"God", or "Money", both refer to some intangible concepts that human use to conduct their daily and weekend business and have absolutely NO intrinsic value. Without human, money and God don't exist. Ever trying to explain God to a cat? Ever trying to give a dollar to an elephant? Or tossing a coin to a zebra? William Craig is an example of human stupidity of highest degree.
William Craig is a learned idiot. He possesses great academic power and knows how to sway people with his "philosophy". He serves some purposes to the easy mass believers out there but in reality he is a huge failure. He avoids science and afraid of the cold hard facts science tell us.
21st century belief is more spiritual instead of strait-jacket dogmatic tenets of past religions. Modern human are free thinkers instead of docile church-going believers. Wake up,peoples!
@MrVuHNguyen it's obvious from your comments you do not understand Dr. Craig's or any historical philosophical theistic apologetics, philosophies, or metaphysical arguments. When you assign values to "things" you are already leaving the world of "cold hard facts" and entering the world of "metaphysics". Show me a "value", not it's effects, but an actual "value". You'll find that "things" don't have values, including humans unless they are assigned from something greater than we are.
@cq7us I don't think I assign values to things. Things, everything, including the universe, has no intrinsic or extrinsic value. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear when commenting. Value is always subjective and open to interpretation. A hungry cat sees a mouse as very valuable, and a religious cat even thanks God for its tasty meal. In physics, the value of g at earth's surface is 9.8m/s/s. Another, "mathematics is a valuable tool to physicists"
One thing I've always noticed about Craig is that he avoids science like the plague. He always falls back on "philosophy". Of course, you can come up with any "philosophy" you want to justify your predetermined conclusions.
@DandAinTac On the contrary! Craig does argue from science, as does many theistic apologists. For example, for any “thing” to exist such as a contingent causal cosmos, there must be, by definition, a sufficient first cause greater than the thing that exists.
@cq7us That is not science. It is merely an assertion which may not hold true at the quantum level. Craig is not a scientist, and he does not appear to truly understand science.
@DandAinTac The outcome or conclusions of any science are always subject to philosophical scrutiny. When Carl Sagan (A Physicist) used to say, “The universe came into “being” billions and billions of years ago” show’s he did not understand ontology or its philosophical implications. What Sagan was implying was that “being” came from “non-being”. This is an irrationally absurd statement. Propositional truths often include necessary and sufficient conditions that can't be physically observed.
@cq7us Causality only applies WITHIN this universe. So you cannot apply it to the beginning of the universe itself, since causality did not exist before the universe itself existed. The truth is, we have no clue what came before (if one can even say there WAS a "before"). The universe, and existence/non-existence, are not obliged to conform to our religious doctrines and dogma.
Aristotle, a pagan, came to the same conclusion that in a causal universe one must logically conclude there must be in the beginning an unmoved mover.
Well, Aristotle DID live before the advent of Christianity.
"came to the same conclusion that in a causal universe one must logically conclude there must be in the beginning an unmoved mover."
Aristotle was relying purely on his intuition, which caused him to miss the mark ever so often. Your whole comment is nothing but an appeal to authority.
@DandAinTac I am not arguing "religious doctrines and dogma". I am arguing from science that accepts without question that the universe is contingent and causal, therefore it is out of logical necessity that there has to be a first cause. If, as you propose, the singularity just popped into existence from nothing, then you are arguing from absurdity. Out of nothing, nothing comes. Why don’t we see “things” just popping into existence all over the place today?
This is a very disingenuous tactic. To be precise, it's a variety of "poisoning the well". You label someone's statements as absurd, in the hope that the others will see the person making that statement as unreliable as a whole.
Sagan mentioned of the universe coming into being, since we simply have no comprehensive theory yet about the cause of the Big Bang, and we might even find that the universe did not have a cause after all.
@DandAinTac Another example of science gone wild is quantum indeterminacy, I’ve often heard many physicists claim that because particles appear out of “nothing” as an argument against causality. I do not need to be a scientist to know that “nothing” has zero potentiality to create anything. Thus, scientists often let their bias of atheism shape their conclusions or they don’t fully understand the laws of logic and their implications.
@cq7us Scrutinize with "philosophy" all you want--what you are really saying is that you want your particular philosophy to be exempt from scientific scrutiny. The good thing about science, is that it is self-scrutinizing. If science "goes wild", it is always yanked back down to reality through the application of the scientific method and peer review. Religion exempts itself from such a process (it's called blasphemy), so it went wild long ago, and has never had to face reality.
@DandAinTac On the contrary, science uses philosophy in all its conclusions. Philosophy encompasses epistemology, logic, metaphysics and even your worldview of skepticism. Science means “knowledge”; you can’t have knowledge without philosophy. Logic, for example, is the study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning. Science uses all these tools to draw conclusions on their scientific outcomes through deductive and inductive reasoning. These are all philosophies.
"I do not need to be a scientist to know that “nothing” has zero potentiality to create anything. "
Based on what? Your gut feeling? Alas, intuition has a very lousy track record when it comes to trying to discover how reality works. Craig, for one, doesn't appear to grasp this at all and seems to think you can find out how the universe works simply by reasoning about it.
No he is saying that if god doesn't manifest himself in reality in some form then he can't fucking exist.. In order to exist you must manifest in reality you dope.
Fuck this guy is a crook. Go hang out with Hitler you sick fuck
Continued: Disproving God can be done in the same way you disprove a square circle's existence, or disprove the possibility of carbon life forms forming on the surface of the sun. We define what a circle is, define a square then realize that cannot exist as one entity. The brain (matter) is what produces complex intelligence, we only think about things because things exist, without nothing perceived,there is no starting point for intelligent thought. Intelligence before matter is a square circle
Continued: Can someone come up with the idea to paint a picture if eyes, brains, paint, and brushes don't exist? Can you make a watch if time doesn't exist and neither do the materials and tools to make them? Would you build a car if location between 2 places didn't exist?The answer is no. You can't say God is all knowing to rebut, because an all knowing being could never have the idea pop into his head to create (he would already know everything) meaning no creation.
Case against the claim that intelligence created matter.
If you were born without the ability to perceive the world (couldn't see, smell, feel, hear, taste ect) , you wouldn't have a starting point to draw up a thought, you know nothing because you can perceive nothing. Now flip that, imagine there is a being with infinite ability to perceive things, but there are no things (God existed before matter in theory), he would have no starting point to draw up an idea to create.
he basically says you can't say how god would act, because god is incomprehensible, so anything you say can fit within the logical framework of god, because nothing can be excluded.
Do ANY of you understand what this hillbilly trying to say? He's babbling to earn a check. I DARE any of you to tell me he's making a coherant monologue.
I think the below debate can be summed up in one verse: Psalm 14: 1 "The fool has said in his heart 'there is no God' ". There's no point debating a fool; they believe what they want to no matter what you say or how much evidence you provide them with, so the Christian is only wasting his/her time trying to reason with them. =)
@AcAwSk8Vids That's funny, that's how us atheists feel when we try and understand why we should trust your bible, and you just keep quoting your bible to justify your bible.
I'm Christian and science proves God exists. The signs are everywhere. It's the heart thats deceiving. The same as if some one wont accept the fact that they are an alcoholic despite the evidence in their life. If anyone has any questions about the evidence just respond or message me. I was an atheist for 21 years but now a believer in God/Jesus.
@TheBlackdragon936 You need to understand: If God is so big we cannot understand his crazy ways, then you have no greater understanding of God than I do. There is no proof on earth of anything that suggests a conscious, omnipotent being is the creator of anything. There are things we don't know, but the answer is not "God did it"
Macroevolution has never been observed. Have scientists observed animals evolving into others? It has been proven that natural selection and mutations, etc., cannot possibly add information to an existing species. And that is necessary for macroevolution to be true.
And your other 'proofs' of evolution are simply not true, such as homology, embriology, natural selection, etc.
"Something can't come from nothing" is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Quantum fluctuations prove something can come from nothing, and William Lane Craig is a moron.
@theBartone9119 If you would actually research the subject then you'd realize that quantum fluctuations don't come from absolute nothing, but rather a 'sea' of energy.
Absolute nothing means absolute nothing, and there is no way quantum fluctuations, or anything else, can come from that. It is totally illogical to think otherwise.
@terminat1 "It is totally illogical to think otherwise.'
No it's not. The things you think are logical are only logical in this universe, there is no such thing as nothing in this universe because even an empty room is filled with oxygen. You seem to forget that time, space, matter, the laws of physics, and rule of cause and effect all came into existence after the event. This mean this event didn't need to follow the rule of cause and effect, because it didn't even exist yet. That's logic.
@theBartone9119 Where did the law of cause and effect come from? Just by blind chance? How does a random big bang have the mystical ability to create cosmic laws?
Either matter is eternal (contrary to science), or it came into existence, uncaused, by nothing. Nothing is nothing. We're not talking about an empty room here.
It's not surprising that most people in the world believe in some type of Creator. It's ridiculous to believe otherwise.
@terminat1 Actually belief in a creator in moronic, the only creators have brains, unless god has a physical brain then you lose. Most people believe in a creator because a) they lack knowledge of science and b) they believe this creator will give them eternal life, which appeals to people because they are scared of death. Adults with imaginary friends are dumb, please wake up to reality.
@nlytend1 that's right. And I think tha is amazing how people listen to Craig only because his arrogance. He was well trained in deabte, but it doesn't mean he tells the truth or even know what he is talking about. No one knows. He believes that is right, and intend to "sell" this to other people. He is only a preacher.
So to make a long story short, Dr. Craig seems to be saying no one knows, neither him nor the atheist. And yet, he contradicts himself when he makes claims about "god's" characteristics, one of which is god's limitless capabilities and eternalness. That assumption is based entirely on speculation or more properly, the imagination. Even though we can't disprove the tooth-fairy, the atheist position is the rational one. There may be emotional reasons for theism but none are based on evidence.
I don't think this guy quite gets atheism. Barely ANYONE asserts that "God" doesn't exist. There's just no proof that he DOES exist. BURDEN OF PROOF BURDEN OF PROOF BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE PRO SIDE
How can you say that God hates homos and abortion then in the same breath say God did not support the Crusades or Inquisition because of loving thy neighbor?
how can we predicit with any confidence what God would do if he existed?
Yet that hasnt stopped christains from trying -- for instance apprently God hates gays and abortion. And God also would support the crusades and insqusiton etc..
@badpanda84 Yes, we know God hates homosexuality and abortion---and sinners---because we have the Bible, which is God's will.
God did not support the Crusades or Inquisition, though. The Bible teaches to love your enemy, not to kill them if they refuse to accept your teachings. Just because fallible men do something in the name of the Christian God doesn't mean that they are actually Christian.
@terminat1 You are trying to predict what God would do if he existed. How can you know for sure God didnt support the crusade or inquisiton.
Which is my point.. people have certain expecation and ideas of God.. therefore God has to meet our expecations otherwise we simply wouldnt worship him.
@badpanda84 Because there's lots of internal evidence that the Bible is of divine origin. And if the Bible is truly from God, then we can trust what it says. The Bible says to love your enemy, and to love your neighbor. Therefore, we know that the Christian God would not support either the Inquisition or the Crusades.
You're speaking of a deistic god---of course we cannot know what such a god would do or want.
@badpanda84 No, there's archaeological, historical, and prophetical evidence, not to mention a great consistency in the Bible for a Book that was penned over a span of more than 1500 years by several different scribes. This is much more than your idea that it's just because 'the Bible says so.'
@terminat1 a web anyone can make and fill with anything. Do you know any books that shows evidence of the life of Jesus? I was raised in a catholic family, and was very surprised to see that the only place where we can find something about Jesus, is the bible.
@LowresTV Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Celsus, and Phlegan all wrote of Jesus, and Jesus is written about in the Talmud.
No reputable historian of our day doubts that Christ existed or that He was crucified. And archaeologists have uncovered ancient relics associated with certain kings of the Bible, kings of Israel and Judah, and have discovered ancient civilizations of the Bible.
The Bible was mocked for a long time because it spoke of the Hittites, but they have recently been discovered.
No reputable historian doubts? With so few evidence, there are a lot of reputables historians thar doubt at least of the authenticity of some documents. De authors from the NT are unknown. No eyewithness wrote about jesus, as far as history knows. But go ahead. I know that faith is blind. I prefer my doubts, this doesn't interfere in my secular way of life. Peace.
@LowresTV I gave you a list of people who wrote about Jesus, but apparently you don't believe that. And keep in mind that you also have faith, no matter what your secular worldview says about the universe.
@terminat1 You gave me 4 names, not " a list". All of them wrote something vague about the leader of Christianity. As the closest of the events was Josephus, (30 yeas after his death) we can deduce it was from hearsay. No eyewitness. That is the weird thing in my opinion...someone that allegedly made such wonders...and not even a line from the historians that lived at the time he supposedly lived...NOTHING!
And I don't need faith in science. I can check it. And it can chenge. (cont)
@terminat1 About science.. you are wrong again. I don't need faith. No one needs. We can check it, and in the case of big bang theory, I can take the word of other scientists. I can try to understand, in wich I can be sucessful or not. But it doesn't matter, as right ot wrong, It(science) doesn't try to dictate the way I live, nor threatens me if I don't accept it. I prefer the doubt than attribute what is not yet known, as a magical father in the sky. But again...your faith is not my business.
@LowresTV Well, the problem is that there are numerous flaws in the big bang theory. Even some secular scientists admit this. To counter these problems, scientists have to invent things such as dark matter, etc., in order to explain why the universe is the way it is.
However, that is simply their faith, because there is zero proof whatever for dark matter, or other things they are positing.
Historians of today don't doubt the life of Christ. Only those totally opposed to Christianity do so.
@LowresTV No, it's not the better theory. I don't deny gravity because scientists can DO experiments on it and prove that it exists.
Scientists cannot do tests on the big bang, or evolution, or things of that nature. You have to accept them by FAITH. And that is what atheism is---a secular faith.
God is not probable only because you have a naturalistic worldview. However, if you look at all of the facts objectively, one has to conclude that God is the best explanation for why anything exists.
@terminat1 If YOU WANT to think we have faith in science just in order to feel better, go ahead. The lack of beiieve is nothing, not even a philosophy. You are the guys that needs believe. I need to KNOW.
Believe in a god must be normal for you, for me is absurd. As it was to explain the thunder as a manifestation of a god.
But you believe many things also, and not know them. You believe that the universe came from nothing, or has always existed. You believe that life came from non-life. You believe that microbes evolved into man. All of these things have been contradicted by true science, and yet your secular faith won't permit you to reject them.Believing in God is only absurd for those who find accountability to God unacceptable. Accidents never form anything, most especially a complex universe.
@terminat You are a tipical religious. You don't even know me, and are already judging me.
Who told you I BELIEVE in such things? As anyone that likes to think, I read about it and it SEEMS to be, till now the best theory. Life can come from non organical counpounds. It is a possibility far better than a macical being.
"All of these things have been contradicted by true science"... please, post any links to evidence(no evangelical sources, please).
@LowresTV Well, if you're an atheist, either you believe in an eternal universe, or you believe it sprang from nothing...what other choice is there?
Life cannot come from dead chemicals. That's been confirmed over and over by observational science. The Law of Biogenesis (which came only after numerous experiments were done) says that life only comes from life.
All speculations about the origin of life have failed. Even Dawkins admits that life is way too complex to have arisen by chance!
@terminat1 Why do you assume that if we don't know, automatically we HAVE TO BELIEVE? I just don't know. Saying this is more honest and rational than saying something so uncertain and imposible even to make an theory than "god did".
@LowresTV That's total bologna. Scientists have confirmed repeatedly that life to much too complex to have arisen by chance from dead chemicals. Abiogenesis was disproven years ago. Biogenesis, which states that life only comes from preexisting life, is true science. Of course, despite being confirmed by countless experiments, the Law of Biogenesis is still not completely trusted, because of its obvious connection to theism.
@terminat1 No, I don't think evolution "must" be true. It IS TRUE. Millions of fossils, proves it. Genetics proves it.
I don't have to believe. "So much disagreement among evolutionists"??? About some processes maybe, but not the about the core of the question. THOUSANDS of previous evolutionists abandones this faith"...you are funnt:-))) Name 3. Ok. In your "strange world" there is a conspiracy against faith...
you're wrong. Abiogenese theory is still valid. No one desprove it.
@LowresTV Abiogenesis is still valid? Really? You truly believe that non-living matter can become alive?
Thousands of scientific experiments have confirmed the Law of Biogenesis. I'm sorry, but that's the truth of the matter.
And it's not plausible at all to believe that the human body, or even the simplest cell, could be the product of blind chance. They are far too complex for that. Do you believe a coherent novel could be written by randomly selecting Scrabble tiles? Why not?
@LowresTV The fossil record doesn't prove evolution. In fact, there are some fossils in the wrong places, and some strata missing. Many animals appear the same at their supposed entrance into the fossil record as they do today, despite having supposedly evolved for millions of years.
Genetics actually shows that natural selection and mutations cannot create new organisms. To create a new organism you need new INFORMATION. How does evolution create new information? Only an intelligence can.
@terminat1 Name wich fossils are "in the wrong place".
Tell me you have your faith, based in whatever inner felling, I will accept it, is your right. But don't come here and say there is evidence that jesus ever existed, or "abiogenesis" is proved wrong. Everything in this field is open.
This "ingelligence" you mention is not that intelligent, if 99% of everything that ever lived is now extinct. And many other points that proves this creation is all but perfect.
@LowresTV Unfortunately, any evidence I give will be dismissed by you because you'll claim I simply lifted it from a Christian website.
Fact is, the fossil record supports Noah's Flood, and not a millions-year-old fossil record. But of course, the atheist is unwilling to look at the evidence objectively.
I will email you a link which shows the copious problems with the fossil record, but it's pointless to read it if you don't do so with an open mind.
Sorry, I won't read it. I saw tons of sites like this looking for something against Evolution, something reasonable and scientific wit a good argument. Did not found a line.Zippo. None.
I do not claim. You send only Christian sites. Not even one from a University, or a scientist.
Say you don't accept evolution, that you fully believe your god and all this stuff. But don't say evolution is not true, because it is the same that say gravity is not true.
@terminat1 2-. Evolution is proved everyday. There is no "debate" among scientists about the subject, and even the one(scientist) that worked in the genoma project(forgot the name) believes in god...but can't deny evolution.
@LowresTV Evolution is not proved every day. True science is about things we can observe and measure in REAL TIME. Can we observe macroevolution? Can we measure such a thing?
In fact, evolutionist scientists depend on many unproveable assumptions when dealing with the origin of life, origin of DNA, etc. Evolution is really nothing more than a philosophy.
There are plenty of scientists who deny evolution. You didn't read the quotes from the website I supplied but the proof is there.
@terminat1 Yes it is. Evolution is proved, and no one with reasonable education denies it.But if you want a terrestrial mammal turn into an aquatic one overnight, it proves you understand nothing about evolution. Funny is, you want to see this, HAPPENING THIS WAY, but accept any crap written 2000 years ago about someone from wich there is no evidence. It is funny.
@LowresTV Evolution is proved true only in the minds of those who reject Christianity at any cost.
How can evolution be proven, when by definition, it CANNOT be observed or tested in REAL TIME?
I gave you the website which listed many quotes of notable scientists who trashed the theory of evolution, saying it was useless, but you ignore these. And it is useless. It is just a secular origins philosophy which cannot be proven.
@terminat1 Why do you think rational people rejects only " Christinianity"? Your religion is ONE among many, that anyone that have a bit of brain and are not affraid of using it denies.
@terminat1 No one can observe your God either, but that doesn't stop you from denying that he too is false. You're just picking what to have faith in. The problem is that A) evolution has been witnessed in certain lifeforms like bacteria, virus's, etc, and evolution still fits the bill as the best theory for how we exist today, despite 150 years of contest from people such as yourself. God, however, just keeps getting smaller and smaller as we learn more about the world around us.
@beatonm198 Well, first of all, viruses aren't considered alive. Secondly, bacteria haven't been observed becoming any else. Bacteria always remain bacteria, ants always remain ants, and moths always remain moths, etc.
There are copious problems with evolutionism. Unlike true sciences, which increase knowledge over time, evolution simply is revised every few years. That's because it's speculation.
It was proven that information CANNOT be added via mutations or natural selection.
@terminat1 Umm, wrong. Bacteria mutate, and change, in what you would refer to as micro-evolution, such as when bacteria become immune to penicillin. Over time, accumulation of those genetic mutations that aid survival interacting with differences in the environment cause much more noticeable amounts of change. This is evidenced by our shared dna with currently living species because highly correlated with material from our common ancestors. Continued.
@beatonm198 Mutations can occur, but they CANNOT create new species. A dog cannot mutate into a gorilla. A moth doesn't mutate into a grasshopper.
Microevolution doesn't prove macroevolution, or imply it, or anything else. And the fact is, new information cannot be added by mutations or natural selection. Period. This is a scientific fact which is only rejected by you because of your naturalistic bias.
@terminat1 The assumption that the universe needed a creator is not even logical. First off, there is no way of knowing that it needed to be created, we take creation as a given because everything we interact with is a creation, especially what we perceive to be complex, such as a watch or skyscraper. This does not necessarily mean the universe was created in any similar fashion. Lastly, even if a conscious creator made everything, I doubt he was your God. That guy makes no sense.
@beatonm198 Everything that begins to exist has a cause. That is a scientific truth, and there is no exception. The universe has been shown to have a beginning. So, it must have had some kind of cause.
Do you really, really, believe that's it logical that a random big bang would form a viable universe with fully-formed lifeforms (no patched-together jobs which should result from blind evolution)?
@beatonm198 Your last lines show that your main problem is not a Creator, per se, but the Christian God. I've spoken to many atheists in my life and some of them have admitted or implied that they'd consider or possibly accept deism. That is, they realize that there must be some kind of God (everyone does), but Christianity, and its accountability to a Supreme Being, is unacceptable. That's why Christianity is the main focus for the attacks of militant atheists.
Oh and lastly, Evolution has one of the most satisfied, unifying theories of any scientific discipline ever, maybe the most, considering physics may have just been turned on its head again. It is not just a theory. It is the absolute best explanation for what has taken place with life, given a range of data collected by thousands of different scientists over 150 years and still has not received a single bit of criticism that has undermined it. Forget about creationism, it ain't real.
@beatonm198 It's only 'most satisfying' and 'unifying' because you've been brainwashed (sorry) into believing the scientists' conclusions. Frankly, do you realize just how many unprovable assumptions must be made by evolutionist scientists?
Evolution has received much criticism. First of all, it's constantly being revised. Magnetism and physics are still the same as what they were in 1955. Evolution has changed multiple times since 1955 (established 'truth' has been revised).
@terminat1 and you havent been brainwashed? were you brought up by religious parents? if you were alone on a desert island with no prior information regarding religion would you suddenly believe in god? there is no difinitive proof of gods existence and there is no way as yet to prove it so how does anyone know of his existence at all? because someone said there is? by that reasoning i could make up a god on the spot and who is anyone to say otherwise? it is ridiculous to believe in it.
@nightmarekid1986 I went to Catholic Mass (no longer Catholic) when I was younger, but I no longer attend church. My parents were not super-religious people, but they did believe in God.
I wouldn't 'suddenly' believe in God if I were on a desert island. I would always have that inner understanding that there must be a God. Romans 1 teaches this clearly: man is without excuse (for willful unbelief) because the creation itself testifies to the existence of God...
@nightmarekid1986 Psalm 19 also teaches that God's handiwork is seen in the creation. Those who deny God are just in denial.
If you mean 'definitive' proof as being scientific, then I agree. God can't be found out that way. However, there're many philosophical arguments that have been offered that show that there surely is a God. Not only that, but do you really believe a mindless, accidental big bang could form a viable cosmos? That is what is ridiculous, and not creationism.
@terminat1 i will admit that there is a possibility of a higher intelligence presence in the universe we cant detect ownly because there is still so much science has yet to discover. what i will not believe in is that it would lower itself to create such a thing as christianity or any religion in order to decide who goes where when we die. religion is wrong for human growth as countless wars have been fought over who's dominates anothers. its backwards.
@nightmarekid1986 That is your right, of course, but keep in mind that the true message of Christianity is not to destroy others. The Bible commands that we are to love our enemies, love our neighbors, etc. We are not to start wars in attempts to
'convert' others.
Actually, God teaches in the Bible that it is He Who saves, and not man. He chooses those whom He will save (Romans 9:15). So, man's efforts to coerce others into following their version of God are really futile.
@nightmarekid1986 this is real simple. EACH PERSON DECIDES WHERE THEY SPEND ETERNITY. NOT RELIGION OR GOD!!!!! God gives man free will. Its so stupid to even entertain the idea that God or religion decide mans fate.
@beatonm198 If evolution is real, then you must wonder why literally thousands of scientists reject it. Why much real data is against evolution (exs: mutations and natural selection have been shown to not be able to add information, and the fossil record is more consistent with a worldwide flood, and not millions of years of animal death, etc.)
Creationism isn't real to you only because you have a naturalistic bias, and you aren't willing to look at the truth of the matter.
@beatonm198 If you cannot add new information, then how does a species become a new one? Where does it get the new DNA?
In our everyday experience, creators are witnessed all of the time. Why is this so difficult to believe for the universe itself? It's because a sovereign Creator implies accountability to that God, and that is totally unacceptable to many.
@LowresTV Also, look at the facts. I guarantee you will find many people with a 'reasonable education' questioning or outright denying evolution. The problem is that Biblical Creationism, which of course leads to man's accountability before a perfect God, is unacceptable.
Evolution MUST be true, because that eliminates our accountability before God if we're just advanced slime.
@terminat1 Yes, there is a lot of intelligent christians(but few are scientists) muslins, jews...
And some people don't accept evolution because some claims it goes against theyr beliefs. I know all that. The thing is what I wrote before...it is just denial based on faith. No evidence, no logic, nothing but irrational denial. And so? The evolution theory still there, after 150 years. The jewishagnostic wrote a lot of facts about it. But keep denying the facts if you feel better.
@LowresTV I'm sure you believe that 99.999% of scientists are pro-evolution, but you're reading that from atheistic sources. In fact, many, many scientists question evolution, and many reject it completely.
Science is about what can be tested in the present. Evolution cannot be tested. Certain unprovable assumptions MUST be made.
When the alternative---accountability to God---is seen, it's very easy to understand why people are atheists, even though the evidence doesn't support it one iota.
@LowresTV "True science" is science which can be verified, and has been verified. For example, true science states that a water molecule is H2O. I trust this because this can be tested, and has been tested.
However, evolution, the big bang, black holes, dark energy, etc., cannot be tested, and are no more than parts of a secular faith. Indeed, the evidence for/against these things is damning, or totally lacking. And even if they are true, Something, or Someone, is still needed to create them.
@terminat1 You are confused. The Big Bang can't be proved yet, but evolution is proved already. Get updated. The evolution Theory(and for theory read what it means in the scientific process) in 150 years no one could disprove it. Genetics (genoma project) showed that all life forms in this planet have a posible common ancestor. You may choose not to believe, but it won't change the facts.
@LowresTV And you're biased. For you, evolution MUST be true, because theism MUST be false. Evolution has copious holes in the theory. Why do you think there's so much disagreement amongst evolutionists? Why do you think that THOUSANDS of previous evolutionists have abandoned that faith? It's because the 'facts' of evolution don't point to evolution.
Natural selection and mutations CANNOT increase the genetic information of an organism. And that is required for evolution to be true.
@terminat1 you need to believe and use the arguments of other xtians that what we have is a "faith". Try to use your brain and understand once and fot all...the lack of belief/faith can not be a faith, it is contradictory. Your argument fails. Show me proves (real science, as you described. Personal experiences doesn't count, (self hipnosis exists) that there is a god, then I will accept it.
@LowresTV You have faith in your godless theories of how the world originated. You have faith that life came from non-life, even though this is contrary to science. You have faith in a lot of things.
Many philosophical and scientific arguments show that there must be a Designer/Creator of the universe. Does order ever come from randomness? No, order only comes from a concerted effort from willful beings. To think that DNA, life, humans, planets, and everything else defies this is ridiculous.
@terminat1 No, I don't have faith. Prove me otherwise and I will accept it.
I think those theories are more plausible than believe in magic and miracles. I am tired of repeat the same stuff. You theists don't want to understand the difference between faith and knowledge, and try to put both at the same level. I don't think science is all, or will answer all. But I don't need a special purpose to be here, I just accept life, and see nothing bad in ramdomness.
@LowresTV But the problem with talking to Hawkins is that he's severely biased...he doesn't want to believe in God, so naturally he's going to interpret the evidence subjectively.
I'd love to talk to Hawkins about gravity, physics, planets, etc., as long as theology is not mentioned or implied. Because obviously he's not going to look at the big bang with an open mind. For him, it MUST be true, because theism MUST be false.
@LowresTV After looking at the evidence objectively, one can easily conclude, sans bias, that there MUST be a Designer.
Think of it: Do you really believe that the human body alone, in all its complexity, with all of its interconnecting systems, could have come about by CHANCE? Really? It is beyond ridiculous to believe such a thing.
@terminat1 I see no reason to think that must be a designer. There are so many flaws in this"design" that IF it where the plan from another being, this being is far from perfect.
"Think of it: Do you really believe that the human body alone,"...
Yes I do. After Millions of years, not overnight. Well, you are in your right to think that is ridiculous. I think absurd to say that it is "too complex, hence, must be magic". Hey, you are in the faith business here. I am the rational one, remember?
@terminat1@terminat1 Even with flaws, is the best theory so far. a supenatural being is not in the equations. Scientist doesn't "invent" things. They say what is propable. God is not probable. There are some evidences. just like gravity. We can't see it, but, for some reason, matter atracts matter. Do you deny gravity?
Historians are divided. Some extremly religious may not doubt even tought there is not the amout of proofs thar shoul be. Don't generalize, you know thar is not true.
@terminat1 And in the bible, 5700 texte for the new testment, all copies, wich nobody knows who wrote, all of them contradictory. No, believing in the bible ins irrational. Beliving in god is pointless.
It's really not ridiculous to believe in a Creator...we witness the work of creators every day of our lives. My guess is that you're probably not all that against the idea of God, but you are opposed to the Christian God. I really doubt you oppose Taoists, or Buddhists, or Hindus, etc., on their youtube pages. It's because those religions are somewhat acceptable to atheists, but Christianity is most certainly not.
@terminat1 It is possible, there was a creator, but you have to agree it is very dumb. 99% that already exited(lifeforms) is now extinct. The universe is a caos. The solar system is a shooting gallery... we eat, breathe, and speak for the same hole...and the list goes on.
This is what we can see or prove. About the bible, it says, It create angels, they made a rebellion. It create men...big mistake. Oniscient? It likes to play? Your aguments are funny.
@LowresTV See, now you're starting to be honest. You realize that a Creator-less universe is absolutely ridiculous, so you are starting to concede a little.
Animals going extinct shows that the world is under the curse of God for sin. The universe is in 'chaos' and the solar system is a 'shooting gallery' for the same reason---the universe is under God's curse.
God created man but gave them free will. He didn't make them puppets or robots. Adam and Eve chose to sin, as did certain angels.
@terminat1 Yes, it is a possibility. But note I don't agree that is a personal one, even less the one in the bible, that almost share the same human weakness as the greek gods. Now is you turn to accept you can be wrong too, And the possibility that there is no creator power.(Let alone the one of the bible):
I am tired to reapeat the same: Free will between accept it or suffer eternally...is not free will. Is like a rapist with a gun. Chaos because he wants is? It is a dumb god.
@LowresTV Well, your main problem, of course, is the Christian God. This is the God which demands accountability and speaks of an eternal punishment for the lost. It has nothing to do with free will, though, since man ultimately has none. God is sovereign and elects people to salvation.
@terminat1 Just one more thing, because I am getting tired of this pointless discussion,
You say that "all points to a designer" because you are conditioned by your religion and have no idea about the latest findings in genetics and other fields. A "designer" wouldn't make us with so many "innative genes" that we share with othes species. Chicken have inative genes for teeth, whales for legs...it PROVES evolution. I know you will argue thar the devil put there in place..and I'll give up;-)
@LowresTV I never said animals go extinct because they sin. I said that the world is under the curse of God due to man's sin. This curse of God is what causes both man and animal to die physically.
@terminat1 This is an evangelical source. No scientific journal states that there are historical or archeological proofs of Jesus. Not even one outside de gospels.
@LowresTV Wikipedia on "Jesus" => [Although a few scholars have questioned the existence of Jesus as an actual historical figure,most scholars involved with historical Jesus research believe his existence, but not his miracles, can be established using documentary and other evidence.] Note: I DO NOT even want to go into the argument whether Jesus is God or not, but your claim that there is no historical proof for Jesus is false. Correct your facts on this if you're really an honest intellectual.
@walkingph The only thing we have abouy Jesus outside the gospels are about 5 vague mentions, probably from hearsay, that doesn't mention how he was, what he did...just things like "the leader of Christianity"(at this time, was already a sect). NO ARCHEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE, no tools, writings from him...nothing at all. There are the same "proof" from Jesus as other mitical guys. I personally believe that a Jesus lived (it is a common name) but nothing of the rest happened.
@LowresTV (1) Under YOUR very strict requirement, there are many currently historical figure whose existence can be doubted in this manner. And in this context, I am only talking about Jesus as a person, not as God. And most great historians agree he exist based on their commonly accepted research methodology that they used to also evaluate other figures. ( (2) Expand your 5 vague mentions which you contend came from hearsay (I cannot respond to your vague mention of this 5 vague mentions :) )
@LowresTV Those commands were specifically given to ancient Israel as part of that nation's theocracy. They were not intended for us today. Indeed, in Romans 13 God says to obey the law of the land in which you live, which would prevent a person from killing an unbeliever.
Slavery did exist in those days, and God is simply writing about it. It doesn't mean He condoned it.
Hundreds of prophetical statements are found in the Bible. It's hard to see, apart from God, how they could have come true.
@terminat1 But a perfect being could give us straigth info and rules to evolve as society straigh away...right?
Or even better...creat something that would work from beginning. "He/She/It create the heavens with angels..some made a rebellion, then Satan appeared...He/She/It created man...another fail. What kind of perfect being is that???
Why wait and see so many suffering? Is this god playing with his creatures???
@LowresTV Continue: Wikipedia on "Jesus" => (1) [A number of historical non-Christian documents, such as Jewish and Greco-Roman sources, have been used in historical analyses of the existence of Jesus. Most critical historians agree that Jesus existed and regard events such as his baptism and his crucifixion as historical.] (2) [Walter P. Weaver, among others, states that the denial of Jesus’ existence has never convinced any large number of people, in or out of technical circles]
@LowresTV Which source did you quote to back you claim that there are "No scientific journal states that there are historical or archeological proofs of Jesus." I'd say you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your facts. :)
We should have no qualm about scorning the self deluded, irrational, parasitic, cowardice religious. They deserve no respect, only ridicule, disdain, and contempt. Their ridicules beliefs are 1st century ignorance and fear at its worst. It is of the utmost importance for the health of civilization to eradicate the god virus and drag the indoctrinated feeble minded fools into the 21st century.
People have been arguing about this for thousands of years, both parties have relevant arguments regarding to what they believe, people have to take into account about other peoples dilemmas, a theist telling an atheist there is a god because lots of people believe it and there are a couple of books about it, but then an atheist says that the universe happened spontaneously and came from nothing. they both sound ludicrous which is why arguments like this cannot be debated, its personal belief.
@legion1a EVERY study done?? Really? Since you atheists are so obsessed with proof (but can't ever provide any yourselves) prove to me that every study done proves that atheists are more intelligent than theists. what a ludicrous statement to make.
How is being born into sin a stupid concept? Is it because you don't understand it? Or because you disagree with it? I don't get how it's a stupid concept. It works. But don't forget, you have sinned too, I've sinned, and that's what Jesus died for.
@legion1a I did. and there are plenty of studies which don't say that. You may be a really smart guy, and an atheist, and I can't argue with that. Just be careful what you say :)
@legion1a I did google, and I didn't just click on the first link, i looked into it properly. There are a few which say atheists are smarter, a few which say theists are smarter, and a few (more valid and unbiased) which say that there is no correlation. I can give you more detail if you wish. God bless.
I am a christian, and I think it IS a sin to lie to promote any views... in fact, it's a sin to lie
@legion1a No, I'm not 'freaking stupid.' For something to be scientifically true, it must be verifiable. Macroevolution has never been, nor can be, tested in the lab.
Theists and atheists have the same facts, but they are interpreted differently, based on worldview. One believes in things totally contrary to science---that life came from non-life, that something came from nothing, etc. Theists posit something which is not unreasonable, since we see creators all the time in our daily lives.
So, when it comes to origins, OF COURSE the atheists are going to push evolution. They have literally no choice, because the alternative is unacceptable.
Actually, the fossil record doesn't show evolution. Strata are missing, or are in the wrong place, animals appear on the scene immediately without any transitional forms, etc. It does fit nicely with a global Flood, but of course your worldview won't permit such a thing.
THOUSANDS of scientists no longer believe in the lie of evolution.
I'm curious as to how many people were 'polled' for the intelligence study. How many IQs were measured? Just because someone's a college graduate doesn't mean he has higher intelligence than someone who never went to school. Anyway, it's irrelevant---many 'intelligent' scientists once believed that the world was flat, and they were all wrong.
It's also irrelevant that they teach evolution in schools, for they probably once taught that the world was flat in schools, or other lies.
Insulting theists without giving any facts to support your position is just a default defense mechanism atheists use when they know they have no argument. Deep down, you know a Creator-less universe is ridiculous, but because it's unacceptable to you, character assassination is the next best option.
@terminat1 I don't see how a "creator" really solves anything as far as human interests go. A creator could have created human life without any meaning, purpose or permanent existence; it didn't have to create us for the psychological comfort of people like Dr. Craig.
@MrAdvancedAtheist You're correct in that a Creator could have created human life without any intended meaning, etc., for said humans. I know people who believe in God but don't believe in an afterlife, which essentially means they don't think there is true meaning in life, i.e., no final accountability for the way we live. Of course you don't believe the Bible, but it answers your question nicely: humans were made for God's purposes. We are important to Him, and it's not merely psychological.
@terminat1 I have to laugh at that. Do you believe that people become atheists because we've perversely chosen to have "meaningless" lives? Or does that indicate that your theory of "meaning" makes no sense to us?
@MrAdvancedAtheist I can't speak for anybody, but if you're an atheist, life is meaningless. What difference does it make how you live, if your actions ultimately are irrelevant? If the universe is destined to go extinct, along with the entire human race?
Besides, according to atheist dogma, we're just intelligent pond scum. Who assigns lasting meaning to the life of pond scum? Nobody. So no true atheist should consider life meaningful, if he thinks we're just cosmic accidents.
This guy's argument are just awesome.
9906197439 1 day ago
"God", or "Money", both refer to some intangible concepts that human use to conduct their daily and weekend business and have absolutely NO intrinsic value. Without human, money and God don't exist. Ever trying to explain God to a cat? Ever trying to give a dollar to an elephant? Or tossing a coin to a zebra? William Craig is an example of human stupidity of highest degree.
MrVuHNguyen 2 weeks ago
William Craig is a learned idiot. He possesses great academic power and knows how to sway people with his "philosophy". He serves some purposes to the easy mass believers out there but in reality he is a huge failure. He avoids science and afraid of the cold hard facts science tell us.
21st century belief is more spiritual instead of strait-jacket dogmatic tenets of past religions. Modern human are free thinkers instead of docile church-going believers. Wake up,peoples!
MrVuHNguyen 2 weeks ago
@MrVuHNguyen it's obvious from your comments you do not understand Dr. Craig's or any historical philosophical theistic apologetics, philosophies, or metaphysical arguments. When you assign values to "things" you are already leaving the world of "cold hard facts" and entering the world of "metaphysics". Show me a "value", not it's effects, but an actual "value". You'll find that "things" don't have values, including humans unless they are assigned from something greater than we are.
cq7us 2 weeks ago
@cq7us I don't think I assign values to things. Things, everything, including the universe, has no intrinsic or extrinsic value. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear when commenting. Value is always subjective and open to interpretation. A hungry cat sees a mouse as very valuable, and a religious cat even thanks God for its tasty meal. In physics, the value of g at earth's surface is 9.8m/s/s. Another, "mathematics is a valuable tool to physicists"
so the word "value" has different uses. Sorry!
MrVuHNguyen 2 weeks ago
One thing I've always noticed about Craig is that he avoids science like the plague. He always falls back on "philosophy". Of course, you can come up with any "philosophy" you want to justify your predetermined conclusions.
DandAinTac 3 weeks ago
@DandAinTac On the contrary! Craig does argue from science, as does many theistic apologists. For example, for any “thing” to exist such as a contingent causal cosmos, there must be, by definition, a sufficient first cause greater than the thing that exists.
cq7us 2 weeks ago
@cq7us That is not science. It is merely an assertion which may not hold true at the quantum level. Craig is not a scientist, and he does not appear to truly understand science.
DandAinTac 2 weeks ago
@DandAinTac The outcome or conclusions of any science are always subject to philosophical scrutiny. When Carl Sagan (A Physicist) used to say, “The universe came into “being” billions and billions of years ago” show’s he did not understand ontology or its philosophical implications. What Sagan was implying was that “being” came from “non-being”. This is an irrationally absurd statement. Propositional truths often include necessary and sufficient conditions that can't be physically observed.
cq7us 2 weeks ago
@cq7us Causality only applies WITHIN this universe. So you cannot apply it to the beginning of the universe itself, since causality did not exist before the universe itself existed. The truth is, we have no clue what came before (if one can even say there WAS a "before"). The universe, and existence/non-existence, are not obliged to conform to our religious doctrines and dogma.
DandAinTac 2 weeks ago
Aristotle, a pagan, came to the same conclusion that in a causal universe one must logically conclude there must be in the beginning an unmoved mover.
cq7us 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cq7us
"Aristotle, a pagan"
Well, Aristotle DID live before the advent of Christianity.
"came to the same conclusion that in a causal universe one must logically conclude there must be in the beginning an unmoved mover."
Aristotle was relying purely on his intuition, which caused him to miss the mark ever so often. Your whole comment is nothing but an appeal to authority.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 days ago
@DandAinTac I am not arguing "religious doctrines and dogma". I am arguing from science that accepts without question that the universe is contingent and causal, therefore it is out of logical necessity that there has to be a first cause. If, as you propose, the singularity just popped into existence from nothing, then you are arguing from absurdity. Out of nothing, nothing comes. Why don’t we see “things” just popping into existence all over the place today?
cq7us 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cq7us
"I am arguing from science that accepts without question that the universe is contingent and causal"
Only if you ignore the advances in quantum physics over the last century or so.
"you are arguing from absurdity. "
There you go again, poisoning the well.
"Why don’t we see “things” just popping into existence all over the place today?"
We do.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cq7us
"This is an irrationally absurd statement."
This is a very disingenuous tactic. To be precise, it's a variety of "poisoning the well". You label someone's statements as absurd, in the hope that the others will see the person making that statement as unreliable as a whole.
Sagan mentioned of the universe coming into being, since we simply have no comprehensive theory yet about the cause of the Big Bang, and we might even find that the universe did not have a cause after all.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 days ago
@DandAinTac Another example of science gone wild is quantum indeterminacy, I’ve often heard many physicists claim that because particles appear out of “nothing” as an argument against causality. I do not need to be a scientist to know that “nothing” has zero potentiality to create anything. Thus, scientists often let their bias of atheism shape their conclusions or they don’t fully understand the laws of logic and their implications.
cq7us 2 weeks ago
@cq7us Scrutinize with "philosophy" all you want--what you are really saying is that you want your particular philosophy to be exempt from scientific scrutiny. The good thing about science, is that it is self-scrutinizing. If science "goes wild", it is always yanked back down to reality through the application of the scientific method and peer review. Religion exempts itself from such a process (it's called blasphemy), so it went wild long ago, and has never had to face reality.
DandAinTac 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
cq7us 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DandAinTac On the contrary, science uses philosophy in all its conclusions. Philosophy encompasses epistemology, logic, metaphysics and even your worldview of skepticism. Science means “knowledge”; you can’t have knowledge without philosophy. Logic, for example, is the study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning. Science uses all these tools to draw conclusions on their scientific outcomes through deductive and inductive reasoning. These are all philosophies.
cq7us 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cq7us
"I do not need to be a scientist to know that “nothing” has zero potentiality to create anything. "
Based on what? Your gut feeling? Alas, intuition has a very lousy track record when it comes to trying to discover how reality works. Craig, for one, doesn't appear to grasp this at all and seems to think you can find out how the universe works simply by reasoning about it.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 days ago
No he is saying that if god doesn't manifest himself in reality in some form then he can't fucking exist.. In order to exist you must manifest in reality you dope.
Fuck this guy is a crook. Go hang out with Hitler you sick fuck
squallz13 3 weeks ago
Continued: Disproving God can be done in the same way you disprove a square circle's existence, or disprove the possibility of carbon life forms forming on the surface of the sun. We define what a circle is, define a square then realize that cannot exist as one entity. The brain (matter) is what produces complex intelligence, we only think about things because things exist, without nothing perceived,there is no starting point for intelligent thought. Intelligence before matter is a square circle
theBartone9119 1 month ago
Continued: Can someone come up with the idea to paint a picture if eyes, brains, paint, and brushes don't exist? Can you make a watch if time doesn't exist and neither do the materials and tools to make them? Would you build a car if location between 2 places didn't exist?The answer is no. You can't say God is all knowing to rebut, because an all knowing being could never have the idea pop into his head to create (he would already know everything) meaning no creation.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
Case against the claim that intelligence created matter.
If you were born without the ability to perceive the world (couldn't see, smell, feel, hear, taste ect) , you wouldn't have a starting point to draw up a thought, you know nothing because you can perceive nothing. Now flip that, imagine there is a being with infinite ability to perceive things, but there are no things (God existed before matter in theory), he would have no starting point to draw up an idea to create.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
he basically says you can't say how god would act, because god is incomprehensible, so anything you say can fit within the logical framework of god, because nothing can be excluded.
TL;DR you can't interpret god, but I can
iWantAGoodName 1 month ago
This gentleman clearly does not understand Evolution or what Evolutionary biologists actually claim...
demkomusic 1 month ago
he is just talking bulls**t...
Grokfyr 1 month ago
Do ANY of you understand what this hillbilly trying to say? He's babbling to earn a check. I DARE any of you to tell me he's making a coherant monologue.
bryanttillman 1 month ago
I think the below debate can be summed up in one verse: Psalm 14: 1 "The fool has said in his heart 'there is no God' ". There's no point debating a fool; they believe what they want to no matter what you say or how much evidence you provide them with, so the Christian is only wasting his/her time trying to reason with them. =)
AcAwSk8Vids 1 month ago
@AcAwSk8Vids That's funny, that's how us atheists feel when we try and understand why we should trust your bible, and you just keep quoting your bible to justify your bible.
beatonm198 1 month ago
I'm Christian and science proves God exists. The signs are everywhere. It's the heart thats deceiving. The same as if some one wont accept the fact that they are an alcoholic despite the evidence in their life. If anyone has any questions about the evidence just respond or message me. I was an atheist for 21 years but now a believer in God/Jesus.
TheBlackdragon936 2 months ago
@TheBlackdragon936 You need to understand: If God is so big we cannot understand his crazy ways, then you have no greater understanding of God than I do. There is no proof on earth of anything that suggests a conscious, omnipotent being is the creator of anything. There are things we don't know, but the answer is not "God did it"
beatonm198 1 month ago
@thejewishagnostic Tell, me where did you get those stats from?
Macroevolution has never been observed. Have scientists observed animals evolving into others? It has been proven that natural selection and mutations, etc., cannot possibly add information to an existing species. And that is necessary for macroevolution to be true.
And your other 'proofs' of evolution are simply not true, such as homology, embriology, natural selection, etc.
terminat1 2 months ago
"Something can't come from nothing" is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Quantum fluctuations prove something can come from nothing, and William Lane Craig is a moron.
theBartone9119 2 months ago
@theBartone9119 If you would actually research the subject then you'd realize that quantum fluctuations don't come from absolute nothing, but rather a 'sea' of energy.
Absolute nothing means absolute nothing, and there is no way quantum fluctuations, or anything else, can come from that. It is totally illogical to think otherwise.
terminat1 2 months ago
@terminat1 "It is totally illogical to think otherwise.'
No it's not. The things you think are logical are only logical in this universe, there is no such thing as nothing in this universe because even an empty room is filled with oxygen. You seem to forget that time, space, matter, the laws of physics, and rule of cause and effect all came into existence after the event. This mean this event didn't need to follow the rule of cause and effect, because it didn't even exist yet. That's logic.
theBartone9119 2 months ago
@theBartone9119 Where did the law of cause and effect come from? Just by blind chance? How does a random big bang have the mystical ability to create cosmic laws?
Either matter is eternal (contrary to science), or it came into existence, uncaused, by nothing. Nothing is nothing. We're not talking about an empty room here.
It's not surprising that most people in the world believe in some type of Creator. It's ridiculous to believe otherwise.
terminat1 2 months ago
@terminat1 Actually belief in a creator in moronic, the only creators have brains, unless god has a physical brain then you lose. Most people believe in a creator because a) they lack knowledge of science and b) they believe this creator will give them eternal life, which appeals to people because they are scared of death. Adults with imaginary friends are dumb, please wake up to reality.
theBartone9119 2 months ago
@nlytend1 that's right. And I think tha is amazing how people listen to Craig only because his arrogance. He was well trained in deabte, but it doesn't mean he tells the truth or even know what he is talking about. No one knows. He believes that is right, and intend to "sell" this to other people. He is only a preacher.
LowresTV 2 months ago
So to make a long story short, Dr. Craig seems to be saying no one knows, neither him nor the atheist. And yet, he contradicts himself when he makes claims about "god's" characteristics, one of which is god's limitless capabilities and eternalness. That assumption is based entirely on speculation or more properly, the imagination. Even though we can't disprove the tooth-fairy, the atheist position is the rational one. There may be emotional reasons for theism but none are based on evidence.
nlytend1 2 months ago
I don't think this guy quite gets atheism. Barely ANYONE asserts that "God" doesn't exist. There's just no proof that he DOES exist. BURDEN OF PROOF BURDEN OF PROOF BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE PRO SIDE
brockjarrett789 3 months ago
How do we predict God's expectations? For Pete's sake he wrote a whole damn book about himself and his followers, apparently.
lorthin123 3 months ago
@sandhya3855 I agree 110%.
LowresTV 4 months ago
How can you say that God hates homos and abortion then in the same breath say God did not support the Crusades or Inquisition because of loving thy neighbor?
wipenout84 4 months ago
LOL this video is funny-
how can we predicit with any confidence what God would do if he existed?
Yet that hasnt stopped christains from trying -- for instance apprently God hates gays and abortion. And God also would support the crusades and insqusiton etc..
badpanda84 5 months ago
@badpanda84 Yes, we know God hates homosexuality and abortion---and sinners---because we have the Bible, which is God's will.
God did not support the Crusades or Inquisition, though. The Bible teaches to love your enemy, not to kill them if they refuse to accept your teachings. Just because fallible men do something in the name of the Christian God doesn't mean that they are actually Christian.
terminat1 5 months ago
@terminat1 You are trying to predict what God would do if he existed. How can you know for sure God didnt support the crusade or inquisiton.
Which is my point.. people have certain expecation and ideas of God.. therefore God has to meet our expecations otherwise we simply wouldnt worship him.
badpanda84 5 months ago
@badpanda84 Because there's lots of internal evidence that the Bible is of divine origin. And if the Bible is truly from God, then we can trust what it says. The Bible says to love your enemy, and to love your neighbor. Therefore, we know that the Christian God would not support either the Inquisition or the Crusades.
You're speaking of a deistic god---of course we cannot know what such a god would do or want.
terminat1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@terminat1 "And if the Bible is truly from God, then we can trust what it says. "
And how do we know the bible is trly from God -- because it says so just like all every other holy book.
"The Bible says to love your enemy, and to love your neighbor."
Yes but you are cherrypicking.. it also says alot of other things as well
Matthew 10:34
"“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword"
badpanda84 4 months ago
@terminat1 'Because there's lots of internal evidence that the Bible is of divine origin"
LOL by internal you mean in the bible right?? so the bible is of divine orgin because it says so in the bible
badpanda84 4 months ago
@badpanda84 No, there's archaeological, historical, and prophetical evidence, not to mention a great consistency in the Bible for a Book that was penned over a span of more than 1500 years by several different scribes. This is much more than your idea that it's just because 'the Bible says so.'
terminat1 4 months ago
@terminat1 Historical evidence? Name 2.
LowresTV 4 months ago
@LowresTV Here's a good website for you to look at: creatingfutures net/evidence html
(Periods between the spaces.)
terminat1 4 months ago
@terminat1 a web anyone can make and fill with anything. Do you know any books that shows evidence of the life of Jesus? I was raised in a catholic family, and was very surprised to see that the only place where we can find something about Jesus, is the bible.
LowresTV 4 months ago
@terminat1 by the way, Josephus was a converted christian and wrote based on tales from christians. It does't seems to me a very reliable source...
LowresTV 4 months ago
@LowresTV Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Celsus, and Phlegan all wrote of Jesus, and Jesus is written about in the Talmud.
No reputable historian of our day doubts that Christ existed or that He was crucified. And archaeologists have uncovered ancient relics associated with certain kings of the Bible, kings of Israel and Judah, and have discovered ancient civilizations of the Bible.
The Bible was mocked for a long time because it spoke of the Hittites, but they have recently been discovered.
terminat1 4 months ago
No reputable historian doubts? With so few evidence, there are a lot of reputables historians thar doubt at least of the authenticity of some documents. De authors from the NT are unknown. No eyewithness wrote about jesus, as far as history knows. But go ahead. I know that faith is blind. I prefer my doubts, this doesn't interfere in my secular way of life. Peace.
LowresTV 4 months ago
@LowresTV I gave you a list of people who wrote about Jesus, but apparently you don't believe that. And keep in mind that you also have faith, no matter what your secular worldview says about the universe.
terminat1 4 months ago
@terminat1 You gave me 4 names, not " a list". All of them wrote something vague about the leader of Christianity. As the closest of the events was Josephus, (30 yeas after his death) we can deduce it was from hearsay. No eyewitness. That is the weird thing in my opinion...someone that allegedly made such wonders...and not even a line from the historians that lived at the time he supposedly lived...NOTHING!
And I don't need faith in science. I can check it. And it can chenge. (cont)
LowresTV 4 months ago
@terminat1 About science.. you are wrong again. I don't need faith. No one needs. We can check it, and in the case of big bang theory, I can take the word of other scientists. I can try to understand, in wich I can be sucessful or not. But it doesn't matter, as right ot wrong, It(science) doesn't try to dictate the way I live, nor threatens me if I don't accept it. I prefer the doubt than attribute what is not yet known, as a magical father in the sky. But again...your faith is not my business.
LowresTV 4 months ago
@LowresTV Well, the problem is that there are numerous flaws in the big bang theory. Even some secular scientists admit this. To counter these problems, scientists have to invent things such as dark matter, etc., in order to explain why the universe is the way it is.
However, that is simply their faith, because there is zero proof whatever for dark matter, or other things they are positing.
Historians of today don't doubt the life of Christ. Only those totally opposed to Christianity do so.
terminat1 4 months ago
Comment removed
LowresTV 4 months ago
@LowresTV No, it's not the better theory. I don't deny gravity because scientists can DO experiments on it and prove that it exists.
Scientists cannot do tests on the big bang, or evolution, or things of that nature. You have to accept them by FAITH. And that is what atheism is---a secular faith.
God is not probable only because you have a naturalistic worldview. However, if you look at all of the facts objectively, one has to conclude that God is the best explanation for why anything exists.
terminat1 4 months ago
@terminat1 If YOU WANT to think we have faith in science just in order to feel better, go ahead. The lack of beiieve is nothing, not even a philosophy. You are the guys that needs believe. I need to KNOW.
Believe in a god must be normal for you, for me is absurd. As it was to explain the thunder as a manifestation of a god.
Thor bless you and goodbye!
LowresTV 4 months ago
@LowresTV
But you believe many things also, and not know them. You believe that the universe came from nothing, or has always existed. You believe that life came from non-life. You believe that microbes evolved into man. All of these things have been contradicted by true science, and yet your secular faith won't permit you to reject them.Believing in God is only absurd for those who find accountability to God unacceptable. Accidents never form anything, most especially a complex universe.
terminat1 4 months ago
@terminat You are a tipical religious. You don't even know me, and are already judging me.
Who told you I BELIEVE in such things? As anyone that likes to think, I read about it and it SEEMS to be, till now the best theory. Life can come from non organical counpounds. It is a possibility far better than a macical being.
"All of these things have been contradicted by true science"... please, post any links to evidence(no evangelical sources, please).
LowresTV 4 months ago
@LowresTV Well, if you're an atheist, either you believe in an eternal universe, or you believe it sprang from nothing...what other choice is there?
Life cannot come from dead chemicals. That's been confirmed over and over by observational science. The Law of Biogenesis (which came only after numerous experiments were done) says that life only comes from life.
All speculations about the origin of life have failed. Even Dawkins admits that life is way too complex to have arisen by chance!
terminat1 4 months ago
@terminat1 Why do you assume that if we don't know, automatically we HAVE TO BELIEVE? I just don't know. Saying this is more honest and rational than saying something so uncertain and imposible even to make an theory than "god did".
LowresTV 4 months ago
@terminat1 And abiogenesis showed that non organic compounds can form organic ones. This is evidence. For god/gods there are only belief.
LowresTV 4 months ago
@LowresTV That's total bologna. Scientists have confirmed repeatedly that life to much too complex to have arisen by chance from dead chemicals. Abiogenesis was disproven years ago. Biogenesis, which states that life only comes from preexisting life, is true science. Of course, despite being confirmed by countless experiments, the Law of Biogenesis is still not completely trusted, because of its obvious connection to theism.
terminat1 3 months ago
@terminat1 No, I don't think evolution "must" be true. It IS TRUE. Millions of fossils, proves it. Genetics proves it.
I don't have to believe. "So much disagreement among evolutionists"??? About some processes maybe, but not the about the core of the question. THOUSANDS of previous evolutionists abandones this faith"...you are funnt:-))) Name 3. Ok. In your "strange world" there is a conspiracy against faith...
you're wrong. Abiogenese theory is still valid. No one desprove it.
LowresTV 3 months ago
@LowresTV Abiogenesis is still valid? Really? You truly believe that non-living matter can become alive?
Thousands of scientific experiments have confirmed the Law of Biogenesis. I'm sorry, but that's the truth of the matter.
And it's not plausible at all to believe that the human body, or even the simplest cell, could be the product of blind chance. They are far too complex for that. Do you believe a coherent novel could be written by randomly selecting Scrabble tiles? Why not?
terminat1 3 months ago
@LowresTV The fossil record doesn't prove evolution. In fact, there are some fossils in the wrong places, and some strata missing. Many animals appear the same at their supposed entrance into the fossil record as they do today, despite having supposedly evolved for millions of years.
Genetics actually shows that natural selection and mutations cannot create new organisms. To create a new organism you need new INFORMATION. How does evolution create new information? Only an intelligence can.
terminat1 3 months ago
@terminat1 Name wich fossils are "in the wrong place".
Tell me you have your faith, based in whatever inner felling, I will accept it, is your right. But don't come here and say there is evidence that jesus ever existed, or "abiogenesis" is proved wrong. Everything in this field is open.
This "ingelligence" you mention is not that intelligent, if 99% of everything that ever lived is now extinct. And many other points that proves this creation is all but perfect.
LowresTV 3 months ago
@terminat1 and the fossils in the "wrong place"? When we affirm something, we must base it with some evidence...
LowresTV 2 months ago
@LowresTV Unfortunately, any evidence I give will be dismissed by you because you'll claim I simply lifted it from a Christian website.
Fact is, the fossil record supports Noah's Flood, and not a millions-year-old fossil record. But of course, the atheist is unwilling to look at the evidence objectively.
I will email you a link which shows the copious problems with the fossil record, but it's pointless to read it if you don't do so with an open mind.
terminat1 2 months ago
Sorry, I won't read it. I saw tons of sites like this looking for something against Evolution, something reasonable and scientific wit a good argument. Did not found a line.Zippo. None.
I do not claim. You send only Christian sites. Not even one from a University, or a scientist.
Say you don't accept evolution, that you fully believe your god and all this stuff. But don't say evolution is not true, because it is the same that say gravity is not true.
LowresTV 2 months ago
@terminat1 2-. Evolution is proved everyday. There is no "debate" among scientists about the subject, and even the one(scientist) that worked in the genoma project(forgot the name) believes in god...but can't deny evolution.
LowresTV 2 months ago
@LowresTV Evolution is not proved every day. True science is about things we can observe and measure in REAL TIME. Can we observe macroevolution? Can we measure such a thing?
In fact, evolutionist scientists depend on many unproveable assumptions when dealing with the origin of life, origin of DNA, etc. Evolution is really nothing more than a philosophy.
There are plenty of scientists who deny evolution. You didn't read the quotes from the website I supplied but the proof is there.
terminat1 2 months ago
@terminat1 Yes it is. Evolution is proved, and no one with reasonable education denies it.But if you want a terrestrial mammal turn into an aquatic one overnight, it proves you understand nothing about evolution. Funny is, you want to see this, HAPPENING THIS WAY, but accept any crap written 2000 years ago about someone from wich there is no evidence. It is funny.
LowresTV 2 months ago
@LowresTV Evolution is proved true only in the minds of those who reject Christianity at any cost.
How can evolution be proven, when by definition, it CANNOT be observed or tested in REAL TIME?
I gave you the website which listed many quotes of notable scientists who trashed the theory of evolution, saying it was useless, but you ignore these. And it is useless. It is just a secular origins philosophy which cannot be proven.
terminat1 2 months ago
@terminat1 Why do you think rational people rejects only " Christinianity"? Your religion is ONE among many, that anyone that have a bit of brain and are not affraid of using it denies.
LowresTV 2 months ago
@terminat1 No one can observe your God either, but that doesn't stop you from denying that he too is false. You're just picking what to have faith in. The problem is that A) evolution has been witnessed in certain lifeforms like bacteria, virus's, etc, and evolution still fits the bill as the best theory for how we exist today, despite 150 years of contest from people such as yourself. God, however, just keeps getting smaller and smaller as we learn more about the world around us.
beatonm198 1 month ago
@beatonm198 Well, first of all, viruses aren't considered alive. Secondly, bacteria haven't been observed becoming any else. Bacteria always remain bacteria, ants always remain ants, and moths always remain moths, etc.
There are copious problems with evolutionism. Unlike true sciences, which increase knowledge over time, evolution simply is revised every few years. That's because it's speculation.
It was proven that information CANNOT be added via mutations or natural selection.
terminat1 1 month ago
@terminat1 Umm, wrong. Bacteria mutate, and change, in what you would refer to as micro-evolution, such as when bacteria become immune to penicillin. Over time, accumulation of those genetic mutations that aid survival interacting with differences in the environment cause much more noticeable amounts of change. This is evidenced by our shared dna with currently living species because highly correlated with material from our common ancestors. Continued.
beatonm198 1 month ago
@beatonm198 Mutations can occur, but they CANNOT create new species. A dog cannot mutate into a gorilla. A moth doesn't mutate into a grasshopper.
Microevolution doesn't prove macroevolution, or imply it, or anything else. And the fact is, new information cannot be added by mutations or natural selection. Period. This is a scientific fact which is only rejected by you because of your naturalistic bias.
terminat1 1 month ago
@terminat1 The assumption that the universe needed a creator is not even logical. First off, there is no way of knowing that it needed to be created, we take creation as a given because everything we interact with is a creation, especially what we perceive to be complex, such as a watch or skyscraper. This does not necessarily mean the universe was created in any similar fashion. Lastly, even if a conscious creator made everything, I doubt he was your God. That guy makes no sense.
beatonm198 1 month ago
@beatonm198 Everything that begins to exist has a cause. That is a scientific truth, and there is no exception. The universe has been shown to have a beginning. So, it must have had some kind of cause.
Do you really, really, believe that's it logical that a random big bang would form a viable universe with fully-formed lifeforms (no patched-together jobs which should result from blind evolution)?
Order always requires intelligence.
terminat1 1 month ago
@beatonm198 Your last lines show that your main problem is not a Creator, per se, but the Christian God. I've spoken to many atheists in my life and some of them have admitted or implied that they'd consider or possibly accept deism. That is, they realize that there must be some kind of God (everyone does), but Christianity, and its accountability to a Supreme Being, is unacceptable. That's why Christianity is the main focus for the attacks of militant atheists.
terminat1 1 month ago
Oh and lastly, Evolution has one of the most satisfied, unifying theories of any scientific discipline ever, maybe the most, considering physics may have just been turned on its head again. It is not just a theory. It is the absolute best explanation for what has taken place with life, given a range of data collected by thousands of different scientists over 150 years and still has not received a single bit of criticism that has undermined it. Forget about creationism, it ain't real.
beatonm198 1 month ago
@beatonm198 It's only 'most satisfying' and 'unifying' because you've been brainwashed (sorry) into believing the scientists' conclusions. Frankly, do you realize just how many unprovable assumptions must be made by evolutionist scientists?
Evolution has received much criticism. First of all, it's constantly being revised. Magnetism and physics are still the same as what they were in 1955. Evolution has changed multiple times since 1955 (established 'truth' has been revised).
terminat1 1 month ago
@terminat1 and you havent been brainwashed? were you brought up by religious parents? if you were alone on a desert island with no prior information regarding religion would you suddenly believe in god? there is no difinitive proof of gods existence and there is no way as yet to prove it so how does anyone know of his existence at all? because someone said there is? by that reasoning i could make up a god on the spot and who is anyone to say otherwise? it is ridiculous to believe in it.
nightmarekid1986 1 month ago
@nightmarekid1986 I went to Catholic Mass (no longer Catholic) when I was younger, but I no longer attend church. My parents were not super-religious people, but they did believe in God.
I wouldn't 'suddenly' believe in God if I were on a desert island. I would always have that inner understanding that there must be a God. Romans 1 teaches this clearly: man is without excuse (for willful unbelief) because the creation itself testifies to the existence of God...
terminat1 1 month ago
@nightmarekid1986 Psalm 19 also teaches that God's handiwork is seen in the creation. Those who deny God are just in denial.
If you mean 'definitive' proof as being scientific, then I agree. God can't be found out that way. However, there're many philosophical arguments that have been offered that show that there surely is a God. Not only that, but do you really believe a mindless, accidental big bang could form a viable cosmos? That is what is ridiculous, and not creationism.
terminat1 1 month ago
@terminat1 i will admit that there is a possibility of a higher intelligence presence in the universe we cant detect ownly because there is still so much science has yet to discover. what i will not believe in is that it would lower itself to create such a thing as christianity or any religion in order to decide who goes where when we die. religion is wrong for human growth as countless wars have been fought over who's dominates anothers. its backwards.
nightmarekid1986 1 month ago
@nightmarekid1986 That is your right, of course, but keep in mind that the true message of Christianity is not to destroy others. The Bible commands that we are to love our enemies, love our neighbors, etc. We are not to start wars in attempts to
'convert' others.
Actually, God teaches in the Bible that it is He Who saves, and not man. He chooses those whom He will save (Romans 9:15). So, man's efforts to coerce others into following their version of God are really futile.
terminat1 1 month ago
@nightmarekid1986 this is real simple. EACH PERSON DECIDES WHERE THEY SPEND ETERNITY. NOT RELIGION OR GOD!!!!! God gives man free will. Its so stupid to even entertain the idea that God or religion decide mans fate.
tnmusicman1 3 weeks ago
@tnmusicman1 theres no such thing as free will. there is only the biological imperative and the power of persumption.
nightmarekid1986 3 weeks ago
@beatonm198 If evolution is real, then you must wonder why literally thousands of scientists reject it. Why much real data is against evolution (exs: mutations and natural selection have been shown to not be able to add information, and the fossil record is more consistent with a worldwide flood, and not millions of years of animal death, etc.)
Creationism isn't real to you only because you have a naturalistic bias, and you aren't willing to look at the truth of the matter.
terminat1 1 month ago
@beatonm198 If you cannot add new information, then how does a species become a new one? Where does it get the new DNA?
In our everyday experience, creators are witnessed all of the time. Why is this so difficult to believe for the universe itself? It's because a sovereign Creator implies accountability to that God, and that is totally unacceptable to many.
terminat1 1 month ago
@LowresTV Also, look at the facts. I guarantee you will find many people with a 'reasonable education' questioning or outright denying evolution. The problem is that Biblical Creationism, which of course leads to man's accountability before a perfect God, is unacceptable.
Evolution MUST be true, because that eliminates our accountability before God if we're just advanced slime.
terminat1 2 months ago
@terminat1 Yes, there is a lot of intelligent christians(but few are scientists) muslins, jews...
And some people don't accept evolution because some claims it goes against theyr beliefs. I know all that. The thing is what I wrote before...it is just denial based on faith. No evidence, no logic, nothing but irrational denial. And so? The evolution theory still there, after 150 years. The jewishagnostic wrote a lot of facts about it. But keep denying the facts if you feel better.
LowresTV 2 months ago
@LowresTV I'm sure you believe that 99.999% of scientists are pro-evolution, but you're reading that from atheistic sources. In fact, many, many scientists question evolution, and many reject it completely.
Science is about what can be tested in the present. Evolution cannot be tested. Certain unprovable assumptions MUST be made.
When the alternative---accountability to God---is seen, it's very easy to understand why people are atheists, even though the evidence doesn't support it one iota.
terminat1 3 months ago
@terminat1 And waht is "true science" for you? The one like the creationist museum? The ones that makes your faith look like something plausible?
LowresTV 4 months ago
@LowresTV "True science" is science which can be verified, and has been verified. For example, true science states that a water molecule is H2O. I trust this because this can be tested, and has been tested.
However, evolution, the big bang, black holes, dark energy, etc., cannot be tested, and are no more than parts of a secular faith. Indeed, the evidence for/against these things is damning, or totally lacking. And even if they are true, Something, or Someone, is still needed to create them.
terminat1 4 months ago
@terminat1 You are confused. The Big Bang can't be proved yet, but evolution is proved already. Get updated. The evolution Theory(and for theory read what it means in the scientific process) in 150 years no one could disprove it. Genetics (genoma project) showed that all life forms in this planet have a posible common ancestor. You may choose not to believe, but it won't change the facts.
LowresTV 4 months ago
@LowresTV And you're biased. For you, evolution MUST be true, because theism MUST be false. Evolution has copious holes in the theory. Why do you think there's so much disagreement amongst evolutionists? Why do you think that THOUSANDS of previous evolutionists have abandoned that faith? It's because the 'facts' of evolution don't point to evolution.
Natural selection and mutations CANNOT increase the genetic information of an organism. And that is required for evolution to be true.
terminat1 3 months ago
@terminat1 No, I am not. I told you, prove me, and I will accept. I just can't believe without proof.
So, you think that there is a sort of conspiracy against faith? But...it so logic to believe in god that you don't have to worry about it.
I said already and will say it again...deny something won't make it disapear. The scientific facts are there.
LowresTV 3 months ago
Comment removed
LowresTV 3 months ago
@terminat1 you need to believe and use the arguments of other xtians that what we have is a "faith". Try to use your brain and understand once and fot all...the lack of belief/faith can not be a faith, it is contradictory. Your argument fails. Show me proves (real science, as you described. Personal experiences doesn't count, (self hipnosis exists) that there is a god, then I will accept it.
LowresTV 4 months ago
@LowresTV You have faith in your godless theories of how the world originated. You have faith that life came from non-life, even though this is contrary to science. You have faith in a lot of things.
Many philosophical and scientific arguments show that there must be a Designer/Creator of the universe. Does order ever come from randomness? No, order only comes from a concerted effort from willful beings. To think that DNA, life, humans, planets, and everything else defies this is ridiculous.
terminat1 3 months ago
@terminat1 No, I don't have faith. Prove me otherwise and I will accept it.
I think those theories are more plausible than believe in magic and miracles. I am tired of repeat the same stuff. You theists don't want to understand the difference between faith and knowledge, and try to put both at the same level. I don't think science is all, or will answer all. But I don't need a special purpose to be here, I just accept life, and see nothing bad in ramdomness.
LowresTV 3 months ago
@terminat1 That's it? You say there are flaws and there is not the best theory we have and provide no info or alternative? Go talk to Hawkins
LowresTV 4 months ago
@LowresTV But the problem with talking to Hawkins is that he's severely biased...he doesn't want to believe in God, so naturally he's going to interpret the evidence subjectively.
I'd love to talk to Hawkins about gravity, physics, planets, etc., as long as theology is not mentioned or implied. Because obviously he's not going to look at the big bang with an open mind. For him, it MUST be true, because theism MUST be false.
terminat1 4 months ago
@terminat1 "But the problem with talking to Hawkins is that he's severely biased." lol...and you are not???? You're funny.
He is looking for evidence. People like him don't give a s***t about theology. He is a scientist.
OPEN YOUR MIND, or go to your church and only have religious friends. But I am affraid even among them, you are not going to find consensus
You believe in the bible and all this. It is ok for me. I do not.
LowresTV 4 months ago
@LowresTV After looking at the evidence objectively, one can easily conclude, sans bias, that there MUST be a Designer.
Think of it: Do you really believe that the human body alone, in all its complexity, with all of its interconnecting systems, could have come about by CHANCE? Really? It is beyond ridiculous to believe such a thing.
terminat1 4 months ago
@terminat1 I see no reason to think that must be a designer. There are so many flaws in this"design" that IF it where the plan from another being, this being is far from perfect.
"Think of it: Do you really believe that the human body alone,"...
Yes I do. After Millions of years, not overnight. Well, you are in your right to think that is ridiculous. I think absurd to say that it is "too complex, hence, must be magic". Hey, you are in the faith business here. I am the rational one, remember?
LowresTV 3 months ago
@terminat1 @terminat1 Even with flaws, is the best theory so far. a supenatural being is not in the equations. Scientist doesn't "invent" things. They say what is propable. God is not probable. There are some evidences. just like gravity. We can't see it, but, for some reason, matter atracts matter. Do you deny gravity?
Historians are divided. Some extremly religious may not doubt even tought there is not the amout of proofs thar shoul be. Don't generalize, you know thar is not true.
LowresTV 4 months ago
@terminat1 And in the bible, 5700 texte for the new testment, all copies, wich nobody knows who wrote, all of them contradictory. No, believing in the bible ins irrational. Beliving in god is pointless.
LowresTV 3 months ago
It's really not ridiculous to believe in a Creator...we witness the work of creators every day of our lives. My guess is that you're probably not all that against the idea of God, but you are opposed to the Christian God. I really doubt you oppose Taoists, or Buddhists, or Hindus, etc., on their youtube pages. It's because those religions are somewhat acceptable to atheists, but Christianity is most certainly not.
terminat1 4 months ago
@terminat1 It is possible, there was a creator, but you have to agree it is very dumb. 99% that already exited(lifeforms) is now extinct. The universe is a caos. The solar system is a shooting gallery... we eat, breathe, and speak for the same hole...and the list goes on.
This is what we can see or prove. About the bible, it says, It create angels, they made a rebellion. It create men...big mistake. Oniscient? It likes to play? Your aguments are funny.
LowresTV 2 months ago
@LowresTV See, now you're starting to be honest. You realize that a Creator-less universe is absolutely ridiculous, so you are starting to concede a little.
Animals going extinct shows that the world is under the curse of God for sin. The universe is in 'chaos' and the solar system is a 'shooting gallery' for the same reason---the universe is under God's curse.
God created man but gave them free will. He didn't make them puppets or robots. Adam and Eve chose to sin, as did certain angels.
terminat1 2 months ago
@terminat1 Yes, it is a possibility. But note I don't agree that is a personal one, even less the one in the bible, that almost share the same human weakness as the greek gods. Now is you turn to accept you can be wrong too, And the possibility that there is no creator power.(Let alone the one of the bible):
I am tired to reapeat the same: Free will between accept it or suffer eternally...is not free will. Is like a rapist with a gun. Chaos because he wants is? It is a dumb god.
LowresTV 2 months ago
@LowresTV Well, your main problem, of course, is the Christian God. This is the God which demands accountability and speaks of an eternal punishment for the lost. It has nothing to do with free will, though, since man ultimately has none. God is sovereign and elects people to salvation.
terminat1 2 months ago
@terminat1 Just one more thing, because I am getting tired of this pointless discussion,
You say that "all points to a designer" because you are conditioned by your religion and have no idea about the latest findings in genetics and other fields. A "designer" wouldn't make us with so many "innative genes" that we share with othes species. Chicken have inative genes for teeth, whales for legs...it PROVES evolution. I know you will argue thar the devil put there in place..and I'll give up;-)
LowresTV 2 months ago
@LowresTV I've never heard that chicken have inactive genes for teeth, and whales have inactive genes for legs. What latest finding proves this?
terminat1 2 months ago
@terminat1 See what I mean? You just deny. Don't read about science, but don't want to accept it.
LowresTV 2 months ago
@terminat1 wait...I didn't read this one...animals were extintc...because they commit sin????
I GIVE UP!
LowresTV 2 months ago
@LowresTV I never said animals go extinct because they sin. I said that the world is under the curse of God due to man's sin. This curse of God is what causes both man and animal to die physically.
terminat1 2 months ago
@terminat1 This is an evangelical source. No scientific journal states that there are historical or archeological proofs of Jesus. Not even one outside de gospels.
LowresTV 3 months ago
@LowresTV Wikipedia on "Jesus" => [Although a few scholars have questioned the existence of Jesus as an actual historical figure,most scholars involved with historical Jesus research believe his existence, but not his miracles, can be established using documentary and other evidence.] Note: I DO NOT even want to go into the argument whether Jesus is God or not, but your claim that there is no historical proof for Jesus is false. Correct your facts on this if you're really an honest intellectual.
walkingphilosopher 2 months ago
@walkingph The only thing we have abouy Jesus outside the gospels are about 5 vague mentions, probably from hearsay, that doesn't mention how he was, what he did...just things like "the leader of Christianity"(at this time, was already a sect). NO ARCHEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE, no tools, writings from him...nothing at all. There are the same "proof" from Jesus as other mitical guys. I personally believe that a Jesus lived (it is a common name) but nothing of the rest happened.
LowresTV 2 months ago
@LowresTV (1) Under YOUR very strict requirement, there are many currently historical figure whose existence can be doubted in this manner. And in this context, I am only talking about Jesus as a person, not as God. And most great historians agree he exist based on their commonly accepted research methodology that they used to also evaluate other figures. ( (2) Expand your 5 vague mentions which you contend came from hearsay (I cannot respond to your vague mention of this 5 vague mentions :) )
walkingphilosopher 2 months ago
@walkingphilosopher I am posting what I found about Jesus(fisical/historical). As I said, not much. There are more sourcer for Apolonio from Tiana.
I don't expect you to answer me in any way. Historians couldn't.
LowresTV 2 months ago
@terminat1 the bible also says to kill the non-believer, how to treat slaves,...
Threre are absolute NO proof that the bible is from "divine origin" whatever this may mean.
It is a matter of faith. But don't come here with "logic" or "proof" as argument.
LowresTV 4 months ago
@LowresTV Those commands were specifically given to ancient Israel as part of that nation's theocracy. They were not intended for us today. Indeed, in Romans 13 God says to obey the law of the land in which you live, which would prevent a person from killing an unbeliever.
Slavery did exist in those days, and God is simply writing about it. It doesn't mean He condoned it.
Hundreds of prophetical statements are found in the Bible. It's hard to see, apart from God, how they could have come true.
terminat1 4 months ago
@terminat1 But a perfect being could give us straigth info and rules to evolve as society straigh away...right?
Or even better...creat something that would work from beginning. "He/She/It create the heavens with angels..some made a rebellion, then Satan appeared...He/She/It created man...another fail. What kind of perfect being is that???
Why wait and see so many suffering? Is this god playing with his creatures???
No, it doesn't exist.
LowresTV 3 months ago
@LowresTV Continue: Wikipedia on "Jesus" => (1) [A number of historical non-Christian documents, such as Jewish and Greco-Roman sources, have been used in historical analyses of the existence of Jesus. Most critical historians agree that Jesus existed and regard events such as his baptism and his crucifixion as historical.] (2) [Walter P. Weaver, among others, states that the denial of Jesus’ existence has never convinced any large number of people, in or out of technical circles]
walkingphilosopher 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LowresTV Which source did you quote to back you claim that there are "No scientific journal states that there are historical or archeological proofs of Jesus." I'd say you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your facts. :)
walkingphilosopher 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If god dosen't meet our expectations then its time to find a new God.
IF GOD GIVES YOU LEMONS THEN YOU FIND A NEW GOD!!! - Powerthrist 2 commerical
badpanda84 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We should have no qualm about scorning the self deluded, irrational, parasitic, cowardice religious. They deserve no respect, only ridicule, disdain, and contempt. Their ridicules beliefs are 1st century ignorance and fear at its worst. It is of the utmost importance for the health of civilization to eradicate the god virus and drag the indoctrinated feeble minded fools into the 21st century.
scotttebben 5 months ago
People have been arguing about this for thousands of years, both parties have relevant arguments regarding to what they believe, people have to take into account about other peoples dilemmas, a theist telling an atheist there is a god because lots of people believe it and there are a couple of books about it, but then an atheist says that the universe happened spontaneously and came from nothing. they both sound ludicrous which is why arguments like this cannot be debated, its personal belief.
bobishere111 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
TRUE goodness is trying to help people even with the fact that none of it will matter when you're dead. - An Atheist
redrum41987 6 months ago
@GeeHadForDummies
I had decided to stop responding to you because I had realized that you are just a mindless brainwashed theist drone.
The claims of intelligent design are meaningless theist babble.
It is obvious that things are complex, using magic to explain reality is grasping at straws.
Science can't explain everything, yet.
The only reason I am responding now is because you said B. Rich is one of the best.
There is hope that you do have living brain cells, maybe you can wake up to reality
legion1a 6 months ago
this guy is a dummie
treysharkk 6 months ago
@GeeHadForDummies
Well IF you are a member of Mensa, you are among only 3.3% of members that believe in a personal God.
Children of religious parents have IQ’s 7 to 10 points lower than average.
Theists get laid more?
Really?
So much for “thou shall not commit adultery”.
Not too much value to religious training!
Thank you for proving that religious people do not think it is a sin to lie to promote their delusion!
Mensa has lowered than standards if a jackass like you is a member.
legion1a 6 months ago
atheism is based on science and logic outright
theism is based on old books
mcwolds 6 months ago
religion poisons humans' minds. the sooner we get rid of it the better.
marcohorowitz8 6 months ago
@GeeHadForDummies
You are another brainwashed delusional fool.
You insult Atheists, but EVERY study done proves that Atheists are more intelligent than Theists.
Evolution is a proven FACT!
Which means there was No Adam and Eve, or Original Sin!
Man evolved, we are not "Born into Sin", what a stupid concept!
Jesus allegedly died because we are Born into Sin, and not for the sin of you masturbating last night; you were not born when he was crucified.
What kind of God needs a sacrifice?
legion1a 6 months ago 2
@legion1a EVERY study done?? Really? Since you atheists are so obsessed with proof (but can't ever provide any yourselves) prove to me that every study done proves that atheists are more intelligent than theists. what a ludicrous statement to make.
How is being born into sin a stupid concept? Is it because you don't understand it? Or because you disagree with it? I don't get how it's a stupid concept. It works. But don't forget, you have sinned too, I've sinned, and that's what Jesus died for.
fatrob1711 6 months ago
@fatrob1711
Yes, every study done proves that Atheists are more intelligent than theists.
If you had the brain power to use Google, you could find that out for yourself, it is FACT.
Thank you for proving to me that the studies are correct!
Not all theists are dummiies, but most dummies are theists.
Thanks again!
legion1a 6 months ago
@legion1a I did. and there are plenty of studies which don't say that. You may be a really smart guy, and an atheist, and I can't argue with that. Just be careful what you say :)
fatrob1711 6 months ago
@fatrob1711
If you did Google human intelligence, you found that theists are less intelligent than Atheists.
The only studies that say different are done by Christians.
But you also have to know that Christians don't think it is a sin to lie to promote their delusions.
legion1a 6 months ago
@legion1a I did google, and I didn't just click on the first link, i looked into it properly. There are a few which say atheists are smarter, a few which say theists are smarter, and a few (more valid and unbiased) which say that there is no correlation. I can give you more detail if you wish. God bless.
I am a christian, and I think it IS a sin to lie to promote any views... in fact, it's a sin to lie
fatrob1711 6 months ago
@legion1a I must have missed the study which 'proves' that atheists are smarter than theists. Another lie by the atheist community.
Another lie: Evolution is a proven Fact! No, it's not. How can you prove something which is unrepeatable, and was a one-time event?
Scientists' analysis of their findings is far from objective; it's based on their worldview, a worldview which necessarily doesn't include God.
Man did not evolve. There's zero proof of that in the fossil record or elsewhere.
terminat1 6 months ago
@terminat1
Since you missed the study that proves Atheists are smarter than theists, Google “Intelligence studies” and find out what you missed.
The only web sites that don’t say Atheists are smarter are the Christian web sites.
Keep in mind Christians don’t think it is a sin to lie when promoting their delusions.
Evolution is a lie? Are you really that freaking stupid?
Are you aware they teach evolution in schools?
Human evolution has many transitional fossils as proof!
You are delusional.
legion1a 6 months ago
@legion1a No, I'm not 'freaking stupid.' For something to be scientifically true, it must be verifiable. Macroevolution has never been, nor can be, tested in the lab.
Theists and atheists have the same facts, but they are interpreted differently, based on worldview. One believes in things totally contrary to science---that life came from non-life, that something came from nothing, etc. Theists posit something which is not unreasonable, since we see creators all the time in our daily lives.
terminat1 5 months ago
So, when it comes to origins, OF COURSE the atheists are going to push evolution. They have literally no choice, because the alternative is unacceptable.
Actually, the fossil record doesn't show evolution. Strata are missing, or are in the wrong place, animals appear on the scene immediately without any transitional forms, etc. It does fit nicely with a global Flood, but of course your worldview won't permit such a thing.
THOUSANDS of scientists no longer believe in the lie of evolution.
terminat1 5 months ago
I'm curious as to how many people were 'polled' for the intelligence study. How many IQs were measured? Just because someone's a college graduate doesn't mean he has higher intelligence than someone who never went to school. Anyway, it's irrelevant---many 'intelligent' scientists once believed that the world was flat, and they were all wrong.
It's also irrelevant that they teach evolution in schools, for they probably once taught that the world was flat in schools, or other lies.
terminat1 5 months ago
Insulting theists without giving any facts to support your position is just a default defense mechanism atheists use when they know they have no argument. Deep down, you know a Creator-less universe is ridiculous, but because it's unacceptable to you, character assassination is the next best option.
terminat1 5 months ago
@terminat1 I don't see how a "creator" really solves anything as far as human interests go. A creator could have created human life without any meaning, purpose or permanent existence; it didn't have to create us for the psychological comfort of people like Dr. Craig.
MrAdvancedAtheist 5 months ago
@MrAdvancedAtheist You're correct in that a Creator could have created human life without any intended meaning, etc., for said humans. I know people who believe in God but don't believe in an afterlife, which essentially means they don't think there is true meaning in life, i.e., no final accountability for the way we live. Of course you don't believe the Bible, but it answers your question nicely: humans were made for God's purposes. We are important to Him, and it's not merely psychological.
terminat1 5 months ago
@terminat1 I have to laugh at that. Do you believe that people become atheists because we've perversely chosen to have "meaningless" lives? Or does that indicate that your theory of "meaning" makes no sense to us?
MrAdvancedAtheist 5 months ago
@MrAdvancedAtheist I can't speak for anybody, but if you're an atheist, life is meaningless. What difference does it make how you live, if your actions ultimately are irrelevant? If the universe is destined to go extinct, along with the entire human race?
Besides, according to atheist dogma, we're just intelligent pond scum. Who assigns lasting meaning to the life of pond scum? Nobody. So no true atheist should consider life meaningful, if he thinks we're just cosmic accidents.
terminat1 5 months ago