Atheists are the ones who believe the whole of creation just MAGICALLY appeared; ) Question:Who made the matter that formed the fabric of the universe??
@Lightmane321 I think you need to go back to Critical Thinking 101 class. Saying something does not exist because you do not believe it is in fact illogical. However, saying you do not believe in something because it does not exist is perfectly logical. The corollary is also true. We are open to fact we may be incorrect, but do not believe in god precisely because of the lack of evidence to support that claim. Replace the word God with Santa Claus and it might make more sense to you. While it i
The very day the Cavemen learned to strike a flint to start a fire, they probably held great debates on whether there really was a sky god who sent lightning bolts to burn down forests. But the Atheists have always lost their case, Why don't they quit it ? Numbers count, and most people are always looking beyond their grasp and the very wonder of God may be the Lightning after all, the motivation of Imagination that caused us to be so highly ordered intellectually. Atheists are devolving
If we used Evolution as the barometer to wit if believing in God is an intelligent theory, then we notice that cows and dogs do not fuss about whether there is a God or not . Then even the least among the believers is more advanced in thinking than a gorilla. That must mean something , in scientific sense. We are what we are, and we must begin where we are, with what we are, and the traffic says human beings feel God is part of their life. All things being equal, the Atheists are losers.
@Hardysamnin all you are then worth is your antipathy. You speak as if in a parallel world, history was better without religion, and so you may be proving you are not in your right mind, or maybe you are just in the wrong world. Religion in world history is the fact , not the theory that a better world is available through Atheism. So, the Realist needs to dwell among the people and accept them as they are first, and then we do not need brain surgery to devolve everyone into an Atheist
NOBODY believes in a proposition that is supported by neither logic nor evidence unless they have a prejudice or preconception. Mankind's natural predisposition is toward atheism.
Why do I say that? Because even the most devout theists believe ONLY in their god(s), while dismissing thousands of others because of their lack of support from logic/evidence.
If belief did not require logic/evidence, theists would believe in ALL Leprechauns, not just one Leprechaun named Bob.
at the end he says "we are not here to discuss the ethics of the old testament or the social impact of religion." apparently he wants chris to argue without citing evidence so that they can play on an even playing field.
@Lightmane321 Very incorrect. Essentially, they say the same thing. Atheists do not believe in god. So, no, we don't believe he/she exists. However, we tend to be rationalists and critical thinkers. We'd be willing to reconsider if evidence arises.
I'm a little bold. I make the claim that I can know for a fact that theism isn't true because of the obvious evidence for human fallibility and the zeitgeist being portrayed in the literature of all religion. I can't disprove Deism. Not possible.
@Dennygieck WHAT? Saying you don't believe God exists is completely different from saying that He doesn't exist. That's critical thinking 101. Heck... it's not even that, so what are you talking about?
If evidence arises??? You reject any & all evidence, so please... spare me.
and lastly... Zeitgeist is a complete hoax.
Do a little research. Jesus was copied from pagan gods??? ROFL!!!
@Lightmane321 No. Zeitgeist as in the common logic at the time. (look up the definition.) I don't know what you're talking about.
And... I don't understand your inability to understand this logic. If I say, "I don't believe a God exists." That can mean the same as, 'No, god doesn't exist." Because... I don't believe god does exist so, therefore, I can say he doesn't exist... But I can't say, "I can prove he doesn't exist." (in regards to deism.) What evidence do you speak up? I'm interested.
"Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God."
@cupwithhandles but then we found that the bible was the greatest plagiarism of other ancient religions, and that almost every story, idea, and moral teaching was derived from works of religions that existed 10,000 years before jesus.
Not only this but if you really believe the word of god you must understand that the word JESUS is not the name of the man who lived at the time, and that everything in the bible was translated many many times, and with each time, sadly, the meaning was lost.
Torrented this movie, it was very good and Dr Craig is good at what he does. Unfortunately he's a little waffly and his most flawed point was that you can't prove that God doesn't exist -- which is true because we can't prove God does exist, we only have natural means to understand the natural world, not the super-natural.
A better debate, I saw, was with another man which was "Is Christianity good for the world" which delves into the deeper issues of religion as a whole.
Why be busy with being good at what you like? God only demands faith and acceptance of his existence. Believing this is the only chance at this life you get gives infinately more purpose to life then thinking there is an after life. The only reason Religious people don't kill themselves is because their religion prohibits that. And that rule is installed specifically for that. Why live 90 years if you have a afterlife that is perfect? Fuck theism. Theism sucks.
pathetic editing, hitchens doesn't answer any of craig's 5 arguments for theism,
...he grabs quotes and goes on an emotional tirade, it may be impactful to say things like "we shouldn't lie to our children", or" you're told you're a sinner, contemptible, wormlike", but its pure rhetoric,no argument at all, appeals to emotion driven folk who don't really want to come to terms with evidence, but who can never even rationally consider the evidence due to an emotional predisposition.
So to elaborate on his presentation of "faith"...faith has to be in something...and it's not automatically put in God... He puts his faith in the theory of evolution. I am, however, persuaded that the witness that I PERSONALLY experience/d is/was from God, so I put my faith in God.
@Sunneyskys we don't put faith in the theory of evolution. Evolution happen, and we accept it as the best explaination as for now. every scientist accept that it could be proven wrong ( which i highly doubt) science don't put faith in theory. but instead of scientist look for way to get rid of bad ideas. scientist are constantly looking for data that might prove evolution wrong, but for 150 years no one has even come close to disproving it. we even observe it today. evolution is a fact.
@Atheist603 Maybe I should simplify this, then. He puts his faith in his own interpretation of scientific data.... many scientists don't agree on interpretations, but he has chosen his side...and runs with it. So do we.
@Sunneyskey. listen w/o evolution biology wouldn't make any sense at all. we've got so much evidence that support evolution, i mean really do you really have any evidence that refute it? because DNA support evolution, fossil record, we've got millions of fossils, there might b few gaps, but that doesn't disprove evolution. what evidence, no simply assertion, what evidence do you have that disprove evolution? if you have it then bring it up and win $1.3 million for the Nobel prize,
@Atheist603 No one is denying some type of evolutionary process. Some take the license and luxury to assert this implies there is no God. Quite a jump.
@Sunneyskys well there was no god,..it was all random mutation. for example, it's even going on today. for example drug resisting bacteria, when they mutate, and develop a new mechanism that help them resist a drug treatment is there a god? and if there was a god conducting the evolutionary process why is 98% of all life that ever existed has been extinct, whether it was due to meteoric destruction or simple species couldn't adapt to new environmental.
@Atheist603 You put your faith in that notion...and while you cannot explain the origin of life, I'll put my faith in the experience I've had with the God who I can attest has the power to create the universe. :)
@Sunneyskys well how do you know? i mean faith is just stop your thinking, and just make an assertion on something. and what kind of experience did you have to convince you that you have a personal relationship with the creator of the universe?
@Atheist603 I agree that when you put YOUR faith in the notion of life beginning from nothing, that would take some incredible stopage of thought process. As far as my evidence, one strong piece of evidence came from the Creator of the universe when He took the time to personally reveal Himself to me. You have my testimony and millions of others from around the world who testify to the same phenomenom. Coincidence? I think not. In a court of law, that is admissable evidence.
@Sunneyskys "millions of others from around the world who testify to the same phenomenom" See, that's the thing: They don't! The only thing they have in common is their brain's instinct to anthropomorphize everything and seek patterns where none exist. Our brains are just as prone to emotional delusions as they are to optical illusions.
@philster61 In a court of law...there'd be MILLIONS of people who would attest to the same experience. It's up to the jury to cast a vote as to whether they believe us.
My court room analogy was made to show that human emotions cannot be tested in a lab, but decisions in court are made based on the belief they exist. In fact degrees of guilt are based on MOTIVE. A motive cannot be tested in a lab.
Neither can any human emotion, but we know it exists because we've experienced them.
@Sunneyskys it wouldnt make any difference how many people believed. If you cannot supply overwhelming evidence it would be thrown out. And Human emotions can indeed be tested. I suggest you spend time reading science journals instead of a bible. Human emotion is what religion tends to use in order to persuade gullible over to its doctrine.
@Sunneyskys Extensive Scientific research revealed how different areas of the brain react under certain emotional conditions. I would need to read a bit more to detail the results and given the limited text allowance here I could not be specific enough. But human emotions are being tested all the time. Read science journals
@philster61 Soooooo.....you can't provide back up for your statment got it. I'll continue then.
As I was saying, one can't PROVE that I am feeling love, or hate. It is intangible, yet the courts that judge actions of individuals rely on the truth of those emotions being in existence when deciding the degree of motive of a person...so even if they can't touch it or feel it in another person, they know it exists because THEY'VE EXPERIENCED IT THEMSELVES. cont'd
@philster61 Emotions can be tested and PROVEN? Wonderful...prove to me that when I greet someone with a kiss, it's because I love them and not because I'm trying to manipulate them.
@Sunneyskys Perhaps if you read science journals instead of the bible you might see how scientists monitor the brain. Indeed emotions can be tested and monitored via brain activity.
@philster61 cont'd. That would be the same phenom as Christians all ove the world who attest to a personal relationship with God. Just because YOU haven't experienced it, doesn't mean He doesn't exist. Wow...how arrogant is that? No, you're not the be-all end-all of a reality. There are truths in the universe you haven't experienced yet, my friend. And there are millions of us out there who can attest to one of them, and that is meeing and knowing God.
@Sunneyskys Arrogant? I don't arrogantly proclaim to hold a "personal relationship" with a divine creator which is about the most arrogant act anybody could do.You say that I haven't "experienced" it. Which is basically saying I haven't bought into it. And since not ONE deist can ever provide scientific evidence of their "personal relationship" with this God. the relationship exists only in their gullible minds
@philster61 Soooo....by your standards, it would be arrogant to proclaim that you have a relationship with your neighbor...or...mother. ESPECIALLY if they've accomplished something. LOL. If the Creator has determined that it is His desire to connect with His creation, it has nothing to do with me....or anyone else who knows Him. It's not by our merit that we know Him. It's our WILLINGNESS to know Him. Check the dictionary. That is not arrogance.
@Sunneyskys Having a neighborly relationship with someone next door is within the normal bounds of reality. Having an imaginary friend in the sky stretches credibility, sanity and the imagination. Especially when that believer tries to inflict that belief upon everybody else. And then assumes a moral high ground because of that belief. And since there is not one microbe of evidence to support "his"(always a he) existence, then it is indeed arrogance
@Sunneyskys o yeah? So millions of people believe 9/11 was an inside job. So they are right? Faith is a bullshit word. It just means believing something without a good reason. Yeah I have faith that the cars on the highway don't run into me. That is something totally different then having faith in the creation of everything. You can't know anything about it but you have faith. And that is somehow a virtue. hahahaha. You are such a loser.
@Atheist603 and that does not include the fine tuning of the universe, the cosmological argument, the resurection of Jesus Christ...etc. etc. etc. I still prefer my personal experience with God as it is undeniable. And you? Your evidence that we all came from nothing? How did life begin again?
@Sunneyskys the universe is fine tuned lol hahah that's the dumbass argument i've ever heard lol . the universe is fined tuned for what ? black holes? empty dead space? that's what the universe is mostly made up of. our solar system is almost lifeless, and only one planet contains life. 99.9 percent of the universe can't support life as we know it. all I know is life on this earth started naturally, we know that life can start from non living material.
@Sunneyskys You believe God created everything somehow. We believe life came from a process we don't fully understand, yet. No atheist or scientist believes we came from nothing. That is the bullshit argument of theist. You believe you came from nothing, some God just created everything with its supernatural powers. atheist and scientist believe we came from a logical process called nature.
I take issue with what Ozzie above here is saying...The winess of the Holy Spirit requires an answer to a question...namely..."What the heck was that?" This answer requires an opinion of some kind. You are required to form an opinion as to who or what caused that revelation...witness...impression...or whatever you want to call it.
@HappysmokeSmoke Indeed. Remarkable how so many of these apologists look like complete douches, although it might just be that they spew so much bullshit that makes them look like one.
Craig is a presuppositionalist, despite his denial, perhaps unwittingly so. Nevertheless he holds the presuppositionalist position, which makes a circular argument, namely that god exists and the cosmos is evidence for the existence of god. Invalid, to say the least.
@tonytoy1776 Tony, the burden of proof is on the positive. I don't need to prove the existence of things no one can observe. Those who believe in them have to prove them to those who don't. Substitute the word "unicorn" for "god" and you will quickly understand.
@drpero I understand perfectly. "there is no god" doesn't just deny the presence of an active god, it denies the possibility of there ever being one. For a god to exist it does not require us to be able to perceive it. See: subatomic particles. They have seemingly existed forever and yet we can only perceive them in recent history.
@tonytoy1776 I am entirely open the possibility of a god or gods, however such claims require compelling evidence. I am not saying there is no god, simply that I do not believe in one, any more than Santa Claus. We believe in subatomic particles today because of evidence. We may not be able to perceive them with our own eyes, but we are able to detect them in predictible, falsifiable ways that lends creedence to their existence. Prior to that they were an interesting and plausable theory.
@drpero If there truly is a God you must think logically about this. What more evidence would he need to provide than what he has already provided such as the bible, laws of nature, etc. The only thing extra he could really do is come down and tell us he is real, but that would require resending Jesus. And If you have read the bible you would know that the second coming of Jesus is going to happen eventually. Based on signs I have observed it should happen within this generation.
@7tylerjb This is a logical argument? Seriously? God provided us proof in the bible? That is the BEST proof he can provide? There is nothing logical about this statement at all. You believe it and therefore you consider it logical, but it is entirely based on a priori assumptions. As for the second coming happening in our generation, I hate to break it to you, but people have been saying that for about, I don't know, 2010 years, give or take 4. Pretty weak argument mate.
@drpero I mean to say that just because we can't perceive it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We can't say there is no god, we can say I can't perceive a god.
@tonytoy1776 Everything is possible, however most things are not plausable. You do not believe in an infinite number of gods, ideas, theories, some of which may actually be true. We should believe in what there is compelling evidence to support. Athiests do not deny the possibility of a god, they simply do not believe in one due to the paucity of evidence. We should say at present there is insufficient evidence to support the belief in a god, but in practical terms, it means the same.
@drpero Actually I consider myself an agnostic, which I suppose is technicaly atheist, but I wanted to be fair to the theist and say that the possibility of a god is not deniable logically, which, you just conceded so graciously. It seems to me that we are not in disagreement.
@tonytoy1776 in case you are confused, atheism means a-theism, the LACK of belief. it is NOT a position that claims *there is no god*. 99% of the common public do not understand this distinction between non-theism and a-theism. atheism is inherently agnostic. i'd just like to clear that up, so you may too use the word more knowledgably in the future. this distinction helped me with a few language problems internal to god debate. have an awesome day!
CRAIG LANE IS AN IDIOT
MAKES A DEBATE BORING
Johnandvanessa 5 months ago
Atheists are the ones who believe the whole of creation just MAGICALLY appeared; ) Question:Who made the matter that formed the fabric of the universe??
roddy35wv 7 months ago
@roddy35wv The FSM. Now, try to disprove that...
Hirnlego999 6 months ago
@roddy35wv The energy set free from the Big Bang.
steffenbieber 6 months ago
@Lightmane321 I think you need to go back to Critical Thinking 101 class. Saying something does not exist because you do not believe it is in fact illogical. However, saying you do not believe in something because it does not exist is perfectly logical. The corollary is also true. We are open to fact we may be incorrect, but do not believe in god precisely because of the lack of evidence to support that claim. Replace the word God with Santa Claus and it might make more sense to you. While it i
drpero 7 months ago
The very day the Cavemen learned to strike a flint to start a fire, they probably held great debates on whether there really was a sky god who sent lightning bolts to burn down forests. But the Atheists have always lost their case, Why don't they quit it ? Numbers count, and most people are always looking beyond their grasp and the very wonder of God may be the Lightning after all, the motivation of Imagination that caused us to be so highly ordered intellectually. Atheists are devolving
CarmineFragione 8 months ago
If we used Evolution as the barometer to wit if believing in God is an intelligent theory, then we notice that cows and dogs do not fuss about whether there is a God or not . Then even the least among the believers is more advanced in thinking than a gorilla. That must mean something , in scientific sense. We are what we are, and we must begin where we are, with what we are, and the traffic says human beings feel God is part of their life. All things being equal, the Atheists are losers.
CarmineFragione 8 months ago
Dr Craig says there is no evidence that atheism is true. Someone please tell me what atheists claim? I for one, only reject the claims of theists...
Hardysamnin 8 months ago
@Hardysamnin all you are then worth is your antipathy. You speak as if in a parallel world, history was better without religion, and so you may be proving you are not in your right mind, or maybe you are just in the wrong world. Religion in world history is the fact , not the theory that a better world is available through Atheism. So, the Realist needs to dwell among the people and accept them as they are first, and then we do not need brain surgery to devolve everyone into an Atheist
CarmineFragione 8 months ago
NOBODY believes in a proposition that is supported by neither logic nor evidence unless they have a prejudice or preconception. Mankind's natural predisposition is toward atheism.
Why do I say that? Because even the most devout theists believe ONLY in their god(s), while dismissing thousands of others because of their lack of support from logic/evidence.
If belief did not require logic/evidence, theists would believe in ALL Leprechauns, not just one Leprechaun named Bob.
MrGarky 11 months ago
at the end he says "we are not here to discuss the ethics of the old testament or the social impact of religion." apparently he wants chris to argue without citing evidence so that they can play on an even playing field.
bloodred345 1 year ago
no there is no god neither do i want 1 tht wud be slavery,fuck all those who want to live under a cosmic tyrant
thescorpionking2020 1 year ago
In the 'highest rated comment' drpero states that God does NOT exist.
In the second highest rated comment' drpero states that 'Atheists DO NOT DENY the possibility of a god'
Hey drpero... you wanna 'rethink' your position on atheism maybe?
Lightmane321 1 year ago
@Lightmane321 Very incorrect. Essentially, they say the same thing. Atheists do not believe in god. So, no, we don't believe he/she exists. However, we tend to be rationalists and critical thinkers. We'd be willing to reconsider if evidence arises.
I'm a little bold. I make the claim that I can know for a fact that theism isn't true because of the obvious evidence for human fallibility and the zeitgeist being portrayed in the literature of all religion. I can't disprove Deism. Not possible.
Dennygieck 1 year ago
@Dennygieck WHAT? Saying you don't believe God exists is completely different from saying that He doesn't exist. That's critical thinking 101. Heck... it's not even that, so what are you talking about?
If evidence arises??? You reject any & all evidence, so please... spare me.
and lastly... Zeitgeist is a complete hoax.
Do a little research. Jesus was copied from pagan gods??? ROFL!!!
No... He wasn't.
Lightmane321 1 year ago
@Lightmane321 No. Zeitgeist as in the common logic at the time. (look up the definition.) I don't know what you're talking about.
And... I don't understand your inability to understand this logic. If I say, "I don't believe a God exists." That can mean the same as, 'No, god doesn't exist." Because... I don't believe god does exist so, therefore, I can say he doesn't exist... But I can't say, "I can prove he doesn't exist." (in regards to deism.) What evidence do you speak up? I'm interested.
Dennygieck 1 year ago
@Dennygieck Oh - lol. I thought you were referring to the youtube videos. That was funny. Sorry about the mixup.
But I don't understand how you CAN'T see the difference between believing that God doesn't exist & knowing it.
Surely you understand that believing doesn't mean He does or doesn't. Belief is belief.
Proving your belief is impossible. If you could prove it, you wouldn't believe it, you'd know it.
Therefore, what are we arguing about? LOL : )
Lightmane321 1 year ago
@Dennygieck Deism? Evidence?
What are you talking about? You're confusing me - lol
Lightmane321 1 year ago
Is Hitchens going to prove that Athiesm is true??????????????
clintmmartin 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
does god exist??? ABSOLUTELY NOT
RealityWarrior 1 year ago
"Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God."
— Martin Luther
cupwithhandles 1 year ago
@cupwithhandles but then we found that the bible was the greatest plagiarism of other ancient religions, and that almost every story, idea, and moral teaching was derived from works of religions that existed 10,000 years before jesus.
Not only this but if you really believe the word of god you must understand that the word JESUS is not the name of the man who lived at the time, and that everything in the bible was translated many many times, and with each time, sadly, the meaning was lost.
danielrollingpanda 1 year ago
Torrented this movie, it was very good and Dr Craig is good at what he does. Unfortunately he's a little waffly and his most flawed point was that you can't prove that God doesn't exist -- which is true because we can't prove God does exist, we only have natural means to understand the natural world, not the super-natural.
A better debate, I saw, was with another man which was "Is Christianity good for the world" which delves into the deeper issues of religion as a whole.
PCHaxor 1 year ago
Why be busy with being good at what you like? God only demands faith and acceptance of his existence. Believing this is the only chance at this life you get gives infinately more purpose to life then thinking there is an after life. The only reason Religious people don't kill themselves is because their religion prohibits that. And that rule is installed specifically for that. Why live 90 years if you have a afterlife that is perfect? Fuck theism. Theism sucks.
philateliceun 1 year ago
how did the creator of the universe reveal himself to you?
Atheist603 1 year ago
pathetic editing, hitchens doesn't answer any of craig's 5 arguments for theism,
...he grabs quotes and goes on an emotional tirade, it may be impactful to say things like "we shouldn't lie to our children", or" you're told you're a sinner, contemptible, wormlike", but its pure rhetoric,no argument at all, appeals to emotion driven folk who don't really want to come to terms with evidence, but who can never even rationally consider the evidence due to an emotional predisposition.
metanosis 1 year ago
So to elaborate on his presentation of "faith"...faith has to be in something...and it's not automatically put in God... He puts his faith in the theory of evolution. I am, however, persuaded that the witness that I PERSONALLY experience/d is/was from God, so I put my faith in God.
Sunneyskys 1 year ago
@Sunneyskys we don't put faith in the theory of evolution. Evolution happen, and we accept it as the best explaination as for now. every scientist accept that it could be proven wrong ( which i highly doubt) science don't put faith in theory. but instead of scientist look for way to get rid of bad ideas. scientist are constantly looking for data that might prove evolution wrong, but for 150 years no one has even come close to disproving it. we even observe it today. evolution is a fact.
Atheist603 1 year ago
@Atheist603 Maybe I should simplify this, then. He puts his faith in his own interpretation of scientific data.... many scientists don't agree on interpretations, but he has chosen his side...and runs with it. So do we.
Sunneyskys 1 year ago
@Sunneyskey. listen w/o evolution biology wouldn't make any sense at all. we've got so much evidence that support evolution, i mean really do you really have any evidence that refute it? because DNA support evolution, fossil record, we've got millions of fossils, there might b few gaps, but that doesn't disprove evolution. what evidence, no simply assertion, what evidence do you have that disprove evolution? if you have it then bring it up and win $1.3 million for the Nobel prize,
Atheist603 1 year ago
@Atheist603 No one is denying some type of evolutionary process. Some take the license and luxury to assert this implies there is no God. Quite a jump.
Sunneyskys 1 year ago
@Sunneyskys well there was no god,..it was all random mutation. for example, it's even going on today. for example drug resisting bacteria, when they mutate, and develop a new mechanism that help them resist a drug treatment is there a god? and if there was a god conducting the evolutionary process why is 98% of all life that ever existed has been extinct, whether it was due to meteoric destruction or simple species couldn't adapt to new environmental.
Atheist603 1 year ago
@Atheist603 You put your faith in that notion...and while you cannot explain the origin of life, I'll put my faith in the experience I've had with the God who I can attest has the power to create the universe. :)
Sunneyskys 1 year ago
@Sunneyskys well how do you know? i mean faith is just stop your thinking, and just make an assertion on something. and what kind of experience did you have to convince you that you have a personal relationship with the creator of the universe?
Atheist603 1 year ago
@Atheist603 I agree that when you put YOUR faith in the notion of life beginning from nothing, that would take some incredible stopage of thought process. As far as my evidence, one strong piece of evidence came from the Creator of the universe when He took the time to personally reveal Himself to me. You have my testimony and millions of others from around the world who testify to the same phenomenom. Coincidence? I think not. In a court of law, that is admissable evidence.
Sunneyskys 1 year ago
@Sunneyskys "millions of others from around the world who testify to the same phenomenom" See, that's the thing: They don't! The only thing they have in common is their brain's instinct to anthropomorphize everything and seek patterns where none exist. Our brains are just as prone to emotional delusions as they are to optical illusions.
Zendrig 1 year ago
@Sunneyskys In a court of law, if you asked the judge and jury to believe you without evidence, what do you think the verdict would be?
philster61 1 year ago
@philster61 In a court of law...there'd be MILLIONS of people who would attest to the same experience. It's up to the jury to cast a vote as to whether they believe us.
My court room analogy was made to show that human emotions cannot be tested in a lab, but decisions in court are made based on the belief they exist. In fact degrees of guilt are based on MOTIVE. A motive cannot be tested in a lab.
Neither can any human emotion, but we know it exists because we've experienced them.
Sunneyskys 1 year ago
@Sunneyskys it wouldnt make any difference how many people believed. If you cannot supply overwhelming evidence it would be thrown out. And Human emotions can indeed be tested. I suggest you spend time reading science journals instead of a bible. Human emotion is what religion tends to use in order to persuade gullible over to its doctrine.
philster61 1 year ago
@philster61 Witness testimony is used as evidence in a court of law, and how are human emotions PROVEN by testing?
Sunneyskys 1 year ago
@Sunneyskys Extensive Scientific research revealed how different areas of the brain react under certain emotional conditions. I would need to read a bit more to detail the results and given the limited text allowance here I could not be specific enough. But human emotions are being tested all the time. Read science journals
philster61 1 year ago
@philster61 Soooooo.....you can't provide back up for your statment got it. I'll continue then.
As I was saying, one can't PROVE that I am feeling love, or hate. It is intangible, yet the courts that judge actions of individuals rely on the truth of those emotions being in existence when deciding the degree of motive of a person...so even if they can't touch it or feel it in another person, they know it exists because THEY'VE EXPERIENCED IT THEMSELVES. cont'd
Sunneyskys 1 year ago
@Sunneyskys Of course your emotions can be tested and monitored. Scientists do it all the time
philster61 1 year ago
@philster61 Emotions can be tested and PROVEN? Wonderful...prove to me that when I greet someone with a kiss, it's because I love them and not because I'm trying to manipulate them.
Sunneyskys 1 year ago
@Sunneyskys Perhaps if you read science journals instead of the bible you might see how scientists monitor the brain. Indeed emotions can be tested and monitored via brain activity.
philster61 1 year ago
@Sunneyskys
fail
danielrollingpanda 1 year ago
@danielrollingpanda Ouch...I'll stop believing since you wrote "fail". Thanks for clearing that up for me. LOL
Sunneyskys 1 year ago
@Sunneyskys
yeah man anytime.
danielrollingpanda 1 year ago
@danielrollingpanda Rocked my world...thanks...
Sunneyskys 1 year ago
@philster61 cont'd. That would be the same phenom as Christians all ove the world who attest to a personal relationship with God. Just because YOU haven't experienced it, doesn't mean He doesn't exist. Wow...how arrogant is that? No, you're not the be-all end-all of a reality. There are truths in the universe you haven't experienced yet, my friend. And there are millions of us out there who can attest to one of them, and that is meeing and knowing God.
Sunneyskys 1 year ago
@Sunneyskys Arrogant? I don't arrogantly proclaim to hold a "personal relationship" with a divine creator which is about the most arrogant act anybody could do.You say that I haven't "experienced" it. Which is basically saying I haven't bought into it. And since not ONE deist can ever provide scientific evidence of their "personal relationship" with this God. the relationship exists only in their gullible minds
philster61 1 year ago
@philster61 Soooo....by your standards, it would be arrogant to proclaim that you have a relationship with your neighbor...or...mother. ESPECIALLY if they've accomplished something. LOL. If the Creator has determined that it is His desire to connect with His creation, it has nothing to do with me....or anyone else who knows Him. It's not by our merit that we know Him. It's our WILLINGNESS to know Him. Check the dictionary. That is not arrogance.
Sunneyskys 1 year ago
@Sunneyskys Having a neighborly relationship with someone next door is within the normal bounds of reality. Having an imaginary friend in the sky stretches credibility, sanity and the imagination. Especially when that believer tries to inflict that belief upon everybody else. And then assumes a moral high ground because of that belief. And since there is not one microbe of evidence to support "his"(always a he) existence, then it is indeed arrogance
philster61 1 year ago
@Sunneyskys o yeah? So millions of people believe 9/11 was an inside job. So they are right? Faith is a bullshit word. It just means believing something without a good reason. Yeah I have faith that the cars on the highway don't run into me. That is something totally different then having faith in the creation of everything. You can't know anything about it but you have faith. And that is somehow a virtue. hahahaha. You are such a loser.
philateliceun 1 year ago
@Atheist603 and that does not include the fine tuning of the universe, the cosmological argument, the resurection of Jesus Christ...etc. etc. etc. I still prefer my personal experience with God as it is undeniable. And you? Your evidence that we all came from nothing? How did life begin again?
Sunneyskys 1 year ago
@Sunneyskys the universe is fine tuned lol hahah that's the dumbass argument i've ever heard lol . the universe is fined tuned for what ? black holes? empty dead space? that's what the universe is mostly made up of. our solar system is almost lifeless, and only one planet contains life. 99.9 percent of the universe can't support life as we know it. all I know is life on this earth started naturally, we know that life can start from non living material.
Atheist603 1 year ago
@Sunneyskys what phonomenons are you talking about? I mean what is a miracle?
Atheist603 1 year ago
@Atheist603 Can you not understand my simply stated comment? If not, I'm afraid this is a waste of both of our time.
Sunneyskys 1 year ago
@Sunneyskys You believe God created everything somehow. We believe life came from a process we don't fully understand, yet. No atheist or scientist believes we came from nothing. That is the bullshit argument of theist. You believe you came from nothing, some God just created everything with its supernatural powers. atheist and scientist believe we came from a logical process called nature.
philateliceun 1 year ago
@Atheist603 Watch the documentary "Expelled".
clintmmartin 1 year ago
@clintmmartin i've seen it,..and it's the dumbest thing i've ever watched, plus it's so misleading too
Atheist603 1 year ago
I take issue with what Ozzie above here is saying...The winess of the Holy Spirit requires an answer to a question...namely..."What the heck was that?" This answer requires an opinion of some kind. You are required to form an opinion as to who or what caused that revelation...witness...impression...or whatever you want to call it.
Sunneyskys 1 year ago
- I just can't take anyone seriously who believes that some man in the roman empire got tortured in order to atone the original sin of mankind.
adamscott 1 year ago
Craig is a douche.
HappysmokeSmoke 1 year ago
@HappysmokeSmoke Indeed. Remarkable how so many of these apologists look like complete douches, although it might just be that they spew so much bullshit that makes them look like one.
DisembowelMe 1 year ago
Craig is a presuppositionalist, despite his denial, perhaps unwittingly so. Nevertheless he holds the presuppositionalist position, which makes a circular argument, namely that god exists and the cosmos is evidence for the existence of god. Invalid, to say the least.
bobtheantman1 1 year ago
I want craig to disprove the existence of fairys.
seanscrawn 1 year ago
Ha... Let's put together a random assortment of clips to make the truth be hidden. Good try guys. Watch the entire thing. :)
jorny32 1 year ago
craig gets destroyed...as he should of.
emiljanowicz 1 year ago
Does God exist? No. Great, now that we've cleared that up, let's move on to something meaningful to debate.
drpero 2 years ago 66
@drpero brilliant, debate over
lukeism2 1 year ago
@drpero Prove it
tonytoy1776 1 year ago
@tonytoy1776 Tony, the burden of proof is on the positive. I don't need to prove the existence of things no one can observe. Those who believe in them have to prove them to those who don't. Substitute the word "unicorn" for "god" and you will quickly understand.
drpero 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
tonytoy1776 1 year ago
@drpero I understand perfectly. "there is no god" doesn't just deny the presence of an active god, it denies the possibility of there ever being one. For a god to exist it does not require us to be able to perceive it. See: subatomic particles. They have seemingly existed forever and yet we can only perceive them in recent history.
tonytoy1776 1 year ago
@tonytoy1776 I am entirely open the possibility of a god or gods, however such claims require compelling evidence. I am not saying there is no god, simply that I do not believe in one, any more than Santa Claus. We believe in subatomic particles today because of evidence. We may not be able to perceive them with our own eyes, but we are able to detect them in predictible, falsifiable ways that lends creedence to their existence. Prior to that they were an interesting and plausable theory.
drpero 1 year ago
@drpero If there truly is a God you must think logically about this. What more evidence would he need to provide than what he has already provided such as the bible, laws of nature, etc. The only thing extra he could really do is come down and tell us he is real, but that would require resending Jesus. And If you have read the bible you would know that the second coming of Jesus is going to happen eventually. Based on signs I have observed it should happen within this generation.
7tylerjb 1 year ago
@7tylerjb This is a logical argument? Seriously? God provided us proof in the bible? That is the BEST proof he can provide? There is nothing logical about this statement at all. You believe it and therefore you consider it logical, but it is entirely based on a priori assumptions. As for the second coming happening in our generation, I hate to break it to you, but people have been saying that for about, I don't know, 2010 years, give or take 4. Pretty weak argument mate.
drpero 1 year ago
@drpero I mean to say that just because we can't perceive it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We can't say there is no god, we can say I can't perceive a god.
tonytoy1776 1 year ago
@tonytoy1776 Everything is possible, however most things are not plausable. You do not believe in an infinite number of gods, ideas, theories, some of which may actually be true. We should believe in what there is compelling evidence to support. Athiests do not deny the possibility of a god, they simply do not believe in one due to the paucity of evidence. We should say at present there is insufficient evidence to support the belief in a god, but in practical terms, it means the same.
drpero 1 year ago 16
@drpero Actually I consider myself an agnostic, which I suppose is technicaly atheist, but I wanted to be fair to the theist and say that the possibility of a god is not deniable logically, which, you just conceded so graciously. It seems to me that we are not in disagreement.
tonytoy1776 1 year ago
@tonytoy1776 in case you are confused, atheism means a-theism, the LACK of belief. it is NOT a position that claims *there is no god*. 99% of the common public do not understand this distinction between non-theism and a-theism. atheism is inherently agnostic. i'd just like to clear that up, so you may too use the word more knowledgably in the future. this distinction helped me with a few language problems internal to god debate. have an awesome day!
sinprelic 1 year ago
@drpero Maybe you ought to watch the debate
clintmmartin 1 year ago
@clintmmartin
Yes. Because Hitchens slaughters Craig. It is fun to watch an educated man like William Lane Craig get demolished by Hitchens.
kisskisskiss121212 1 year ago