state than any European country is. We just trade with you.
this argument from the theist perspective is WHY god exists, or why he doesn't. The ultimate defense of god is one's experience of god, not that IT exists. The physical arguments are spurious as best, regarding cosmological reasons. Science never asserts it explains non-physical things, and therefore never asserts anything beyond that. Many cosmological arguments talk about quantum fluctuations in 0 dimensional space, or multi-verse theories.
lanechange1 8 months ago in playlist Is God a Delusion?
This is the most unprofessional debate I have ever seen. Dr. Craig kept his cool, like he always does, but his opponent and the moderator were rediculous.
Msjrward 1 year ago
What does Cooke consider suffering? And more importantly, how did he reach this conclusion?
wigglesza 1 year ago
They just kept allowing that guy with the squeaky clown thing to keep it up? Wow what a bunch of childish fools. Why were they doing it to Dr. Craig when he won the debate? Jealousy perhaps.
7tylerjb 1 year ago
@7tylerjb Christianity is a dead man walking. Darwin killed it off about 150 yrs ago, sadly Christians won't accept that they've lost throughout almost all of the developed world- Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan. etc. The only countries where religious superstition is still strong are the developing countries, with the only exeption being the U.S. It can't lag behind forever though. it won't be long before it would be just too embarrassing to belief in God
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI how did he kill it? is that why it is stronger than any religion and stronger than it has ever been now?
efeey 1 year ago
@efeey he killed it by proposing a process that can account for the diversity of life. the fact that Darwinian evolution, i.e. random mutations and natural selection, can explain the origin of all species on earth, means that the strongest argument for God, which is the appearance of design, has been refuted
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI accounting for the diversity of life doesn't account for, a. the origin of the universe b. the fine tuning of the universe on which evolution depends. those in my view are the strongest arguments for god; and are immune to darwinian attack. also macroevolution still has no hard evidence for it, and even if it is proven certain does not refute christianity. moreover i wld argue that evolution is in fact evidence for the existence of god based on how ridiculous the odds are
efeey 1 year ago
@efeey biologists don't make a distinction between micro and macro evolution. only creationsits do. the evidence for common descent is so overwhelming that even ID-ers like Behe agrees with it, and even call this fact trivial!
to say evoution (which explains how species can come about naturally ) is evidence for Gos is the most idiotic thing that only a nut-case like Craig can say with a straight face. and what rediculous odds? for the origin of life? that's not evolution, but abiogenesis
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI everyone acknowledges the fact that there is macro and micro evolution...however evidence for both is significantly different and for macro is insufficient. if it was proven beyond doubt it wouldnt be called a theory. but my point is even if i do grant you that all evolution is true this does nothing to prove that God does not exist. with respect to the odds im not talking bout abiogenesis im talking about 10 necessary steps in the evolution of homosapiens. ad hominum on craig?
efeey 1 year ago
@efeey or the odds against evolution of humans? well that only shows that if you could run the process over again, some other creatures would appear. but so what? it's like playing a game of cards, say, for a day, and then caclulating the probablity of each player getting the particular hands they got. the odds would be rediculous, yet you won't appeal to the miraculous, right? it just shows that if you start over again you'd get different hands. same with human evolution
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI the argument here is not about what type of creature would develop but rather the time in which it would take for such a creature to develop the kind of characteristics that humans possess. and such processes if they were in fact completely unguided is remarkably improbable to happen within the tym limit that the universe has. plus its only ok 2 infer design if a. high odds (characteristics) b. independent pattern.(humans) if you wer dealt the same suit of cards u'd be suspicious
efeey 1 year ago
@efeey "if you wer dealt the same suit of cards u'd be suspicious"
sure. but we can't start evolution over to see if humans will appear once again. so the examples is irrelevant
then, no biologist would say the process is remarkably improbable, that's creationist propaganda and it's nonsense.
again, biologists do not distinguish between micro and macro evo. evolution descibes how species change due to random mutations and natural selection. evolution is a fact.
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@efeey don't buy into this "it's just a theory" bullshit. science is all about theories that explain facts. does the theory of gravity (GR) makes you doubt gravitation?
true, evolution doesn't disprove God, it just makes him unnecessary to explain how all species originated.
to say evolution coudn't happen without guidence, as Craig does, is plain ignorance. and any reputable biologist would agree. as Dawkins has said: if one doubts evolution s/he is either an idiot, ignorant,(or wicked)
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@efeey again: the theory of Darwinian evolution (descent with modification due to random mutations and natural selection) is accepted by virtually all reputable biologists as the best way to accounts for the FACT that all species have evolved from a common anscestor. In other words, biological evolution is a fact, best explained by the theory of Darwinian evolution. get it now?
If the theory was incorrect we would've never been able to develop, say, vaccines, because they are based on it.
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI again your missing the point lets say i agree with you completely that all evolution is a given fact. this does nothing to disprove Gods existence. also wat dr craig is saying abt evoulution is referencing barrow n tipler, two physicists in saying that the odds for evolution of homosapiens to occur by itself is some ridiculous number. the only difference between us is you think that its chance and i think its was influenced by a designer.
efeey 1 year ago
@efeey Borrow and Tipler are physicists, and the fact that Craig quotes them instead of evolutionary biologists concerning evolution is quite telling. virtually none of them takes the speculations of Borrow and Tiplet (who are mere laymen on the subject!) seriously.
the signifucance of the theory of Darwinian evolution is preciesly due to the fact it can explain the origin of all species without reffering to a designer. so even if God exists, he's not necessary to explain how we got here
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI finally we agree on something lol. exactly. God doesnt need to explain how evolution is directed and im not even advocating barrow n tipler. who cares what they say rite? what we DO need God for is the explanation of the universe, finetuning and the first complex cell from which evolution can take place.
efeey 1 year ago
@efeey yes, genetic mutaions occur mainly due to copying errors, but natural selection is not a chance process, so evolution is not equivalent to randomness
the calculations of B & T are bogus, don't make too much of them. true, we don't know how the first primitive cell originated. for now. but we also didn't know how lightning could occur without Zeus, right? so when you say we need God to explain "the universe, finetuning and the first complex cell" you're using God-of-the-gaps argument
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI lol on what basis are u asserting they are bogus? coz u dont lyk them? plz come up with a reasonable argument. and what B n T are calculating here is the chance that those 10 necessary random mutations would occur by chance which is how they arise. i.e. insertion,replication, deletion, etc of genes. i made no reference to natural selection.
efeey 1 year ago
@efeey if they're not bogus, how come biologists do not take them seriouly? But even if we don't know how it happended, it doesn't follow Goddidit. that's why I gave the example with lightning.
yes, there're gaps in our knowledge with regard to the fine-tunning, the BB, etc. to fill them with God, is God-of-the-gaps. 'I don't know' is the only honest answer when you do not know. nobody says 'nothing did it'. are you saying science should quit exploring the BB just bc Craig says GoddidIt?
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI right. it follows it happened by chance? those odds? U can stik to that assumption if u wish. i dont have that much faith. have u even read the borde guth and vilenkin theory? ANY universe that is in a state of cosmic expansion must have a cosmic origin. i believe our universe is such don't u? look it up.
efeey 1 year ago
@efeey so borde guth and vilenkin theory implies God exists? why is it that they haven't reached that conclusion? to use science as a support for God's existence is just laughable, given that it points to nothing of the sort. if scientific theories suggested even for a moment that God exist, then it wouldn't be the case that 93% of top U.S. scientists (NAS) are unbelievers, right? and sorry, but for a person of faith to say nonbelief requires faith is just pathetic
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI Lol here we go, argument from authority and random quotes not addressing the arguments. look, all these scientific arguments support a. the universe began to exist and b. whatever begins to exist has a cause. those are the arguments. what u want to do with them is up to you. either show they are false, accept ther implications or bury it and wait for science.
efeey 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI so what does the evidence point to lol? honestly i hope u do find truth/value that im sure ur looking for. all the best to u. i can only pray and hope u find a truth good enough for u. try reading the new testament u never know what might happen. i honestly believe that non-belief is mostly emotional n not based on argument/rationale. but hey wat do i noe
efeey 1 year ago
@efeey both premises of the kalam are suspect. even if we can say our Universe bagan to exist, it doesn't mean it's not part of a Multiverse. then, not everything that "begins to exist" has a cause. but even if you grant both pr, you're nowhere near showing the cause to be personal. Kalam fails at every step. that's why it's been dismissed as unconvincing (or outright fallacious) by cosmologists and physicists alike, as well as by philosophers.
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI the universe began to exist is suspect? science points to this very strongly. whatever begins to exist has a cause...really? premises are fallacious or improbable? again ur just asserting or doubting. how can a changeless, timeless impersonal entity bring into being a temporal effect at some point in the finite past? not logical. or if it is explain how.
efeey 1 year ago
@efeey I see nothing illogical in arguing that the cause of the Universe is a timeless, spaceless set of necessary conditions which brought about space-time. However, it's logically incoherent to say that such an entity freely chose to create space-time, since s/he would need time in order to do that. so time would have to exist before time!
Craig says God had a eternal determination to create the Universe. so God had a "freely chosen timeless determination"! which is pure nonsense
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI lol so u cant explain how such an impersonal cause would do it ur just saying that it seems logical to u....hmmm. again this point has been brought up before. an agent/cause can simultaneously bring into being its effect. Antecedence postulates that the cause must be prior to, or at least simultaneous with, the effect. i.e time is created at the same time as the universe. u mind referencing that dr craig statement? i wld say god is timeless by nature
efeey 1 year ago
@efeey I don't have to explain how it happened. all I'm saying is that it is not logically incoherent to have a cause that's the necessary condition for the origin of space-time, but it IS incoherent to suggest this cause freely chose to create time! Craig says God had a timeless determination to create the Universe and he also says that God freely chose to do so. So he's talking about God having a freely chosen timeless determination and that's just nonsense, it's contradiction in terms
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI once we get to the point that the universe had a cause, it can either be personal or non-personal. no other options. since it cant be impersonal therefore by default it is personal. i dunno wat u say craig is sayin never heard that b4 :S but i dont see how a timeless being has any restraints on freely choosing to create time. but i think i get wer ur coming from andi think it is simply an expression because we as finite minds cannot fathom the way in which the infine mind works.
efeey 1 year ago
@efeey "freely choosing to create time"
that's logically incoherent, my friend. in order to make a free choice, you need time. so even if God created the Universe, he couldn't have freely chosen to do so. he could only have been the necessary mechanical cause for space-time, in the same way a person sitting on a cusion form eternity, is the mechanical cause for the depression in the cusion. otherwise the analogy wouldn't work with a ball. yet, ironically, that's exactly the one Craig uses.
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI i gta sleep now its almost 3am in australia. get bak to you soon. in the mean time mayb try giving Jesus a go. u'd make a tough christian apologetic 4 any atheist i rekon. and also consider when talkin bt the origin of universe and time its difficult to get a grasp on what God is doing with this timelessness etc. but im sure u will think abt it deeply. yawn
efeey 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI all that statement shows is we cant describe his omniscience and the mode of 'time' that God operates in. lets call this 'God time' or timelessness with respect to our concept. i like the water analogy better. if the temp is 0*C from eternity then the water will be frozen from eternity. how can a mechanical cause make the water then boil without intention? since it can't therfore its personal. u gta show how this is impersonal.
efeey 1 year ago
@efeey " if the temp is 0*C from eternity then the water will be frozen from eternity"
if by eternity you mean "infinity of time' the analogy is invalid. if you mean timelessness, then the 0 temp would be the analogous to the timeless cause of the Universe and the frozen water-- to the Univers & space-time itself. so what's the problem? (again, see the ball-cusion analogy). the objection you (and Craig reise) in the water analogy is due to equivocation on the two different def. of "eternity"
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI the question of time here is irrelevant. the analogy is supposed to demonstrate that u can get a cause simultaneous with effect. and that this must be intentional. i.e. frozen water doesnt just become boiling water with no intentional cause. can u show otherwise? i dont think so. universe cannot just come from a machine. and if it does then why doesnt this mechanical cause continue to produce random things all the time?
efeey 1 year ago
@efeey "u gta show how this is impersonal."
what I've shown is that even if the timeless cause is personal, the effect couldn't have been the result of free choice. i.e. God couldn't have had choice in the matter. just as the person sitting on the cusion never chose to sit there, hense he's the necessary mechanical condition for the depression. just like the ball is. notice that if the depression was the result of free will, the ball analogy wouldn't work, yet Craig uses it all the time.
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI the basis that you are saying it couldnt of been a choice is again assuming that God cant think without our concept of time. simply false.
efeey 1 year ago
@efeey "it can either be personal or non-personal. no other options."
I agree. but even if it was personal, it doesn't mean it's the person had any choice in the matter. and as I ponted out, all the bogus analogies for simultenious causation Craig uses, not only contradict his contention that time cannot be infinate in the past, but actually show that the cause, whether personal or not, was mechanical in the sense that it never freely chose to bring about the effect (the Universe)
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI ofcourse if it means that it had a choice what else could personal mean? again, time is 'our' time. God can have a mode of time that is in his nature of eternal existence which is our definition of God. u gta admit, it works.
efeey 1 year ago
@efeey it's also hard to make sense of simultaneous causation. Craig gives bogus analogies like a ball resting on a cusion, yet the the cause here (the ball) is neither spaceless, nor timeless, so the analogy is inadequate. not to mention the irony of using it in an argument which argues against the possibility of time extending infinately in the past, when the causation in this example is only simultaneous if the ball has been resting on the cusion from eternity past!
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI whats hard abt it? jus coz u dont understand it doesnt make it impossible. at the moment my fist (cause) punches the boxing bag the dent (effect) is caused.
efeey 1 year ago
@efeey even Craig concedes that 'God didn't chose to create the Universe in the sense that he changed his mind, rather he had eternal (i.e. timeless) determination to do so! ' the "changed his mind' part is a red-herring. the Q is can we say that God MADE UP his mind? well if we can't sensibly say God "changed his mind' (he's timeless!), we can't say he 'made up his mind'. but then, what free choice?! essentially Craig is talking about "freely chosen timeless determination!", which is NONSENSE
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI again all of this is just illogical. God did not change his mind he knew from eternity that he was going to make the universe and at time t=0 he exacted the effect. jus because he knew from eternity doesnt mean its not freely done. the question can God change his mind is meaningless. similarly here we are talking about metaphysics.
efeey 1 year ago
@efeey "God did not change his mind "
fine, I already said that's red herring. the Q is did God make up his mind to create the Universe. if not, then it's not free choice. but then if God's was in a timeless state (met. time leads to infinite regress, so it can't be used in Kalam! Craig also says God was timeless 'prior' to creation) he could have no more freely chose to do so, than the ball or the person sitting timelessly on the cusion. there no analogy with frozen/boiling water
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI lol u clearly dont get the purpose of the analogies. they arent supposed to be some insight into the mind/nature of God! they are supposed to demonstrate a. simultaneous causation and b. the need for a cause of the universe to be personal. all u've done is question the ability of God to 'decide' freely and say u cant make sense to say its Gods nature. We don't have to show how God has free will or thinks. its beyond our comprehension. its personal by default. unless u can prove?
efeey 1 year ago
@efeey "We don't have to show how God has free will or thinks"
I'm saying that it makes no sense to say a timeless God freely chose to create space-time, it's like arguing fot the existence of a married bachelor, and if you agree stop insisting that it's possible.
"summary: in the kalam argument it appears that the cause is personal"
that's rather ironic given your claim "no real understanding or comprehension of what that is like, or perhaps even of what it means" :)) cut the double-talk
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@efeey we're not talking about the Universe changing from one state (frozen) to anohter (boiling), but about the cause: for ex. if the necessary cond. for causing the existence frozen water is present timelessly, the effect will appear. see again the ball/cusion analogy
"he knew from eternity"
knowing is not the same as freely chosing. that's why Craig is trying to do the trick with 'eternal determination', but then he's talking about 'freely chosen timeless determination' which is incoherent
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI "if the necessary cond. for causing the existence frozen water is present timelessly, the effect will appear." LOL how??!!! the only way i see it is if it was intentionally changed. show me how. 'freely chosen timeless determination' i agree that its incoherent. its meant to describe something that really cannot be fathomed (see other responses) I heard a kool idea of God time let me share it with u. dunno if i can make it make sense tho
efeey 1 year ago
@efeey " 'freely chosen timeless determination' i agree that its incoherent."
great. and since Craig says God is timeless and had an eternal determination to create the Universe, yet He freely chose to do so, you just agreed that Kalam is incoherent when it comes to arguing for the nature of this cause. that was my point.
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
Respond to this video... imagine a stick on the floor about 10 inches long.( i assume ur american lol so im using ur units of measurement) that stick represents time. God exists everywhere outside the stick but also exists at every single point on the stick from the beginning to the end at the same time!!so by this analogyGod exists 'now' in the 'future' and even after the world isGone. thats the sort of example that says when we are talking about God and time. wegot no idea wats goin on!
efeey 1 year ago
@efeey (cont.) So if that's all Hell is -- simply lack of God's presence, which for such person would be in fact Heaven, and it is Heaven where he might feel uncomfortable preciesly due to God's presence...and all the piety :)) -- I would agree that God has given us a free choice whether to accept him or not. And everybody gets what s/he wants.
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI yup its a lack of Gods exerting effect of goodness. and without that ther is only eternal suffering/misery. 2 b honest i grew up very close 2 God then when i was in my teens i started questioning all the stuff i believed in, doubted for a while then realised God is the only thing that makes sense of everything. I initially gave myself to him from logic, that grew into fear then eventually to utter joy. u'll neva noe till u try. u got nuthin 2 lose and everything 2 gain.
efeey 1 year ago
@efeey (cont.) But most people think of Hell as a place of torment, and they seem unwilling to accept the idea that someone can be happy without God, and therefore that person must experience unhappiness in Hell, which as I said cannot be the result of mere seperation from God, since that would be no torment at all. So, I guess it all depends on what are the consequences of rejecting the offer:
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI see what we believe is everything u are happy with now is because of God whether u choose to see it or not. he made the universe for us and everything that comes with that. wen u reject God u reject EVERYTHING he is and stands for, i.e. goodness,joy, love, happiness. so what u get in hell is the exact opposite. u are unconsciously living in Gods grace.
efeey 1 year ago
@efeey (cont) but then that's not just the lack of God's presence, since it's not God's presence that makes me feel joy and happiness, but other ppl or things. If he takes my ability to experience those feelings (you now, like with having a lobotomy), then that's a punishment. and for what? what's "pretty offensive"? the fact that I experience such eelings toward other persons and not him? that's incredible! in this case God is like a jealous father
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@efeey (cont.) if it's punishment, then one has no more free choice than the person who 'freely' choses to part with his money when being robbed at a gunpoint. it's that simple
btw, I'm not spitting in God's face! I'm just saying 'No thanks, what you're offering (a relationship) is not something that I need. now, how is that bad, or sinful?? and how is it deserving of retribution (if we assume Helll is not simply the lack of God's presence)? I mean, come on...
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI unfortunately its not that simple. here the source of all goodness and joy is offering u to be with him. sadly choosing otherwise may mean that u get to live in an illusion of happiness for a while but when the end of days is here and all goodness and evil will be separated, and man u dun wana be on the evil side. dude if a guy came and gave u a a billion bux 2moro wld u jus say thanks and walk off?? God gave u life... seems pretty offensive 2 me
efeey 1 year ago
@efeey I also find it extreemly presumptuous for religious ppl to say (like Craig) that without God life is 'objectively' meaningless. I have no idea what makes them think that if relationship with God provides significance to their lives, that must be the case with everyone. well, for a musician it might be the case that it's music that matter. So to say that without God life is obj. meaninlgess, makes as much sense as saying without music life is obj. meaningless. it's all subjective
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI lol exactly!! if God exists then is the musicians life only focusing on music objectively meaningful? no. its meaningful 2 him not me. someone else may think medicine is, someone else thinks sports etc everyone has something they r doing. all subjective. like little animals in their habitat, eat drink enjoy urself and die thats it. u wldnt have an idea of how much significance it gives coz u havent tried dude. if u r truly lookin for truth i suggest u give it a genuine shot
efeey 1 year ago
@efeey (cont) who builds a torture chamber in his basement and threatens to subject his children to everlasting siffering if they chose not to continue their relationship with him, and go their own way. in fact the latter is what all children do when they grow up, right? they become autonomous and independent of their parents, and are not coersed by them to continue to do what they say, or demand being at the center of their lives for all times. I mean come on, what is this? that's tyranny man
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI get bak 2 u...lil busy these days. in the mean time think of the moral argument and try and respond to the logic q
efeey 1 year ago
@efeey or take Craig's moronic lecture "The absurdity of life without God". Since I find meaning in other things/activities, and not relationship with the Jesus, to me it is actually life WITH God that is absurd. All troughout the lecture not only is Craig assuming everyone is as existentially insecure as he is, but constantly abuses words like "objectivity" and "subjectivity". And what's really silly, is that Craig apparently thinks the words "subjectivity" and "illusion" are interchangable
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI lol i disagree with craig here. u can have an enjoyable meaningful life without belief in God. But if God exists then what ur doing is just busily trying to make ur limited life enjoyable and not finding the true meaning of ur existence which is 2 be in relationship with God.keep in mind that when christians talk here a. they r comparing eternity of joy with this life of suffering (romans 8:18) b. once they taste Gods amazing love they cant understand how they can live without it
efeey 1 year ago
@efeey (cont) so God would punish you if you doubt his infinite love or reject his offer? that sounds like a joke.
"u can have an enjoyable meaningful life without belief in God" is incompatible with "not finding the true meaning of ur existence". If I've found something that makes my life enjoyable and meaningful, then that's the 'true' meaning (or significance) of my existence, just as relationship with God makes yours enjoyable and significant. Now, why does God have a problem with that?
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@efeey look, I'm not trying to convince you God doesn't exis or somethingt, but that the Christian doctrine of 'do what God says and let him be at the center of your life or suffer for an eternity" is so abhorent (which shows the Christian God cannot be morally perfect, rather quite the opposite), that it's bizzare that ppl from inside the faith, like you, cannot grasp it. I mean you wouldn't say the father with the torture chamber in the basement is moral, right? so...
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@efeey if you're interested in these subjects check out the articles on Infidels. there are many good writings that can help you see through the fog of faith. unless of course your faith plays such an important role in your life, that the last thing you want to do is lose it. I understand it could be very hard when losing faith could lead to ending one's relationship with friends, family, etc. there's also what Dennett calls 'the sunk-cost fallacy". so, it's all up to you. bb
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI my faith is really awesome and i do enjoy experiencing God :) although i confess im not always the best Christian but God does give me purpose and meaning in life. having said that the reason I am not an atheist is actually not because of those experiences. its because to me the evidence points clearly in one direction. i jus hope one day u try and take a shot at faith in Christ and see where it takes u. if u are genuine. it will happen :) God bless
efeey 1 year ago
@efeey "but God does give me purpose and meaning in life"
fine. but different people find meaning in different things. for example if we were indeed created by God with a purpose: to enter into a relationship with Jesus, I'd consider my life pointelss, because that doesn't make my life meaningful. I hope you're not suggesting (as Craig always does) that unless someone else (like God) determines what we should live for, and what our goals should be, life is meaningless
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI meaningless in a cosmic sense (afterlife/eternity) but certainly not in this life i think because u believe that u r finite u may indeed treasure it more! see you cant say for sure that entering into a personal relationship wld be meaningless if u havent tried it. take a trivial example. say u never tried chocolate. here ther r heaps of ppl tellin u its awsum, but u really dont see the point its brown n lumpy etc. but then u taste! and boy do u want 2 keep goin. give it a try :)
efeey 1 year ago
@efeey but even if leave this aside and accept that the ball is analogous to the cause of the Universe,and the depression in the cusion is analogous to Universe & space-time, then this exampe actually shows that the cause is mechanical (not the result of free will). the ball never chose to sit there, right? even if you replace it with a person, the conclusion is the same: the person never chose to sit there, rather he's the necessary condition for the depression, i.e. a mechanical cause
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI what ur saying is God had no choice but to exist...thats simply illogical like a square circle. God exists by the necessity of his own nature. there is no such thing as him not having a choice to exist. thats like saying can God kill himself. its an illogical concept he exists necessarily and eternally.
efeey 1 year ago
@efeey "what ur saying is God had no choice but to exist..."
I never said that. I said he didn't have a choice in creating the Universe & space-time. to say that a timeless being freely chose to create space-time would be incoherent.
"lets call this 'God time' "
God time = timelessness? come on. the only way we can make sense of it is if we assume God existed in 'metaphisical time', prior to the Big Bang, which Craig deems a possibility. But this also leads to infinite regress!
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI "he didn't have a choice in creating the Universe & space-time" again ur assuming that he must operate under our time. God time is what i mean wen u say metaphysical time. but i say that this time is part of Gods nature and thus is eternal. hence no regress.
efeey 1 year ago
@efeey "but i say that this time is part of Gods nature and thus is eternal"
I'm not sure it makes sense to say it's part of God's nature, but if by eternal you mean everlasting, then yes, you get infinite regress (of God's discursive thoughts, say). eternal = timeless, then you get to all the problems (icluding no thinking ) that I indicated in the analogies.
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI AGAIN!! ur limiting God to you concept of time!!! Once we start to talk about existence without time or space, we have to be honest enough to admit that we can have no real understanding or comprehension of what that is like, or perhaps even of what it means.we can hav an idea about timelessness but we really dont noe wat it is like.what is it like for time not to exist?here we exceed the limits of ur experience and we have nothing to guide us. just speculation.
efeey 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI summary: in the kalam argument it appears that the cause is personal. U cannot show it is not therefore by default it is. U say it cannot think, choose and operate because that conflicts with being timeless and changeless. I say all ur reasoning breaks down wen u are applying ur conception of time to God. in everything u sed u presuppose or at least unknowingly introduce and apply our 'time' to God. In THIS regard God is not understandable. kalam appears to stand. anything else?
efeey 1 year ago
@efeey "all ur reasoning breaks down wen u are applying ur conception of time" The capacity that theists have for self inflicted idiocy for the purpose of maintaining his irrational beliefs in heaven never ceases to amaze me. When you ask for a personal being to be present in a state previous of our time in order to create the universe, YOU are the one that is demanding the application of our concept of time outside time. If God is unknowable, just shut up and stop telling that you know him.
lfzadra 8 months ago
@lfzadra oh jeez...looking back at what i knew five months ago...seems not 2 be that much...sorry I Ifzadra I dont understand what your objection is 2 the kalam arg...you mind tellin us which premise u deny?
efeey 8 months ago
@efeey I don´t need to deny any premise from Kalam. But you is the one who needs to explain how the first cause must be personal when you at the same time say we can´t apply our reasoning to a timeless state.
lfzadra 8 months ago
@lfzadra oh wow...so u agree wid both premises...ok....well that means you agree that there is a timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, beginningless powerful being? you just have difficulty wid the person part yeh?
efeey 8 months ago
@efeey I didn´t say that I agree with Kalam. What I´m saying is that I can grant you Kalam entirely and are only left with a cause. Immaterial, beginninless, spaceless and personal are not justified inside Kalam, and I simply don´t see any reason to add such things. What happened before the big bang is unknowable by contemporary physics. By saying that you know how things must be before BB, you are, in fact, lying.
lfzadra 8 months ago
@lfzadra lol....ok well lets look at a sub argument on behalf of the cause being immaterial (im assuming you grant me that , there was a cause of the universe since u just said so) 1. the universe had a cause (from 3 of the KCA) 2. the cause of the universe can either be material or immaterial (law of non-contradiction) 3. The cause of the universe cannot be material (since the universe as defined in the kalam includes all of matter) 4. therefore it must be immaterial....criticisms?
efeey 8 months ago
@efeey well nwz...im gna head off 2 sleep...its pretty late in aus! have a crak at the argument if u can....tc :)
efeey 8 months ago
@efeey "the universe had a cause" Nothing in this universe shows that our universe had a cause. At least you will not get that from Kalam.
"The cause of the universe cannot be material" Can´t see how can you conclude that the source of our reality is immaterial either, unless you can show what came before the bigbang. As far as I know, no current knowledge of physics can show what came before the bigbang, or even if there is anything before the bigbang.
lfzadra 8 months ago
@lfzadra lol just saying that no1 noes doesn't refute the arg. 1. whatever begins 2 exist has a cause. 2. the universe began 2 exist. 3. the universe has a cause. u dont refute either premise...u say nothing IN our universe shows that our WHOLE universe had a cause....cumon man im sure u can come up with a better refutation than that. i can apply the same reasoning to my toaster. nothing IN my toaster shows how my toaster has a cause.therefore the toaster doesnt have a cause??
efeey 8 months ago
@efeey "1. whatever begins" Premise 1 is based in no knowledge whatsoever about reality. The only things that we see "beginning to exist" are permutations of matter/energy, not ignition of matter. The ignition of the Universe is not a permutation of something, so forget the idea of including this event in your "whatever" set. The "whatever" set we know is composed only by permutations, not a single instance of ignition. This renders Kalam a failed attempt to use deduction.
lfzadra 8 months ago
@lfzadra lol premise 1 is not based on reality? wow....lets define terms so we dont talk nonsense...i wana noe what exactly it is u mean by 'ignition' and 'permutations' . r u saying that all that exists is matter and it is simply re-arranged? if so, i wanna noe a few things...did my car ever begin 2 exist? what is the difference between a scrap of metal and my car? and when did the scrap become my car? has 'my car' existed since the big bang? p.s. look up mereological nhilism
efeey 8 months ago
@efeey "did my car ever begin 2 exist" YES. The problem is, your car is not ignition of matter, is permutation of previous matter. We NEVER saw ignition of matter beginning to exist. Show me JUST ONE car beginning from nowhere, a brand new quantity of matter/energy that you know it´s caused by something, then you can insert the ignition of our matterf (the universe) in KCA and claim that the Universe had a cause, since we would know that a cause is required for ignition events.
lfzadra 8 months ago
@lfzadra lol whats funny here is this is exactly what your saying...the whole universe just came from nowhere for no reason...according to the bigbang all matter came into existence at the singularity. u seem 2 be suggesting that the law of conservation is in conflict with the big bang theory. if so, then mayb u can win a nobel prize for discoverin somethyn all the physcisists missed lol.
efeey 8 months ago
@efeey "that the law of conservation is in conflict with the big bang theory." No, but it is in conflict with Kalam. The law of conservation guarantees that we never saw inside our universe an event of matter/energy ignition beginning to exist, only permutation of chunks of matter/energy. Since Kalam can only talk about causes for permutations (all permutations that begins to exist has causes), and not ignitions, the argument fails in premise 1.
lfzadra 8 months ago
@lfzadra bahaha....lol "The first law of thermodynamics observes the principle of conservation of energy. Energy can be transformed, i.e. changed from one form to another, but cannot be created nor destroyed." wiki...“the coming into being of the universe, as discussed in modern science . . . is not just a matter of imposing some sort of organization . . . upon a previous incoherent state, but literally the coming-into-being of all physical things from nothing.” pcw. davies...is p2 true then?
efeey 8 months ago
@efeey "is p2 true then?" No problem with p2. The fallacy lies in p1. Since you never saw any event of matter beginning to exist (ignition), only permutations beginning to exist (matter/energy transforming in something else), how do you now it needs a cause? Permutations needs causes. If matter/emergy ignition needs a cause, you can´t show it with Kalam.
lfzadra 8 months ago
@lfzadra lol sweet so we agree wid 2. premise 1 says (if we re-word it 2 try 2 explain it 2 u lol) anything that comes into existence from nothing must have a cause....(the universe came into existence from nothing-as pcw davies says)...if you want to deny this and say that things can simply pop into existence from ABSOLUTE nothing...then i guess we can't reason rationally anymore....coz now u've entered the realm of faith. 1 q. do u agree with p1 as i stated it...yes/no and y?
efeey 8 months ago
@efeey "anything that comes into existence from nothing must have a cause"
No current physics theory shows the nature of reality before the bigbang. What we know is that OUR matter can´t be past eternal, not that there can be no other type of matter that is the origin of our universe.
AND, the last time I remember, you accept that something can come from nothing. If you are saying that a cause can ignit such event, you are contradicting yourself.
lfzadra 8 months ago
@lfzadra "anything that comes into existence from nothing must have a cause" You really have some sort of brain damage. Since when Kalam´s p1 can be rewriten to fit this definition? My car began to exist from nothing? The Sun began to exist from nothing? You began to exist from nothing? Nothing inside the universe began its existence from nothing.
lfzadra 8 months ago
@lfzadra do u really believe that there is this other matter? if so, what is ur reasoning?
i dont accept that things come out of nothing...thats why i postulate a cause. u say its magic ;)
efeey 8 months ago
@efeey "do u really believe that there is this other matter" Since you think is rational to claim that minds can exist without brains, outside spacetime, and do the impossible task of creating something from nothing, then the supposition that we are the result of an immaterial fart of an leprechaun is perfectly rational.
"i dont accept that things come out of nothing" Again, no current physics theory says that we come out of nothing, only that all matter we see is not past eternal.
lfzadra 8 months ago
@lfzadra a) immaterial fart/lepechaun is a contradiction b) well i guess u noe more than pcwdavies c) whats truly impossible is nothing caused everything, if God exists its not impossible at all. d) this doesnt seem 2 be goin nywher...e) do some more research on the origins of the universe. f) tc man...hopefully u try 2 be as objective as possible
efeey 8 months ago
@efeey "a) immaterial fart/lepechaun is a contradiction" A mind igniting causal chains outside time is a contradiction, since causality, by definition, implyies time, agent and object. Where´s time before time? Your god creates ex nihilo. Where´s the object in the abscence of something?
"do some more research on the origins of the universe" My advice is to do the same. However, Dr. Craig´s books are not source of knowledge in physics.
lfzadra 8 months ago
@lfzadra "A mind igniting causal chains outside time is a contradiction"
Yes, but that's not what Craig is arguing. What this argument does not take into account is the fact that the passage of time is not always required for a causal relationship. A cause-effect relationship can be simultaneous, without the passage of time. Therefore, if God is essentially timeless, he could still be the cause of time itself without the passage of time being required for the cause-effect relationship.
Mystagogia87 7 months ago
@Mystagogia87 "A cause-effect relationship can be simultaneous, without the passage of time." Since we never saw a timeless state anywhere, any suposition about such state is pure voodoo physics. More than that, even if is the case that such thing is possible, the creator of the universe didn´t have a choice when he bigbang us. No time, no free will, sorry.
lfzadra 7 months ago
@lfzadra "any suposition about such state is pure voodoo physics" Actually it's not physics at all. It's actually the *space-time* continuum, so if anything is timeless it is also outside of space, so we're not dealing with a physical reality.
"Since we never saw a timeless state anywhere"
How would one see a timeless state?
"the creator of the universe didn't have a choice when he bigbang us. No time, no free will, sorry."
Why could a timeless being not have free will?
Mystagogia87 7 months ago
@Mystagogia87 "so if anything is timeless it is also outside of space" More voodoo physics.
"How would one see a timeless state?" We never saw quarks, but we know that such thing exists because it has a effect in reality. Show me an effect of immateriality in reality, after that you can claim that it´s not a dream.
"Why could a timeless being not have free will?" Choices are made in time. Outside of it anything would occur instantaneously or not occur forever.
lfzadra 7 months ago
@lfzadra Simply calling something "voodoo physics" does not amount to an argument.
"Choices are made in time. "
I would agree with that. God creates time simultaneously with the first moment in time.
Time itself had a beginning. This demands an efficient cause which is outside of time, and caused the first event simultaneously with its occurrence.
Mystagogia87 7 months ago
@Mystagogia87 "Simply calling something "voodoo physics" does not amount to an argument." Simply claiming for a reality that you don´t know can exist just because it will make God appear does not amount to an argument too.
"This demands an efficient cause which is outside of time" You can´t show that our universe demands a cause or even if our arrow of spacetime is not the result of another.
lfzadra 7 months ago
@lfzadra "You can´t show that our universe demands a cause" It began to exist, therefore it requires an efficient cause. Even if another universe caused ours to begin to exist, that universe would have an average Hubble expansion of greater than zero, and therefore it also had to have had a beginning.
Mystagogia87 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mystagogia87 "It began to exist, therefore it requires an efficient cause" There´s no possible way you can show that time/matter beginning to exist needs a cause.
"that universe would have an average Hubble expansion of greater than zero" You can predict that for inflations similar to our own only, or for a set of inflations, not for an unknown physical reality.
lfzadra 7 months ago
Respond to this video... then you say well i guess immaterial cause is no better. my arg is as follows. 1. the cause must b either material or immaterial. 2. it cant be material. 3 therefore its immaterial. the reason. the reason it cant be material is cause its a self-contradiction. "the cause of all matter is material" which means that matter exists before it existed. since self contradictions can't be true it follows that the only option left is immaterial. unless u can show thats impossible
efeey 8 months ago
@efeey "matter exists before it existed". No current physics theory shows what in fact reality was before our beginning. To say that we are the product of other type physical substance raises no contradictions. This would only imply that our current arrow of space/time had a beginning, and was ignited by this unknow state or substance, that could be as eternal as your imaginary friend, that created us from nothing, an impossible task, since something can´t come from nothing (your reasoning)
lfzadra 8 months ago
@lfzadra again ur playing away with my definition of the universe. the universe defined in the kalam is "ALL matter, space time and energy" not just our 'observable' universe so it makes no sense 2 ask if some other material thing caused it. if according to this precise definition of the universe u disagree with premise2 that the universe began 2 exist....i wana noe why. again another weasle word here is 'other type of physical substance' ...please define.
efeey 8 months ago
@efeey "other material thing caused it" There´s no material thing being caused to exist inside our universe, since it´s required by thermodynamic laws. What we see beginning to exist is permutations of matter, not matter itself. If you can´t see the difference between an rearrangement of elements inside a set and the creation of the set itself from nowhere, you should stop using hallucinogenic substances, like bibles or William Craig´s books.
lfzadra 8 months ago
@lfzadra lol you seem 2 be confusing wat u said and what i said, ur the one that said other material things caused it haha....again...what we are saying is according 2 bigbang cosmology all the matter that does all the 'permutations' began 2 exist at the singularity and so needs a cause of its existence lol....focus man.
efeey 8 months ago
@efeey "the universe defined in the kalam is ALL matter" There´s no mention of "matter" in KCA. Like all theists, you think you can make things pop into existence by definition. By definition, the universe is ALL that exists, which render your god incoherent, since it lies outside the set "all things that exist".
"'other type of physical substance" An unknow type of energy/matter that has a nature/behaviour that is different from what we see inside our universe.
lfzadra 8 months ago
@lfzadra looks like u dun understand the kalam in detail ....u noe the premises so i dun gta list em. but the definition of universe in the kalam is=all matter, space, tym and energy. and the definition of cause is= something sufficient to produce its effect.
given that definition we can argue for premises 1&2 from which it follows logically that 3. the universe has a cause. with regards 2 ur other matter a)even that must begin 2 exist (inifinite past is impossible)...
efeey 8 months ago
@efeey "we can argue for premises 1&2 from which it follows logically that 3." FAIL. Premise 1 talks about permutations, not ignitions, mixing apples with oranges. It´s like saying:
1) All eagles that begins to exist can fly
2) Monkeys began to exist.
3) Monkeys can fly.
If you can´t see what is wrong with a deductive argument with this structure, you need a brain check at once.
lfzadra 8 months ago
@lfzadra lol are u saying that the premise "everything that begins 2 exist has a cause" is false?
efeey 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@efeey "everything that begins 2 exist has a cause is false" If everything that begins to exist has a cause, I don´t know. What I know is that Kalam can´t show you that matter/energy ignitions has causes. This would be a correct form of the argument:
1) Every permutation of matter that begins to exist has a cause.
2) A car is a permutation of matter that begins to exist.
3) Every car has a cause.
The Universe is NOT matter permutation beginning to exist, so p1 can´t apply.
lfzadra 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lfzadra a) immaterial fart/lepechaun is a contradiction b) well i guess u noe more than pcwdavies c) whats truly impossible is nothing caused everything, if God exists its not impossible at all. d) this doesnt seem 2 be goin nywher...e) do some more research on the origins of the universe. f) tc man...hopefully u try 2 be as objective as possible
efeey 8 months ago
@efeey "but certainly not in this life i think because u believe that u r finite u may indeed treasure it more"
so you agree that if life is finite (no eternal afterlife) then it's even more valuable? but then do you also agree that only if life is "purposeless" (i.e. there's no one to determine what we should live for but ourselves), we'd be truly free, and not fear retribution for not conforming with some deity's views on what our lives should be about? what could be better than that?
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI i dont agree that it IS more valuable. i agree that you may think that it is. The christian believes that wateva they do here determines their eternity and so values their life immensely. as for ur second q i think ive found wher ur tru objection to christianity may lie. look, you are free. God gave you free will. you can choose to get to know him or reject him. 'not conforming' is just a soft way of saying I reject God and don't want to follow him.
efeey 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI a useful analogy is this. God is like an all-loving billionaire .he finds u in jail, gives his only son to take up ur place and invites you to get to know him. u then choose to take him up on his offer, he gives u love, happiness and everything you cld ever want in a beautiful fulfilling relationship with him. he also affords u the chance to reject him and be on ur way. those that choose this he leaves on their way.
efeey 1 year ago
@efeey " God is like an all-loving billionaire .he finds u in jail"
I'm not sure how this is a good analogy. In what sense is a person, who doesn't have and doesn't need(!) a relationship with God, in jail? Now, if it's true that when a person rejects god's offer, he's simply left with the life he's chosen, then for a person who's perfectly happy without God (like me), being separated from God in this life or the next would be just fine. (cont.)
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI thats the analogy prison is like earth compared to heaven. whilst in prison ur just happy with wat u got oblivious to the goings on outside ur little bubble. u make short term goals friendships etc but thats not the tru meaning of ur life. and the fact that u choose to stay in prison whilst rejecting God bailin u out is rejecting him. again he will let u live away from him for eternity which is tru hell.
efeey 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@efeey "not the tru meaning of ur life"
here 'true' makes no sense since meaning (i.e. significance) is always subj. you also agree that for the musician it's music that's the meaning of his life, so it makes no sense to say relationship with God gives 'true' significance. same with the "illusion of happiness": if I'm happy with my relationship with my girlfriend (and I am), it makes no sense to say it's an illusion.
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@efeey you seem to agree that Hell si just separation from God. but then you insist I'll suffer in Hell without God, even though I'm perfectly fine without him now. I mean if I'm in Hell with my girl, then why would I be unhappy? I 'm not sure how to make sense of the suggestion that "what u get in hell is the exact oppositegoodness,joy, love, happiness." Do you mean God would make me unable to feel enjoy, love, happiness while being with my girfriend? (cont)
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI 'even though I'm perfectly fine without him now' dude thats my point. ur fine without 'knowing' or 'believing' in him now. not coz ur without him or he is not around. and u dont seem to understand what hell is man. the absence of ANYTHING that is good, coz all good is rooted in God. u may well be with ur girl but u cant experience joy etc coz its all been quarantined in heaven!
efeey 1 year ago
@efeey "may well be with ur girl but u cant experience joy etc coz its all been quarantined in heaven!"
so your God is so jealous that a person might care more about another human, than Him, that he takes that person's ability to experience joy. now, that's wicked. it proves that even if there's a morally perfect being it's not your God. it's as simple as that. and sorry, but the fact that you believe such Being is morally perfect only goes to show how badly religion can poison one's mind
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI He does all this for them and they say no thanks. He offers them money advice but they spit in his face and say we don’t need your help. God leaves them to the life they have chosen. they leave his treasure and wander the streets looking for fulfillment and joy but finding none except in the their shortsighted goals. yet after all this God sends them continuous messages saying whenever u wish i will never refuse u.
efeey 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI when you get to know God the way i do, you KNOW that true freedom is being with Him. because he wants wat you want. and knows what is best for you. you don't understand the amount of joy it gives you honestly. i feel sorry for people that don't get to experience this. I pray for you guys to stop looking for academic refutations and open the eyes of ur hearts. we dont see it as rules, we see it as a friendship. if ur friend asks u for somethyn u do it. he dusnt force. God loves u!
efeey 1 year ago
@efeey the chances are in the future we'll have good scientific explanation for the fine-tunning, the origin of life, etc. of course, some questions may never be answered. I guess we've got to wait and see. it's just premature to plug in God in areas where we lack understanding. besides, Goddidit is not an asnwer, it's lack of one
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI guth borde and valinkin in 03 have now proved that all cosmologists must face the reality of a cosmic beginning. also with regard to the fine-tuning i heard in one of craigs talks him quoting an astronomer royal of GB i think that saying the fine-tuning is almost irrefutable and any future assessment is likely to turn up the same numbers. try and look into that. nothing did it is not an answer and i don't know is not an answer. if u don't noe u follow the evidence that is present
efeey 1 year ago
@efeey you also seem not to understand what kind of process evolution is. when Darwin developed his theory, what he saw as its main aspect is actually the non-random process of natural selection. he didn't know how variations occured. for all he knew, it could've been caused by the food. only later we found out that the cause is genetic mutations, but still, it's natural selection (not chance) that effectively creates the illusion of desing by determining which characteristics would survive
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI so your saying there is no randomness in evolution at all? that its all natural selection? what about geneitc drift? random mutation? u are saying that natural selection applies to protein molecules as well? THAT is what barrow and tipler refer to. the odds that certain key mutations in the evolution would have occure by natural selection wld mean the sun would be out by now! they have every right to calculate this as you want mathematicians/physicists running ur odds lol.
efeey 1 year ago
The fine tuning argument is fallacious from the outset.
IF those are the conditions, and life exists under them to say that if we were to change them, life would not exist, is completely false and dishonest. Probabilistic extension onto absolutes can only fail.
Fairy tales and boogey men is all this clown believes in.
synkronyk 1 year ago
i mean REALLY, will there EVER be an atheist that can respond AT ALL to propositions, premises and conclusions? atheists are complete IDIOTS. from hitchens, to cooke, to pigliucci, they FAIL miserably answering ANY of dr. Craig's arguments. will an atheist EVER win a debate? brainless
MalleusMaleficarum01 1 year ago
@MalleusMaleficarum01 Maybe in a one hours debate. The points Craig use have been debunked over and over again by scholars over the years. Hawkins debunks his cosmology. History removes almost any chance that the gospels are literal truth. Morals are very well explained by biology, and not really explained at all by religion. The fact that people feel he won the debate speaks to his presentation skill more than any validity of his position.
andy16666 1 year ago
your rebuttal is that hawking say so, and "history," debunks gospels, and morals are biological? what a poor attempt. in fact it's the opposite. the historicity of Jesus is stronger than almost ANY ancient accounts, given several criteria. moralks are not explained in psychobiology, and i have a degree in this area, so i know youre wrong. they try to explain morals as survival, but only works to a point. hawking didnt debunk anything, so youre wrong thrice. atheism = increasingly desperate.
MalleusMaleficarum01 1 year ago
People keep saying that, about the historicity, but where's the evidence? I studied the topic as a Christian for nearly ten years and I never found one shred of evidence that Jesus' supernatural nature was at all documented outside the gospel accounts, which are clearly not written with historical accuracy in mind.
Morals are only partly explained by biology...not specifically psychology. However I see no reason to jump to the conclusion that they are from a God.
andy16666 1 year ago
that suggests how deeply amoral Westerners like you have become. That you dont have a visceral reaction when you see the filth on MTV, or hear the filth of rap, which our 13 yr olds lap up. That coke use, teen pregnancy, abortions, rape, murder, etc., has exploded since the seculars have pushed away religion from the square should say something. Our decdent societies are in melt down and is partly or mostly result of twisting our morals, tradition, and silencing religion
MalleusMaleficarum01 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"that suggests how deeply amoral Westerners like you have become. That you dont have a visceral reaction when you see the filth on MTV, or hear the filth of rap, which our 13 yr olds lap up. "
I don't watch MTV, and I don't even have cable connected. Most of my friends don't watch TV and we'd never sit out kids in front of it.
" have pushed away religion from the square should say something"
No they haven't. You hear more from the religious right than you hear from secularists.
andy16666 1 year ago
@MalleusMaleficarum01 lol, religion is the symptom of a sick and poisoned mind.
synkronyk 1 year ago
@synkronyk Atheism which ushered in communism, bolshevism, and it's 50 million murders in just this past century alone, is the symptom of a sick twisted mind. Thats why most thinking people have rejected atheism.
MalleusMaleficarum01 1 year ago
@MalleusMaleficarum01 No people who think for themselves have rejected atheism.
Atheism did not usher in communism, it had nothing to do with it. Only the belief in imaginary friends into adulthood is the symptom of a sick and diseased mind.
synkronyk 1 year ago
@synkronyk At liking the fantasies of atheism you may be expert, but an historian you are not. Communism was inextricably tied to atheism, and its stated aim was to usher in a utopian society void of Christianity and all religion. theists were slaughtered and churches burned. Do take my word for it. New atheism too advocates murder and we find these atheists praising the work of the slaughter of millions of babies via abortion. They laud euthenasia, and reckless lifestyles which lead to death
MalleusMaleficarum01 1 year ago
@synkronyk Wrong. Atheism gives validility to do things like war and murder. Atheism If left to continue will end up in a nuclear war because of stupid annoying atheist fools. It makes me ashamed that people like Dr. Craig have to explain things to idiot atheists because they are so retarded. Just accept Christianity so we can save the earth and live good lives.
7tylerjb 1 year ago
@synkronyk If the minds of Christians are so sick and diseased, explain why William Willburforce and John Newton advocated for abolition of slavery out of Christian beliefs. Newton was even a slave trader until he came seriously into contact with Christianity. Then he wrote Amazing Grace.
wigglesza 1 year ago
The historicity of Jesus is not even a debate among seculars or Christians. All, but a few quacks know he existed and was some kind of teacher which sparked a religion like no other and faster than no other. Supernatural or not is a faith question and can be known that way, not in a beaker or ink. Morals are psychologically based and psychology is based on physical brain and immaterial mind
MalleusMaleficarum01 1 year ago
The biological for morals being the evolutionary reasons for behaviors.
I agree that his existence is well established. But certainly the details are not.
Morals have changed radically even in the last 100 years. So it would be crazy to say that they are mainly fixed by a creator OR by biology. Certainly there is some kind of ingrained moral sense in our biology, but considering that rate at which human morals are evolving, it's highly unlikely that it's the whole story.
andy16666 1 year ago
many behaviors violate evolutionary theory on all fronts and are shown not to be able to be explained by evolution. science of the gaps is evolution, ie, "evolution did it." but this is lazy. i think morals dont shift, i think society's understanding of them does. nazis think it moral to cook jews alive, but that doesnt make it moral. apply that to cannibals, head hunters, etc. there is a true moral objectivism and in time we gravitate toward it as a function of morals seeking
MalleusMaleficarum01 1 year ago
Can you site an example of a behavior that violates evolution?
The answer to the Nazis is obvious...their moral system caused the rapid death of their society within about a decade of its adoption. Their morals were unstable to the extreme, and they were selected against by the extremely rapid death of their society.
Soviet Russia also was not stable enough. Historically almost every dictatorship has eventually been overthrown by its own people. Some moral systems really are unstable.
andy16666 1 year ago
Sure: Any behavior the decreases the probability of a) one's survivability; b) propogation of one's genes. Christ's unique, "love thy enemy," is a good example, or any time that someone sacrifices for the aid of a stranger or enemy for that matter. This violates evolution.
The Nazi and Soviet examples show why socialism and communism/liberalism are unrealistic, however, the Nazis could have won, and would have won had the US not intervened. Genocide increases survivability which is evol
MalleusMaleficarum01 1 year ago
The Nazis were liberal? That's not even remotely true. The Nazis had a totalitarian society (for an extremely short time) which was anything but liberal.
Love thy enemy blindly applied might be against survival. But making peace even as a potential cost isn't.
How does genocide increase survival?
"the Nazis could have won"
Maybe...but I doubt that the German people would have put up with it much longer. Hitler's own generals turned on him. If they won it would have been a one man job.
andy16666 1 year ago
i didnt say the nazis were liberal. they were socialists (communism light). communism is a lib form of economics and society. modern lib is edging toward socialism and is failing. genocide incr survival for the perpatrators. thats pure evolution (surv of fittest). Christianity says, no. took Christian societies to end wwii. i disagree w/ your last point and conjecture of this kind may be too spurious
MalleusMaleficarum01 1 year ago
Once the promise of a liberal & egalitarian society failed to materialize, Hitler would have lost his support. His public support was based on it, because so many people were poor and desperate.
It is funny that somebody living in a comparatively extremely liberal society like the US would call the Nazis liberal. (It's actually kind of sick.) While lagging behind other first world nations, you people are way more liberal than pretty much anybody was 100 years ago.
andy16666 1 year ago
the US leads the 1st world whether technology, medicine, # of nobel laureattes, etc etc. on a few scales there is variance but those are minor. you misunderstand the points and so you think i called nazis liberals. you commit the fallacy of a straw man so it's meaningless to respond to that point
MalleusMaleficarum01 1 year ago
"modern lib is edging toward socialism and is failing."
How so?
There's a common myth in America that communist values were actually applied in Russia. That's kind of a misunderstanding...it was the "communists" that took over, but they didn't apply communist ideals because that wouldn't have made the leaders rich and powerful. Instead they abused their power (as will nearly always happen in that scenario). AKA: non communism.
You really haven't answered the questions I've asked either.
andy16666 1 year ago
You have to realize though that the US/Canada embody socialist values far better than the other states you mention. They just aren't such spectacular failures that Fox news can really use them. (Although they use Sweeden, but some reason)
I don't understand how I'm using a straw man though. When I look at the success/failure of political systems I like to take into account that other factors besides socialist values are probably at fault.
andy16666 1 year ago
Also, the US does not lead the world in medicine, unless you only count research. In a lot of ways, you guys are the best with actually coming up with the technology, but one of the worst at actually using it to extend the life of your citizens. The quality of your medical practice frequently ranks between 50th and 100th best in the world. Not first. Canada's does much better, and it's one of your evil government insured (but not government run) systems.
andy16666 1 year ago
Canada amounts to no more than an American state, regarding economy, health care, etc., so youre trying to argue apples and oranges. People from Europe come to the US for better medical treatments, not Canada. Mortality rates, etc., are comorbid with variables that the state of Canada will not have to contend with. As Canadians have become brainwashed to thinking importing the 3rd wld is a virtue, they are discovering fast the probs big bro US must face, and Canada isnt liking it. we told em so
MalleusMaleficarum01 1 year ago
"Canada amounts to no more than an American state, regarding economy, health care, etc.,"
LOL...Canada has a single player socialized health care system which beats the shit out of yours. We have nearly 10 year higher life expectancy than you, and our medicare system consistently outranks yours. We are a completely sovereign nation and in no way are we one of your states, any more a state than any European country is. We just trade with you.
American ignorance never ceases to amaze me.
andy16666 1 year ago