William Lane Craig vs Ronald De Sousa 11/16 (York University)

[infernoboi92]

2:38 Therefore god exist, LMAO. I even love how fast he skip that point, like he's aware that his argument is flawed

[ast453000]

3:55 Craig gets this backwards. The way the argument works is: if special pleading is allowed then you don't need god. The universe can be un-caused, or the cause of itself, or some such special pleading. On the other hand, if special pleading is not allowed then you can't have god. You can't have an un-caused being who has always just been there (god) - that's special pleading. So the god hypothesis is either unnecessary or impossible.

[HerrVonManstein]

why can't a speceless and timeless singularity be the cause of the Universe?in fact when Craig posits a spaceless and timeless personal being as the cause he contadicts himself, because timeless entities cannot make choices and cannot think (those are temporal concepts)! therefore the "cause" for space and time, if there is one, cannot be a personal being , it has to be "mechanical" or impersonal

[efeey]

@HerrVonManstein why can't timeless entities make choices?? may i ask politely what allows u to postulate this? the fact that time and choice are temporal objects seems unrelated to me.if the cause was impersonal, doesn't that imply that it needs the cause to exist? and if its impersonal why doesn't it cause millions of other universes? and why then if it isnt personal would it allow for the existence of life? wouldnt it follow that it is still more likely that a life prohibiting universe ?

[AgeOfReasonXXI]

@efeey timeless entities are changeless entities, so to say they make choices, or do anything else for that matter, is logically incoherent. the only way a timeless entity can cause anything is if it's the necessary condition for bringing about the effect. so even if there is a such thing as a timeless person (God), who caused the Big Bang, he could not have freely chosen to do so, but himself would have been the set of necessary (mechanical) conditions, sufficient for the causing the Big Bang

[clarkanorak]

Ha ha...Craig says God is beyond time and space. Just a flat assertion....no evidence to back it up.

In other words, a statement of faith. Like all theist arguments.

[hexusziggurat]

@clarkanorak It takes more faith to believe that matter just suddenly appeared out of nothing and that humans originated from rocks.

[clarkanorak]

@hexusziggurat Nobody believes humans came from rocks. Read some biology before you make a fool of yourself. Even if they did, I've seen rocks and I've seen humans. That's already more evidence than God being outside of space and time, neither of which has been seen by anyone.

[hexusziggurat]

@clarkanorak from where do biologists believe the very first of any organism evolved from? Lightning striking mud?

"outside of space and time, neither of which has been seen by anyone"

odd that...since humans can't just phase between time-streams and other places.

[clarkanorak]

@hexusziggurat Lightning striking mud is stupid but makes more sense than 'goddidit' since lightning and mud exist, but no evidence for god does. you need to prove that other 'time-streams' exist before claiming that humans can or cannot phase between them. More faith-based drivel.

[hexusziggurat]

@clarkanorak actually that idea of "other existences" is fully maintained by the atheistic community too as they would posit a number of universes other than our own as a sort of "possible big bang theory".

" but no evidence for god does" thats extremely speculative especially via scientific views. No evidence for something doesn't mean thats evidence for it not being there. If your only means to verify God is via conventional science...science needs to invent the testometer for that purpose.

[HonestTechnoAtheist]

No Craig I don't know is the answer to what caused the big bang.

[damaxman]

The mere exsistance of evil therefore prooves god? Oh gee, where do I start...

I think I will keep this short:

If god exsists, knowing of all the "evil" that occurs, then the description that Richard Dawkins has used to define such a god would be a very accurate observation.

[ofinterest2007]

Evil, as such, doesn't exist. Bad things do happen to people when judge on a human basis--and yes, we do bad things to each other at times-- but EVIL, as in supernatural ALL BAD entities does not exist anymore than gods do. Hence, objective evil does not exist.

Example: Is rape always bad? Then did Christians condone parental arrangements of marriage for centuries. If you didn't respect your parents wishes, you were a sinner. Having to marry someone you don't want to marry is rape in my mind.

[ofinterest2007]

Craig always uses the word 'specieism' as though it is a bad word, yet he sounds as though he is a specieist. We are so much more advanced than other animals? Only in that we have greater imaginations, and hence, are more creative at surviving at the expense of other creatures.

Language is not that far above the abilities of other mammals (which we are also). Even a dog understands vocal commands and communicates back to us in their own way.

Why are we more imaginative? Continued next post..

[ofinterest2007]

Just look at the evolution of the brain. As we slowly gained more mass in the frontal cortex we became more imaginative. We gained the ability to ponder the results of actions, to plan. to strategize, etc. A better strategizer is bound to be a better survivor. But strategy is weak unless one can communicate to others what the plan is.

We call this 'ponderance of consequences' reasoning. It really isn't that far above what other creatures do, although we have turned it to our advantage.

[damaxman]

@ofinterest2007

Well said, I recall viewing a documentary pertaining to this recently.

I wish I had known this was happening at York U, I live in Toronto, and I would have attended for sure.

[jbiemans77]

If good is all-knowing and all- powerful and all-good as you say that he is then think about this.

When God put Adam and Eve in the garden, being all-knowing, he would have known that they would eat the tree, regardless of what he told them.

Then if he was all-powerful, he would have been able to stop them from eating the tree.

But most importantly, if he was all-good he would have wanted to do anything in his power to stop them (which is anything).

But instead he allows it, and then .....

[jbiemans77]

.... he goes on to punish them for it, and not just them, but all their future generations.

Then he sends a part of himself as a scapegoat, because being all-powerful he does not have the power to forgive the sin that he caused without having a blood sacrifice, of himself, to himself.

This God is really all-good, but I think that me being a doubter is proof enough for me that God is not all these things that you say he is.....

[jbiemans77]

...because if I don't believe in God then I go to HELL. An all-good God would want to do anything in his power to prevent that,

and would you look at that, God is all powerful too. So anything should be in his power.

Being all knowing he would know exactly what it would take to make me believe.

But he has not provided it, so God cannot be all the three things you say he is.

Another example is the flood, God thought he had made a mistake and decided to erase creation.

[Purushadasa]

You have no evidence that God somehow "punished" Adam and Eve in any way. The scripture does not state that He did so, and your lack of evidence indicates that you just made it up.

Also, God's only motivation is love, and although He has the power to force us to love Him, He also has the wisdom to know that forced love is not real love, that real love is ultimately better for us, and He has the power to selectively abstain from using certain powers.

[Purushadasa]

The fact that a power may not always be used does not show that it is not a power -- it shows that it is controlled by intelligence. God's sweet will and His love supersede His infinite powers, but they are still infinite.

[Purushadasa]

The counterfeit "God" that you have set up in your posts comes from your overly-fertile imagination and your uneducated layman status regarding the scientific facts about God, and is not representative of the actual God as He is.

Nice job disproving your own imaginary entity, but that is called a straw-man logical fallacy, and your fallacious argument speaks absolutely nothing about God as He really is.

atheist total fail

[jbiemans77]

I think that you have listened to Dr Craig too much, you sound exactly like him.

I was not making a straw man I was talking about the characteristics that you gave to God.

I never said "forced love" you did. I said convince me with proof.

I said "If God loved me, he would not want me to suffer in hell forever. The only way for that to happen is for me to believe. So God would know what I need to believe and he would show it to me, because he loves me."

Am I right?

[jbiemans77]

Also please read Genesis 3:14-19 and tell me that it is not a punishment.

I don't like having to quote scriptures, especially since i am an "uneducated layman"

BTW: if you want to speak of fallacies, insulting your opponent, is a fallacy.

Also you keep calling me an Atheist, yet I have never called myself as such, you just jump to the assumption.

[Purushadasa]

You have not quoted scriptures -- you have cited verse and chapter numbers, which is a different thing. A series of numbers does not even begin to prove your point, sadly.

Insulting an opponent is not a logical fallacy, and in any case, I have not insulted anyone.

[Purushadasa]

There is no "punishment" of Adam and Eve stated in any scripture. I have been engaged in constant scriptural study for over 20 years, and you are the furthest thing from a scriptural scholar.

So far, you have failed to point one out -- care to try again?

[jbiemans77]

I would have written the entire passages I cited but there is a character limit here, but if you insist then this may take a few entries.

You called me "uneducated layman", which i guess you do not consider to be an insult.

and actually insulting someone is a logical fallacy, its called an ad homonym, look it up......

But before I begin I would like to address a few things, calling my "beliefs" dogmatic is false, because I am more then willing to change my beliefs, if given proper evidence.

[jbiemans77]

Gen 3:16

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

That does not sound like a punishment ?

[jbiemans77]

Gen 3: 17-19

17And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; 18Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

.........

[jbiemans77]

...cont. 19In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Cursing the ground because Adam has eaten of the tree, that is not a punishment ??

Those were not punishments ?

What about "original sin" isn't that why EVERYONE is punished and why Jesus had to die, to forgive the "original sin".

Or is there another original sin I have overlooked.

[Purushadasa]

You have overlooked much, and no, you have cited absolutely no evidence from the scripture of any "punishment."

You are simply wrong.

[Purushadasa]

That is not an example of punishment from God, no.

It also happens to be an intentional misquote of scripture, which is a very common atheist tactic.

atheist scriptural knowledge fail

atheist honesty fail

atheist total fail

[jbiemans77]

First of all you have ignored the question I have repeatedly asked.

Second, you repeatedly tell me I am wrong and refuse to explain as to where you think I made an error. All you do is assert that I am wrong, with no counter claim.

How is what I quoted not a punishment.

and for the last time this is getting old, I am NOT an atheist, simply labeling me as that does not do any good other then to show that you are ignoring me and saying what you want anyway, exactly the way Dr. Crag does.

[jbiemans77]

Fine, since you like logic I will break my argument in to logic, like Dr Craig does.

1) God is All-good, All-Knowing, All-Powerful (this was from you so you shouldn't be able to say that I am making a straw man here)

2) God loves everyone and wants me to get to heaven.

3) The Only way I can get into heaven is to believe in God.

4) God knows what kind of evidence it would require for me to believe in him.

What must follow logically from that is:

[jbiemans77]

Therefore, being All-good, God should show me what he knows I need to be shown to believe in him, to avoid going to Hell.

Being All-Good God would never want to send anyone to Hell.

And before you say that its not God sending me its me making the choice to go to hell. That would be wrong, because as I have said, if the evidence were there, then I would believe.

The fact that it is not there means one of 2 things, God is not there, or God wants me to go to hell.

Which is it ?

[jbiemans77]

Also please explain to me how I "misquoted", and how you think it should be interpreted ?

I would love to know.

[Purushadasa]

How do you mean?

[jbiemans77]

Please explain to me what I misquoted, and what the proper interpretation of the bible passage should be.

Also please find what is wrong with my logic below.

I would like to see the counter argument, and where my mistakes are rather then simply hearing you say that I am wrong.

Thank you.

[jbiemans77]

I was looking forward to your rebuttal of my point, and I have not seen anything for a few days now ?

Does that mean you agree ?

[Purushadasa]

It means that you don't have a point.

[jbiemans77]

Well I will ask you one last time then:

Where is the flaw in my logic ?

If what I quoted from Gen is wrong, please tell me what was wrong about it, and how it should be interpreted ?

The fact that it is not there means one of 2 things, God is not there, or God wants me to go to hell.

Which is it ?

If you do not respond to my questions, I will assume that you have no response and that my arguments are in fact correct.

Thanks.

( and simply responding that I am wrong is not a response)

[Purushadasa]

You are free to make any assumptions you want, but merely making an assumption does not make your assumption true.

[jbiemans77]

Then again I ask.....prove me wrong ! =D

[Purushadasa]

Ad hominem is a logical fallacy, but "ad homonym" is not anything.

Also, "ad hominem" does not mean insulting someone. It means to make the statement that because someone's character is less than perfect, therefore his argument must be false.

I have made no such statement, and I have also insulted nobody in any way you ARE an uneducated layman when it comes to God -- that is a dispassionate statement of fact, not an insult.

[Purushadasa]

No, you are not.

First off, I have never "given" any characteristics to God -- He comes complete with His own. Even if I wanted to "give" characteristics to God or any other entity, I don't have that ability. Characteristics of persons come with the persons, and I cannot "give" them.

The rest of your post is a series of personal beliefs of yours for which you offer no evidence. Do you have any evidence for your dogmatic beliefs, or did you just make them up?

[Purushadasa]

The atheist's definition of God, which includes the necessity for so-called "evil" acts to be attributed to Him, is a faulty definition of God.

In other words, when he says that such acts must necessarily be attributed to God, he is not talking about the actual God, he is talking about a flawed God that he himself dreamed up in his own imagination.

[Purushadasa]

This is not surprising, because when it comes to scientific facts about God, the atheist is essentially an uneducated layman, and so it follows naturally that his definition of God is unauthorized and incorrect, providing the necessity for all of his conclusions about God to also be unauthorized and incorrect.

[Purushadasa]

In fact, the actual God is very different from the atheist's personally concocted and incorrect definition of Him in that God is actually all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good, and that our own personal shortcomings, our sinful activities, and the unpleasant reactions that we experience as a result are NOT attributable to Him in any way, but are ours alone.

God is perfect in every way, and our suffering is wholly due to our own shortcomings and sinful activities.

[jbiemans77]

You don't know how glad I am that you asked that =D.

For something to be objective it has to be 100% of the time for EVERY one, right?

So its wrong to kill someone who broke into your house in the middle of the night and threatened to kill you, and then torture your wife and kids for the next 20 years?

Extreme example, but I think you get my point.

Also the "Thou shall not kill", only applied to those in the tribe of Israel, it does not apply to anything else, see above.

[Purushadasa]

That was a yes or no question, and you failed to answer it.

(The answer is no).

However, that is definitely proof that there is objective morality, and that is why you clumsily avoided giving a direct, honest, yes-or-no answer: because doing so proves you wrong.

[jbiemans77]

I posted a reply to this as well, but its not here....

The fact that you can only see this in black and white is a false dichotomy, there are millions of shades of grey.

In our judicial system is there only one type of "kill" or many ?

Is all killing the same ?

Killing an animal of a different species ? Is that OK ?

It is NOT a yes or no question, but for something to be objective it MUST be clear to everyone, and follow a set rule.

Killing subjectively right, or wrong.

[jbiemans77]

If God made the letter A

and B exists because it comes after A in the alphabet, and we know the alphabet exists because of observation, therefore we can observe that God exists.

The problem is that we do not have to add God to the mix at all.

There is no such thing as an objective moral value.

Q: What is the first thing moses did when he came down from the mount with the commandments ?

A: Kill 3000 people =)

( Exodus:32)

In fact it was Moses who talked God out of killing them himself.

[agnostaxian]

Hey I am down with evolution. Look at atheists, they are the missing link, somewhere between a baboon and deepak chopra, I am kinding.... I am just kinding atheists out there :D, so do not post back at me with angry stuff OK?