I have been wondering. Someone who does not worship God and has not been made sufficiently aware of the true God, through little fault of their own (place of birth, parents, education etc.) will be consigned to Hell for not worshipping God. Is this correct? If so does this fit in with the notion of God being loving? I accept that free will can give rise to evil in this life, but this person is also subjected to unavoidable eternal damnation in Hell. I wonder if this consistent with God's love?
Uhhh... That's an unbelievably foul mouthed assessment of the results of a debate about God.(!) Assuming God does exist (and I am confident that he does), This kind of statement does nothing to display the character and goodness of God.
@UniversalSleuth The comment is foul, however, he is talking of a time where ac grayling claimed that he did not actually debate William Lane Craig. Silly, because as you can see, the video....
Craig is articulating the work done by Alvin Plantinga on the problem of evil - Plantinga is considered the greatest living philosopher of religion, he is, incidentally (and not surprisingly) a Christian.
I don't really understand how Grayling, a professional philosopher whose waded into the religion debate, can not of heard the argument, or read the work, before.
if you listen to grayling talking the way he talks and what he talks about almost makes it sound like he is mentally insane, like literally does anyone els enotice it seems like he is talking to himself rather than adressing anything?
Its lowkey scary that Grayling, Dawkins, Peter Singer, Lawrence Krauss, and other academics in the New Atheist movement are starting a private university in London with all of them as the faculty. I can only imagine the kind of things they will teach their students.
Dawkins' mods are censoring people on RD.net who try to point this evidence out to him. Following the "source" link (in the info section) to get to Dawkins' post (now number 54, then 52) and you can click to the end of the thread to leave a message, if you wish.
For those stating that the burden of the existence of God lies with the theist, it does indeed. However this debate is not about whether or not God exists, it is whether the problem of evil, in light of the existence of God, can overcome the problem of evil.
For arguments on the existence of God, Craig has done many debates on this topic and written extensively on it. Read/watch that information, and then reflect on this debate with the new information you gained.
@hayakain Isn't the debate topic "Is evil incompatible with a good loving god?" It is the atheist making the assertion and therefore he has the burden of proof.
@gmh1206 Since one can't prove a negative, the proper way to phrase the topic would have been "compatible". It's contingent on the god existing in the first place, and the person advocating this god must do the proving.
@Zimnyification Don't confuse the illogical with a negative claim. For instance, your square circle or my stick which is longer than itself, are illogical -- these are not examples of proving a negative. As for the T-Rex, it may exist somewhere on Earth, we just haven't found it yet. Do you see my point? Negatives can't be disproved. One must prove the positive claim that the modern day T-Rex is still roaming the Earth. That's the burden.
"Don't confuse the illogical with a negative claim. For instance, your square circle or my stick which is longer than itself, are illogical -- these are not examples of proving a negative."
Of course it is! Square circles, or sticks longer than themselves, don't exist. Why? Because they're impossible. Why? They're logical contradictions. Hence we have an entity (X) and (X) does not exist.
@Birdieupon I think the point is being missed. These are concepts that are contradictions and illogical. They are not claims that can be proved or disproved, they don't lie on the same plane. Did my explanation of the T-Rex do you justice?
@Zimnyification Spot on. I think it's also important to remember that not being able to disprove the modern existence of a T-Rex does not give it equal probability of existing as not existing.
" not being able to disprove the modern existence of a T-Rex does not give it equal probability of existing as not existing."
But the probability against it existing is supported by EVIDENCE (i.e. we know the dinosaurs died out, we know that evolutionary development entails different creatures since then, we know it would probably be on the news if there was a T Rex and we've also covered far more of the globe now etc).
This is evidence supporting a negative - a burden of proof is held.
I agree with Dr. Craig, the burden of proving the problem of evil lies with the claimant.. However, the burden of proving the existence of god also lies with the claimant. Thus, the problem of evil is not a relevant component of this argument, prior to it's premises, namely that god exists, being proven or introduced intelligently. Arguing that the burden of proof for the problem of evil has not been met, is not an argument for a rational belief in god. FTW
@ariuszarim --Arguing that the burden of proof for the problem of evil has not been met, is not an argument for a rational belief in god. FTW Oh? So am I to take it that you have a rational belief? I wonder what that would be. And do you feel you have sufficient proof for what you do believe. For the win?
B, atheists such as him dont have an open mind so never really pay attention to their opponent. The debate is just an excuse to speak his own mind which he does anyways. Hence with senility theres nothing to distinguish his debates from his lectures in his mind and are forgotten altogether.
It looks like he did make an admission that he "forgot" about the debate, and gives an excuse for it. Even though it looks contrived, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
I have heard this debate dozens of times, Craig puts forth his arguments, gives a lists of which premises must be addressed and refuted and gives it over to the atheist, the atheist ignore the premises and goes on a rant against how cruel and evil the God of the Bible is.
Atheism is intellectually dead. It is the most intellectually bankrupt worldview being held by modern thinkers today. I don't know whether to laugh or cry at these you tube atheist's fundamentalism.
Their inability to reason is astounding. I would like to see research into atheist cognitive functions.
@KBrimstone You have that completely backwards, atheism is the only logical position given the bare assertion and complete lack of actual evidence for any theistic claims.
"I would like to see research into atheist cognitive functions. "
"Atheists score 1.95 IQ points higher than Agnostics, 3.82 points higher than Liberal persuasions, and 5.89 IQ points higher than Dogmatic persuasions."
@ScienceWebinarSeries I am a deist, and thank you very much for the link. I am going to read it soon. But briefly I think the iq of atheist and agnostic are not statistically different (see table 5). I will have some comment about this paper to you later, and if you are from psychology major, it is even more amazing because I am curious about this topic.
@ScienceWebinarSeries My comments to your link (1) IQ of atheist and agnostic don't differ statistically (Table 5). (2) Taken as a whole, IQ of religous people is lower than atheist. (3) But if you break it down, some religious people have higher iq than atheists (ex.jewish and aglican, table 6, 7) (4) Difference may be due to other factors than religiousity (maybe most atheists are from developed countries where it is ok to be a non believer). We have to be critical even of scientific papers.
@walkingphilosopher Yes but the point of a decades long study is to test the average, not individuals. '(maybe most atheists are from developed countries where it is ok to be a non believer'
That's sort of self defeating, you're basically saying that countries which persecute and oppress unbelievers are less intelligent.
@ScienceWebinarSeries I was also speaking of average plus minus the SD. "countries which persecute and oppress unbelievers are less intelligent." Nope, but education in those countries may not be as available as it is in developed countries. I do agree that scepticism correlate positively with IQ, but the further conclusion to atheist is not. Belief in God is a default position, thus it represent the a somewhat lower iq than atheist who come to that conclusion through pondering (continue)
@walkingphilosopher In no way is belief in god the default position, a god or gods existing is a positive assertion which has yet to be supported by positive evidence. The default position regarding such claims is skepticism.
Also, I wasn't implying that atheism is accurate solely because atheists might be more intelligent. A user asked for a study regarding the mental faculties non-believers.
@ScienceWebinarSeries "A user asked for a study regarding the mental faculties non-believers." Now this put things into context. "In no way is belief in god the default position" I know that you need some degree of indoctrination to become a dogmatic religious believers (term used in the paper). By the word "default", I meant that most people enter a religious not through their own free choice, but pressure from society. Like in the middle east or bible belt of the US.
But if you take the IQ of thinking religious people whom like the atheist, arrive to their conclusion through thinking/philosophy, I think you will find the IQ to be comparable. And you might want to divide the atheist groups into categories based on what brought them to atheist. My two cents is that the iq of the so-called militant atheist is not higher than the religious fundamentalists. Thus many militant atheists claimed to be former religious fundamentalist. They're 1 of the same kind.
@walkingphilosopher I would bet it's pretty much the opposite. If you weeded out the theists/atheists that claim to have arrived at their position based on intellectual scrutiny I think the IQ disparity would become even more prominent.
@ScienceWebinarSeries Of course it would. Thats how you get an average. Some categories will automatically be higher, but for which group? For the kind of atheist that are vile and militant, like the followers of Dawkins type who based their disbelieve on popular culture? I don't think so. But for those who arrive at it through science and genuine critical philosophical thought, yes, they are higher.
@walkingphilosopher No I'm saying the disparity would probably increase between atheists and theists if you only take into account members of each demographic that claim to have followed logic reason and evidence.
@ScienceWebinarSeries This is where it becomes simply my opinion vs yours. Because there is nowhere in the any paper which supports this. I can give you anecdotal evidence, but of course it will not be sufficient. If you are from psychology major, do check this out. Free idea from me, because I am simply interested to see the result.
@ScienceWebinarSeries No sorry. There are too many good arguments for theism and no convincing arguments for atheism.
Cognitive functions not IQ. IQ is sociologically relative. It's not surprising that here (More specifically the Anglo-American realm) the end of the liberal secular era the shrinking majority of scholars (non philosophical) are atheist. That trend is happily coming to an end becuase philosophy (a first order discipline) is rapidly changing towards Christian theistic thought.
@KBrimstone 'There are too many good arguments for theism'
Such as?
'and no convincing arguments for atheism.'
Atheism is not a positive claim, it's the non-acceptance of a positive claim for which there is no positive evidence. That's like saying there's no good evidence for not accepting that invisible hobgoblins exist.
Philosophy has never supported any theistic position in general, let alone any one specifically.
“Presupposition of the cause being god, presupposition that the universe required an external cause”
Not at all! These are premises in an argument that if true logically conclude that god exists. This is logically airtight. You’ve got to object to a premise.
1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the
necessity of its own nature or in an external cause).
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
@ScienceWebinarSeries Again I'm more and more coming to the conclusion that you are ignorant of how logical argumentation works. In an valid argument there are premises. If true the conclusions follow logically.
So your job now is to tell me which premise you disagree with and why. That's not presupposing anything and circular reasoning is when one of the premise assumes as the conclusion. That clearly isn't happening here.
@ScienceWebinarSeries Refutation? What refutation? At best you merely asserted the arguments were wrong. At worst you applied fallacy labeled sound arguments as fallacious.
So can't argue with you if you don't tell me which of the premises you disagree with and why?
@ScienceWebinarSeries I explained that what you are saying goes against everything mainstream science. So what you really disagree with is the Big Bang Model. Which is the coming into being of both matter and energy.
"Pointless tautology 'If the universal constants were different, then they'd be different"
Is it? You miss understand completely. There set parameters that were ready in place at the singularity. Had it been altered by a hair's breadth no form of life could exist. There innumerably more non-life permitting possibilities yet here we are. This begs the question. How did it get that way?
@KBrimstone Why would they be different? What wouldn't be exactly as it is now if an intangible untestable cause didn't monkey with the physics of the early universe? How did you determine this?
@ScienceWebinarSeries The range of life permitting range is innumerably smaller than the life prohibiting range. It's like going pulling a lottery with a Billion upon billion white balls and one black ball and told that only if the black ball is drawn you live. Wouldn't you think it was rigged if the black ball happen to be the one that rolls out?
Let's imagine you were up against a firing squad of 200 men 10 feet away all with their guns aimed at you. They blind fold you and shots are fired and as the smoke clears you are left standing completely unharmed.
By your logic you shouldn't wonder why 200 men aiming at you 10 feet away managed to miss you because if you had been killed you wouldn't be here to wonder why they missed you? LOL. Really? The objection fails.
@KBrimstone Except that 200 men missing 10 feet away would be odd for known reasons, you give no reason why the constants would be different if your asserted deity had nothing to do with their institution.
@ScienceWebinarSeries I did. Becuase the the immeasurable odds against a life permitting universe and an independently given pattern. (see the lottery analogy)
@KBrimstone Horrible analogy because you never actually give any reason for the universal constants being different. We can calculate odds objectively on a lottery, what you're posting regarding the constants varying is just speculation.
@ScienceWebinarSeries Are you saying the constants and quantities had to have the values they do, so that the universe is of physical necessity life-permitting. It requires us to believe that a life-prohibiting universe is physically impossible. But surely it does seem possible.
@KBrimstone No, I'm saying to speculate any possible variation is meaningless.
It's like saying 'If sperms 1 2 3 etc, hadn't fertlized the corresponding eggs over the past 50,000 generations, I wouldn't be here' The odds are ridiculously small when you try apply them in hindsight.
It seems possible, but you haven't given any reason for our universe to have existed that way.
@ScienceWebinarSeries It seems possible, but you haven't given any reason for our universe to have existed that way.
That's the point. I don't think the Universe had to exist this way. No more than Universe has to exist with me giving myself a winning hand every time we play poker.
@ScienceWebinarSeries f the primordial matter and anti-matter had been differently proportioned, if the universe had expanded just a little more slowly, if the entropy of the universe were marginally greater, any of these adjustments and more would have prevented a life-permitting universe, yet all seem perfectly possible physically.
@ScienceWebinarSeries The person who maintains that the universe must be life-permitting is taking a radical line which requires strong proof. But there isn’t any; this alternative is simply put forward as a bare possibility.
That the universe is fine-tuned for the existence of intelligent life is a pretty solidly established fact and ought not to be a subject of controversy. By “fine-tuning” one does not mean “designed” but simply that the fundamental constants and quantities of nature fall into an exquisitely narrow range of values which render our universe life-permitting.
@KBrimstone Fine tuning isn't established, it's a bare assertion based on baseless speculation and erroneous odds. It can't be considered a narrow range unless actual reason is given that it should be any different let alone significantly different.
@ScienceWebinarSeries Were these constants and quantities to be altered by even a hair’s breadth, the delicate balance would be upset and life could not exist. Again I don't see any reason to believe that a Universe where the constants were altered by even a very very small margin is impossible.
@KBrimstone That's not what I'm saying, you're the one claiming an altered set of constants is possible thus far with zero reckoning.
What reason do you have that any of them would have been different? That's what I'm asking, that's what you're dodging. You just keep asserting "Well *if* they had been different..."
“It appears that the fundamental numbers, and even the form, of the apparent laws of nature are not demanded by logic or physical principle” Steven Hawkins
@KBrimstone No, I'm pointing out that you've never given any reason why any fundamental force of the universe should've been different than it is right now. 'It should have been different because I can't conceive of it existing as it does now' is an argument from incredulity.
@ThanToFadeAway I have given reasons. If they were set we should see some sort of law making the constants that way. We don't. That's why I and most all scientists agree that the constants and quantities are not that way by physical necessity.
I didn't say it should have been I only need to show it's possible. As long as it's even possible it begs the question why did the Universe falling in this slim range.
You're the one saying "I can't conceive of it existing any other way" Why?
Even if the laws of physics were unique, it doesn't follow that the physical universe itself is unique. . . . the laws of physics must be augmented by cosmic initial conditions. . . . There is nothing in present ideas about 'laws of initial conditions' remotely to suggest that their consistency with the laws of physics would imply uniqueness. Far from it. . . .
. . . it seems, then, that the physical universe does not have to be the way it is: it could have been otherwise.
@ScienceWebinarSeries "Circular logic, it assumes objective morality exists in the premises"
Not circular at all. It doesn’t assume Objective moral values exist. It’s the second premise! And it’s not trying to prove the existence of Objective moral values.
I’m starting to think you not familiar with these arguments at all.
@KBrimstone It being the second premise doesn't make it true or any less circular. The argument is that if objective morals exist they have to have an objective source.
"Confirmation bias, it ignores conservation while trying to apply causality."
The Big Bang which is literally the creation of energy. This arguing against the standard Big bang model! Is that what you want to do? You’re going against mainstream science.
Causality is a philosophical principle not a law of nature, so appealing to causality when speaking about metaphysics is perfectly logical.
Not to mention the philosophical arguments for a finite Universe which you don't address.
@KBrimstone The big bang wasn't an ex nihilo creation event, it was an expansion of space/time. Causality applying to the pre-Planck epoch is invalidated by actual empirical physics, observational data trumps mental masturbation every time.
@ScienceWebinarSeries Your redefinition makes atheism indistinguishable from agnosticism. On this re-definition, atheism ceases to be a view and is merely a psychological state which my gold fish and my 6 moth year old, who hold no opinion at all on the matter, count as atheists!
But let's put semantics aside for a moment and let me ask you; do you believe the statement "There is no God" is true? That’s what I’m concerned with.
@KBrimstone Again, skepticism is not a positive claim
'There is a god' is the positive assertion which necessitates evidence, atheism is the lack of acceptance of this claim until said evidence is presented. This is just burden shifting.
No burden shifting here. I'm trying to see where you stand. Becuase if we agree there is no point of argumentation. Right? If we disagree we both should present reasons for or beliefs and weigh them against each other. If you don't know. Then you've got nothing to assert and therefor nothing to say.
@ScienceWebinarSeries Oh you've got nothing to say. You don't know if God exists or not and therefore lack belief in a God(s). You call this atheism. Okay. This isn't the classical. definition of atheism but at least
I know your not opposing my view.
So did you find the evidence for both sides (God exist vs God doesn't exist) equally lacking or or both sides equally convincing?
@KBrimstone I've seen no convincing argumentation for any particular theistic position and arguing against the notion of a being that doesn't have to conform to anything that would distinguish it from non-existence is pointless.
"being that doesn't have to conform to anything that would distinguish it from non-existence"
If your saying that God is indistinguishable from non-existence you are basically saying God doesn't exist in a long winded way. If you believe that you need reason...for it to at least be reasonable.
And in any event there are good reason to believe God can be distinguished from non-existence (see arguments listed).
@KBrimstone No, saying that god is indistinguishable from non-existence is pointing out that theists have to construct their concepts in an unfalsifiable way. Sort of like the invisible incorporeal heatless fire breathing dragon in my garage.
As for the arguments listed, I've already shown how their faulty premises lead to faulty conclusions.
@ScienceWebinarSeries Your “invisible incorporeal heatless fire breathing dragon in my garage” question is really just a rhetorically clever sleight of hand; the question doesn’t make much sense in the first place What makes it a dragon if all its attributes are taken away from it? Perhaps it should be rephrased as something like: "Do we know there are not immaterial things around us?"
@ScienceWebinarSeries To which the answer should be "No" in either of two senses: 1. No, because we have no evidence that there are not immaterial things, or 2. No, because there are immaterial things around us, e.g. God, angels, immaterial minds, qualia, abstract objects like numbers or propositions, etc
@ScienceWebinarSeries Not at all. In classical Philosophy atheist philosophers have tried to show God being logically incoherent.
If you could show that God is like a married bachelor then you would show God can't exist.
More over falsifiability isn't the test for all truth claims for example the belief that the Universe wasn't created yesterday with the appearance of time or that the external world is real. Yet I'm rational to believe these things are true.
Not at all. First let's define terms: omnipotent means being able to do any that is logically possible. omniscience means knowing all true propositions.
So what your really asking is "Does God have the power to alter the future that he knows to be true?" The answer is no. If it didn't happen God wouldn't know it and God can only do the logically possible.
@KBrimstone If the future is known then it is set and no being, not even god, has the power to do anything, it's all predetermined and just winding out in the one and only way it can.
@ScienceWebinarSeries This is arguing against free will not God. It's fallacious. It's called Theological Fatalism (or Greek Fatalism).
It's perfectly compatible with theistic determinism espoused by Calvinists; however, I believe in libertarian free will.
To explain the compatibility of freewill and God's foreknowledge would be a task all itself. If you are genuinly interested: reasonablefaithDOTorg/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5202
But again the objection fails against God's existence.
@KBrimstone It's not fallacious, it's an inescapable ramification of omniscience. If the future is entirely known, it is set and unalterable. Free will, neither ours nor gods, can exist simultaneously with omniscience. To say otherwise is literally saying 'The future is both perfectly known and subject to change'
@Birdieupon If it were known to happen then it's not a free choice. If god knew I was going to wear my black shoes instead of brown today then I couldn't have worn my brown unless I were able to contradict gods foreknowledge.
That does not follow. How does knowledge affect whether or not something is done freely? Your free decision affects God's knowledge, not the other way around.
You've not explained how. I've told you that whatever you choose to do will affect his knowledge. This results in him knowing all truths. Please explain how knowledge of something amounts to a cause.
@Birdieupon I've explained exactly how. I've told you that perfect foreknowledge actually means that it's not a choice because choice would necessitate that options were possible. The knowledge itself doesn't amount to a cause, the fact that the knowledge can be had means that the future is predetermined. The future cannot be perfectly known unless it's perfectly and invariably set.
You forget that God is not bound by time, so why all the emphasis on God knowing what you're going to do "before" you do it? It may seem that way from our perspective, but for a timeless being it means the point still remains: you can choose to freely do something, and God, from his vantage point, can know it.
Why do you maintain that it is impossible to know what people will freely do, and that to therefore know it is to negate the freedom?
@Birdieupon If he only knows the possibilities of what we can choose then that's not perfect knowledge. The point remains that if what you're going to do was known beforehand then you can't freely choose to do it without contradicting supposedly perfect knowledge. If I say 'I know that you're definitely going to do X Y Z today' there are two possibilities. Either you must do X Y Z or you don't meaning I didn't actually know you were going to do it.
" If he only knows the possibilities of what we can choose then that's not perfect knowledge."
I never said that. I said he knows what you ACTUALLY choose, and the reason for his knowing it is that you choose it. You're assuming that something cannot be logically prior over chronologically prior.
@ThanToFadeAway You're not listening and I'm not keen on repeating myself.
This isn't an argument against God. Even if you subscribe to determinism One can know what is going to happen if you determined it to happen that way. In other words God's omniscience comes from his omnipotence. Omnipotence is the ability to do anything that is logically possible to change what you determine is like a square circle. It's not logical.
@ThanToFadeAway However I don't believe in determinism. I believe in libertarian freewill which is compatible with foreknowledge. Here is the fatal fallacy:
1. God knows P.
2. P will happen necessarily.
but in truth that doesn't make sense. The way it should be is
1. GOd knows P
2. P will happen.
It's wrong to say that will happen P necessary. P is still contingent. So if a free agent does Q instead God would know that. This is an old Greek fallacy that no philosopher holds to today.
@ThanToFadeAway But this is really dealing with human free will not God's existence. So I'm not dealing with this Red herring any more unless and until you can give an argument showing why the two attributes are contradictory and not merely assert it. LOL
@ScienceWebinarSeries Also you might want to bone up on your Latin and philosophy. A = no Theos = God. As in no God(s). In English ism signifies a a worldview: such as CommunISM. Altogether it means: No God worldview. What you are really dealing with is non-theism, which can either mean agnosticism or atheism.
The standard reference work in the field of philosophy: Encyclopedia of philosophy state Atheism is a belief that there is no God.
@ScienceWebinarSeries So non-thiesm is just your current psychological state. But we aren’t dealing with your psychologica state. We are concerned if you disagree with my claim “There is no God.” If yes then let’s both give reasons for our respective worldviews. If no then we’ve nothing to argue. If you don’t know then you should have nothing to say.
Agreed. However I think you err in your assertion that atheism is just the lack of beleif in God and not the assertion that there is no God. And I gave to reasons why you wrong which you've ignored.
@KBrimstone "Nonsense. Atheism is a claim i.e. There is no God. Like ANY claim you need positive evidence in order to rationally hold to that claim." Agreeing with you right. Many atheists nowadays turn rhetorics like this simply to win the argument. I hope they grow backbones like their greater predecessors who actually dare to state their claim clearly.
@KBrimstone By dodging the actual meaning of atheist and about what they actual believe, I think a more accurate description would be cowardly and intellectually dishonest. But I wouldn't generalize this to all atheist.
@walkingphilosopher Actually what we're doing is not allowing theists to shift the burden of proof. If you claim god exists, the onus is yours to show it.
@ThanToFadeAway "what we're doing is not allowing theists to shift the burden of proof" My point exactly. Please examine why do you have to NOT allow the theist to shift the burden of proof on you? Your statement said it all. Cause if you don't transfer this burden, you know damn well that you too are in the dark and it is also difficult to be certain of the atheistic position.
@ScienceWebinarSeries "atheism is the only logical position given the bare assertion and complete lack of actual evidence for any theistic claims."
This is the very reasoning I'm talking about. For a claim to be the most reasonable (i.e logical) There must be some proofs for that worldview.
It isn't reasonable to affirm any claim solely on the "lack of evidence" for the contradictory. If by "evidence" you mean empirical evidence" then I can agree; however, logical proofs for theism abound.
@ScienceWebinarSeries The default position is always ignorance. You don't affirm something without positive evidence. So at best you are left with agnosticism (I don't know) not atheism (There is no God)
"Again, such as?"
I'm not repeating myself. Deal with the arguments listedt.
@KBrimstone There is militant atheism, the position that there is no god, but atheism is the lack of acceptance of the positive claim that god exists.
If you don't accept that X exists, then you lack belief that X exists.
The atheist argument against God because of tragedies doesn't hold water. Natural disasters kill people of all ages, children to 95 year olds. But even with no natural disasters, children to 95 year olds die anyway from hundreds of other causes. And if someone doesn't die as a child they will eventually die later when older. So the atheist argument really becomes "why would a just God let people die at all?" Thus, atheist argument presupposes immortality which is a logical fallacy.
@TheLeagueOfReason Whatever you may call it (fallacy, logical fallacy....), the reasoning doesn't make sense. The "disaster" or "unnecessary evil" or "why do bad things happen to good people" argument, which has been put to rest long ago, is still used by atheists. In essence, they are arguing for physical immortality. The "innocent children" phrase is used just to pull at the heart strings of their opponents. But what makes innocent children any more worthy than innocent 95 year olds?
@SkittlesWithFeathers Actually think about it for a second. Why would drcraigvideos block someone he *could* refute? Why would anyone? That's saying you think that he thinks
"I can easily refute your points and make a stronger case for theism, but instead will disallow conversation entirely"
@SkittlesWithFeathers The uploader of these videos isn't Craig, it's just a fanboy and moderating comments takes a lot longer than just allowing discussion.
Oh, ok. But you have to realize that sometimes Atheists can get really nasty and and their language gets really bad. There are kids like me who enjoy watching these videos and we don't need to be mentally scarred. :)
@SkittlesWithFeathers I was never nasty, I was never anything but civil and on topic yet several of my accounts (Including TheLeagueOfReason) have been blocked.
I'm not saying that you are nasty, but many Atheists are. They come to my channel and tell me they hope I get raped and die. :)
The comments section of a video is not really the best place for debating. There are other Christians out there who would want to debate with you over Skype or in a chatroom and answer your questions, like Nephilimfree or shockofgod. Or you could just watch their videos or something. :)
Also, if it's just a "fanboy" uploading these videos, he himself may not know the answers to your and other Atheists questions. He probably just deletes them so the Atheists don't go around gloating. :)
@SkittlesWithFeathers So if someone doesn't know the answer to a question they should block and censor instead of letting it be known that they don't know it? You're saying this on a video about an atheist that supposedly tried to claim a debate never happened?
I would still like to know where theists get the idea that Craig is intelligent. Other than packaging his arguments in slightly fancier words, he hasn't demonstrated an intellectual capacity above that of Ken Ham or Kent Hovind.
I have been wondering. Someone who does not worship God and has not been made sufficiently aware of the true God, through little fault of their own (place of birth, parents, education etc.) will be consigned to Hell for not worshipping God. Is this correct? If so does this fit in with the notion of God being loving? I accept that free will can give rise to evil in this life, but this person is also subjected to unavoidable eternal damnation in Hell. I wonder if this consistent with God's love?
deadlyrhythm 2 weeks ago
@RosesTimes
Uhhh... That's an unbelievably foul mouthed assessment of the results of a debate about God.(!) Assuming God does exist (and I am confident that he does), This kind of statement does nothing to display the character and goodness of God.
UniversalSleuth 1 month ago
@UniversalSleuth The comment is foul, however, he is talking of a time where ac grayling claimed that he did not actually debate William Lane Craig. Silly, because as you can see, the video....
soccerdanny4 1 month ago
Craig is articulating the work done by Alvin Plantinga on the problem of evil - Plantinga is considered the greatest living philosopher of religion, he is, incidentally (and not surprisingly) a Christian.
I don't really understand how Grayling, a professional philosopher whose waded into the religion debate, can not of heard the argument, or read the work, before.
CharlesDilkes 2 months ago
Dr. Craig always dominates his opponents.
terminat1 4 months ago
Haha what is Grayling on about!? He is talking to himself it's true :P
JonnyWiseGuy2764 4 months ago
if you listen to grayling talking the way he talks and what he talks about almost makes it sound like he is mentally insane, like literally does anyone els enotice it seems like he is talking to himself rather than adressing anything?
Falcondick69 4 months ago
Its lowkey scary that Grayling, Dawkins, Peter Singer, Lawrence Krauss, and other academics in the New Atheist movement are starting a private university in London with all of them as the faculty. I can only imagine the kind of things they will teach their students.
Supernegromagic 4 months ago
@Supernegromagic
Lol, but the funny part is they call religious universities evil for having affiliation with religion.
soccerdanny4 1 month ago
Wow. Craig is extremely good here. Grayling can be forgiven for "forgetting" this episode in his life.
monitor301 4 months ago
Lol!!! The beginning is just like when you watch some secret spy movie
giorgiv18 4 months ago
No wonder he "forgot" this debate.
guilhermefreire48 5 months ago
Grayling is condescending through the entire debate. I want to punch him.
LittleSn00py 5 months ago 4
A. C. Failing
Ohyewildthong 6 months ago 17
Dawkins' mods are censoring people on RD.net who try to point this evidence out to him. Following the "source" link (in the info section) to get to Dawkins' post (now number 54, then 52) and you can click to the end of the thread to leave a message, if you wish.
Birdieupon 7 months ago 6
@Birdieupon LOL! I'm glad people are haunting him about this.
drcraigvideos 7 months ago
I think I might mail my copy of "God, Freedom, and Evil" to Grayling. Or perhaps he has read it and just doesn't remember.
It's too bad I don't have a book on dealing with memory loss.
empreme 7 months ago
For those stating that the burden of the existence of God lies with the theist, it does indeed. However this debate is not about whether or not God exists, it is whether the problem of evil, in light of the existence of God, can overcome the problem of evil.
For arguments on the existence of God, Craig has done many debates on this topic and written extensively on it. Read/watch that information, and then reflect on this debate with the new information you gained.
hayakain 7 months ago
@hayakain Isn't the debate topic "Is evil incompatible with a good loving god?" It is the atheist making the assertion and therefore he has the burden of proof.
gmh1206 7 months ago
@gmh1206 Since one can't prove a negative, the proper way to phrase the topic would have been "compatible". It's contingent on the god existing in the first place, and the person advocating this god must do the proving.
Zimnyification 7 months ago
@Zimnyification You can prove a negative, genius. Square-circles don't exist. And modern-day Tyranosaurs Rexes don't exist either.
drcraigvideos 7 months ago
@Zimnyification Don't confuse the illogical with a negative claim. For instance, your square circle or my stick which is longer than itself, are illogical -- these are not examples of proving a negative. As for the T-Rex, it may exist somewhere on Earth, we just haven't found it yet. Do you see my point? Negatives can't be disproved. One must prove the positive claim that the modern day T-Rex is still roaming the Earth. That's the burden.
Zimnyification 7 months ago
@Zimnyification
"Don't confuse the illogical with a negative claim. For instance, your square circle or my stick which is longer than itself, are illogical -- these are not examples of proving a negative."
Of course it is! Square circles, or sticks longer than themselves, don't exist. Why? Because they're impossible. Why? They're logical contradictions. Hence we have an entity (X) and (X) does not exist.
Birdieupon 7 months ago
@Birdieupon I think the point is being missed. These are concepts that are contradictions and illogical. They are not claims that can be proved or disproved, they don't lie on the same plane. Did my explanation of the T-Rex do you justice?
Zimnyification 7 months ago
@Zimnyification Spot on. I think it's also important to remember that not being able to disprove the modern existence of a T-Rex does not give it equal probability of existing as not existing.
guyjamesritchie 7 months ago
Comment removed
Birdieupon 7 months ago
" not being able to disprove the modern existence of a T-Rex does not give it equal probability of existing as not existing."
But the probability against it existing is supported by EVIDENCE (i.e. we know the dinosaurs died out, we know that evolutionary development entails different creatures since then, we know it would probably be on the news if there was a T Rex and we've also covered far more of the globe now etc).
This is evidence supporting a negative - a burden of proof is held.
Birdieupon 7 months ago
God can't condemd an ignorant, but now that atheism is exposed as the undefensible position, as Paul said: "you are inexcusable before God"
It's better to repent and follow Jesus :)
IloveYOUviruses 7 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses How do you know he doesn't condemn the ignorant? Where's your warrant for the claim?
Zimnyification 7 months ago
I agree with Dr. Craig, the burden of proving the problem of evil lies with the claimant.. However, the burden of proving the existence of god also lies with the claimant. Thus, the problem of evil is not a relevant component of this argument, prior to it's premises, namely that god exists, being proven or introduced intelligently. Arguing that the burden of proof for the problem of evil has not been met, is not an argument for a rational belief in god. FTW
ariuszarim 7 months ago
@ariuszarim --Arguing that the burden of proof for the problem of evil has not been met, is not an argument for a rational belief in god. FTW Oh? So am I to take it that you have a rational belief? I wonder what that would be. And do you feel you have sufficient proof for what you do believe. For the win?
Stinger16s1t 7 months ago
So, atheists..... what's Grayling's excuse?
Birdieupon 7 months ago
So, cast your vote:
A) Did Grayling Lie?
B) Is he suffering from senility?
:-)
Birdieupon 7 months ago
@Birdieupon It's A.
drcraigvideos 7 months ago 18
@Birdieupon
B, atheists such as him dont have an open mind so never really pay attention to their opponent. The debate is just an excuse to speak his own mind which he does anyways. Hence with senility theres nothing to distinguish his debates from his lectures in his mind and are forgotten altogether.
Daxcheese 7 months ago
@Birdieupon
C) I don't know, but hope Jesus saves him.
ChristusVlCTOR 7 months ago
@Birdieupon
It looks like he did make an admission that he "forgot" about the debate, and gives an excuse for it. Even though it looks contrived, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
JCrownwell 4 months ago in playlist More videos from drcraigvideos
@Birdieupon Probably both. A. B. Grayling.
StygianDysnomia 2 weeks ago
I can't tell whether it's a terrible microphone or his accent that makes Grayling hard to listen to.
aquaboy386 8 months ago
What was with Grayling's audio? I could barely hear him.
98nafets 8 months ago
I have heard this debate dozens of times, Craig puts forth his arguments, gives a lists of which premises must be addressed and refuted and gives it over to the atheist, the atheist ignore the premises and goes on a rant against how cruel and evil the God of the Bible is.
ZeroShift5000 8 months ago
Atheism is intellectually dead. It is the most intellectually bankrupt worldview being held by modern thinkers today. I don't know whether to laugh or cry at these you tube atheist's fundamentalism.
Their inability to reason is astounding. I would like to see research into atheist cognitive functions.
KBrimstone 8 months ago
@KBrimstone You have that completely backwards, atheism is the only logical position given the bare assertion and complete lack of actual evidence for any theistic claims.
"I would like to see research into atheist cognitive functions. "
sciencedirect(.)com/science/article/pii/S0160289608001013
"Atheists score 1.95 IQ points higher than Agnostics, 3.82 points higher than Liberal persuasions, and 5.89 IQ points higher than Dogmatic persuasions."
ScienceWebinarSeries 8 months ago 2
@ScienceWebinarSeries
I don't see what an average Atheists I.Q compared to others has to do with it being true or not.
SkittlesWithFeathers 8 months ago
@SkittlesWithFeathers KBrimstone asked for research into atheists cognitive functions.
ScienceWebinarSeries 8 months ago
@ScienceWebinarSeries
Ohhh, alrighty. Sorry about that. XD
I see. But it's not really an intellectual issue, it's a heart issue. :)
SkittlesWithFeathers 8 months ago
@ScienceWebinarSeries I am a deist, and thank you very much for the link. I am going to read it soon. But briefly I think the iq of atheist and agnostic are not statistically different (see table 5). I will have some comment about this paper to you later, and if you are from psychology major, it is even more amazing because I am curious about this topic.
walkingphilosopher 8 months ago
@ScienceWebinarSeries My comments to your link (1) IQ of atheist and agnostic don't differ statistically (Table 5). (2) Taken as a whole, IQ of religous people is lower than atheist. (3) But if you break it down, some religious people have higher iq than atheists (ex.jewish and aglican, table 6, 7) (4) Difference may be due to other factors than religiousity (maybe most atheists are from developed countries where it is ok to be a non believer). We have to be critical even of scientific papers.
walkingphilosopher 8 months ago
@walkingphilosopher Yes but the point of a decades long study is to test the average, not individuals. '(maybe most atheists are from developed countries where it is ok to be a non believer'
That's sort of self defeating, you're basically saying that countries which persecute and oppress unbelievers are less intelligent.
ScienceWebinarSeries 8 months ago
@ScienceWebinarSeries I was also speaking of average plus minus the SD. "countries which persecute and oppress unbelievers are less intelligent." Nope, but education in those countries may not be as available as it is in developed countries. I do agree that scepticism correlate positively with IQ, but the further conclusion to atheist is not. Belief in God is a default position, thus it represent the a somewhat lower iq than atheist who come to that conclusion through pondering (continue)
walkingphilosopher 8 months ago
@walkingphilosopher In no way is belief in god the default position, a god or gods existing is a positive assertion which has yet to be supported by positive evidence. The default position regarding such claims is skepticism.
Also, I wasn't implying that atheism is accurate solely because atheists might be more intelligent. A user asked for a study regarding the mental faculties non-believers.
ScienceWebinarSeries 8 months ago
@ScienceWebinarSeries "A user asked for a study regarding the mental faculties non-believers." Now this put things into context. "In no way is belief in god the default position" I know that you need some degree of indoctrination to become a dogmatic religious believers (term used in the paper). By the word "default", I meant that most people enter a religious not through their own free choice, but pressure from society. Like in the middle east or bible belt of the US.
walkingphilosopher 8 months ago
But if you take the IQ of thinking religious people whom like the atheist, arrive to their conclusion through thinking/philosophy, I think you will find the IQ to be comparable. And you might want to divide the atheist groups into categories based on what brought them to atheist. My two cents is that the iq of the so-called militant atheist is not higher than the religious fundamentalists. Thus many militant atheists claimed to be former religious fundamentalist. They're 1 of the same kind.
walkingphilosopher 8 months ago
@walkingphilosopher I would bet it's pretty much the opposite. If you weeded out the theists/atheists that claim to have arrived at their position based on intellectual scrutiny I think the IQ disparity would become even more prominent.
ScienceWebinarSeries 8 months ago
@ScienceWebinarSeries By weed out I mean select from
ScienceWebinarSeries 8 months ago
@ScienceWebinarSeries Of course it would. Thats how you get an average. Some categories will automatically be higher, but for which group? For the kind of atheist that are vile and militant, like the followers of Dawkins type who based their disbelieve on popular culture? I don't think so. But for those who arrive at it through science and genuine critical philosophical thought, yes, they are higher.
walkingphilosopher 8 months ago
@walkingphilosopher No I'm saying the disparity would probably increase between atheists and theists if you only take into account members of each demographic that claim to have followed logic reason and evidence.
ScienceWebinarSeries 8 months ago
@ScienceWebinarSeries This is where it becomes simply my opinion vs yours. Because there is nowhere in the any paper which supports this. I can give you anecdotal evidence, but of course it will not be sufficient. If you are from psychology major, do check this out. Free idea from me, because I am simply interested to see the result.
walkingphilosopher 8 months ago
@ScienceWebinarSeries No sorry. There are too many good arguments for theism and no convincing arguments for atheism.
Cognitive functions not IQ. IQ is sociologically relative. It's not surprising that here (More specifically the Anglo-American realm) the end of the liberal secular era the shrinking majority of scholars (non philosophical) are atheist. That trend is happily coming to an end becuase philosophy (a first order discipline) is rapidly changing towards Christian theistic thought.
KBrimstone 8 months ago
@KBrimstone 'There are too many good arguments for theism'
Such as?
'and no convincing arguments for atheism.'
Atheism is not a positive claim, it's the non-acceptance of a positive claim for which there is no positive evidence. That's like saying there's no good evidence for not accepting that invisible hobgoblins exist.
Philosophy has never supported any theistic position in general, let alone any one specifically.
ScienceWebinarSeries 8 months ago
@ScienceWebinarSeries "Such as?"
To name a few the contingency argument, the argument from fine tuning, the moral argument, the cosmological argument.
"Atheism is not a positive claim, it's the non-acceptance of a positive claim for which there is no positive evidence."
Nonsense. Atheism is a claim i.e. There is no God. Like ANY claim you need positive evidence in order to rationally hold to that claim.
What you are calling atheism is really agnosticism.
KBrimstone 8 months ago
@KBrimstone 'the contingency argument'
Presupposition of the cause being god, presupposition that the universe required an external cause
'the argument from fine tuning'
Pointless tautology 'If the universal constants were different, then they'd be different'
'the moral argument'
Circular logic, it assumes objective morality exists in the premises
'the cosmological argument'
Confirmation bias, it ignores conservation while trying to apply causality.
ScienceWebinarSeries 8 months ago
“Presupposition of the cause being god, presupposition that the universe required an external cause”
Not at all! These are premises in an argument that if true logically conclude that god exists. This is logically airtight. You’ve got to object to a premise.
1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the
necessity of its own nature or in an external cause).
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
KBrimstone 8 months ago
@KBrimstone Yes, *if* they're true then it would mean god exists, but they're only presupposed to be true then circularly asserted os.
Your presupposition begins at 2. You're just calling whatever caused the universe, assuming it actually was caused, 'god'
ScienceWebinarSeries 7 months ago
@ScienceWebinarSeries Again I'm more and more coming to the conclusion that you are ignorant of how logical argumentation works. In an valid argument there are premises. If true the conclusions follow logically.
So your job now is to tell me which premise you disagree with and why. That's not presupposing anything and circular reasoning is when one of the premise assumes as the conclusion. That clearly isn't happening here.
KBrimstone 7 months ago
@KBrimstone You keep confusing you not understanding the refutation of your arguments and projecting it onto me.
My point was that the premises were invalid.
ScienceWebinarSeries 7 months ago
@ScienceWebinarSeries Refutation? What refutation? At best you merely asserted the arguments were wrong. At worst you applied fallacy labeled sound arguments as fallacious.
So can't argue with you if you don't tell me which of the premises you disagree with and why?
KBrimstone 7 months ago
@KBrimstone I pointed out how the premises in every argument were faulty.
For instance, the KCA commits confirmation bias on the second premise when ignoring the fact that energy can't be created.
ScienceWebinarSeries 7 months ago
@ScienceWebinarSeries I explained that what you are saying goes against everything mainstream science. So what you really disagree with is the Big Bang Model. Which is the coming into being of both matter and energy.
KBrimstone 7 months ago
@ScienceWebinarSeries Also let's not forget the philosophical arguments of against actual infinities.
KBrimstone 7 months ago
@KBrimstone Let's not forget the fact that real world data supports an actual infinite
ScienceWebinarSeries 7 months ago
@ScienceWebinarSeries
"Pointless tautology 'If the universal constants were different, then they'd be different"
Is it? You miss understand completely. There set parameters that were ready in place at the singularity. Had it been altered by a hair's breadth no form of life could exist. There innumerably more non-life permitting possibilities yet here we are. This begs the question. How did it get that way?
KBrimstone 8 months ago
@KBrimstone Why would they be different? What wouldn't be exactly as it is now if an intangible untestable cause didn't monkey with the physics of the early universe? How did you determine this?
ScienceWebinarSeries 7 months ago
@ScienceWebinarSeries The range of life permitting range is innumerably smaller than the life prohibiting range. It's like going pulling a lottery with a Billion upon billion white balls and one black ball and told that only if the black ball is drawn you live. Wouldn't you think it was rigged if the black ball happen to be the one that rolls out?
KBrimstone 7 months ago
@KBrimstone Again you're just asserting that 'If things were different things would be different'
Had they turned out in a way that didn't support life, we wouldn't be around to pontificate.
ScienceWebinarSeries 7 months ago
@ScienceWebinarSeries That's a terrible objection. Here is why.
Let's imagine you were up against a firing squad of 200 men 10 feet away all with their guns aimed at you. They blind fold you and shots are fired and as the smoke clears you are left standing completely unharmed.
By your logic you shouldn't wonder why 200 men aiming at you 10 feet away managed to miss you because if you had been killed you wouldn't be here to wonder why they missed you? LOL. Really? The objection fails.
KBrimstone 7 months ago
@KBrimstone Except that 200 men missing 10 feet away would be odd for known reasons, you give no reason why the constants would be different if your asserted deity had nothing to do with their institution.
ScienceWebinarSeries 7 months ago
@ScienceWebinarSeries I did. Becuase the the immeasurable odds against a life permitting universe and an independently given pattern. (see the lottery analogy)
KBrimstone 7 months ago
@KBrimstone Horrible analogy because you never actually give any reason for the universal constants being different. We can calculate odds objectively on a lottery, what you're posting regarding the constants varying is just speculation.
ScienceWebinarSeries 7 months ago
@ScienceWebinarSeries Are you saying the constants and quantities had to have the values they do, so that the universe is of physical necessity life-permitting. It requires us to believe that a life-prohibiting universe is physically impossible. But surely it does seem possible.
Cont 2
KBrimstone 7 months ago
@KBrimstone No, I'm saying to speculate any possible variation is meaningless.
It's like saying 'If sperms 1 2 3 etc, hadn't fertlized the corresponding eggs over the past 50,000 generations, I wouldn't be here' The odds are ridiculously small when you try apply them in hindsight.
It seems possible, but you haven't given any reason for our universe to have existed that way.
ScienceWebinarSeries 7 months ago
@ScienceWebinarSeries It seems possible, but you haven't given any reason for our universe to have existed that way.
That's the point. I don't think the Universe had to exist this way. No more than Universe has to exist with me giving myself a winning hand every time we play poker.
KBrimstone 7 months ago
@ScienceWebinarSeries f the primordial matter and anti-matter had been differently proportioned, if the universe had expanded just a little more slowly, if the entropy of the universe were marginally greater, any of these adjustments and more would have prevented a life-permitting universe, yet all seem perfectly possible physically.
KBrimstone 7 months ago
@KBrimstone You're just repeating the same pointless tautology 'If things were different, they would have been different'
No reason, just assertion that "If the universe hadn't turned out exactly as it had, it wouldn't have turned out exactly as it had"
ScienceWebinarSeries 7 months ago
@ScienceWebinarSeries The person who maintains that the universe must be life-permitting is taking a radical line which requires strong proof. But there isn’t any; this alternative is simply put forward as a bare possibility.
- Dr. Craig
KBrimstone 7 months ago
@KBrimstone Fine tuners are the ones asserting that the universe should conceivably be different, yet again, with no reasoning.
ScienceWebinarSeries 7 months ago
@ScienceWebinarSeries "Fine Tuners" Someones misinformed.
That the universe is fine-tuned for the existence of intelligent life is a pretty solidly established fact and ought not to be a subject of controversy. By “fine-tuning” one does not mean “designed” but simply that the fundamental constants and quantities of nature fall into an exquisitely narrow range of values which render our universe life-permitting.
KBrimstone 7 months ago
@KBrimstone Fine tuning isn't established, it's a bare assertion based on baseless speculation and erroneous odds. It can't be considered a narrow range unless actual reason is given that it should be any different let alone significantly different.
ScienceWebinarSeries 7 months ago
@ScienceWebinarSeries Were these constants and quantities to be altered by even a hair’s breadth, the delicate balance would be upset and life could not exist. Again I don't see any reason to believe that a Universe where the constants were altered by even a very very small margin is impossible.
That's what you're saying. Why?
KBrimstone 7 months ago
@KBrimstone That's not what I'm saying, you're the one claiming an altered set of constants is possible thus far with zero reckoning.
What reason do you have that any of them would have been different? That's what I'm asking, that's what you're dodging. You just keep asserting "Well *if* they had been different..."
ScienceWebinarSeries 7 months ago
@ScienceWebinarSeries You're argueing for physical necessity.
“It appears that the fundamental numbers, and even the form, of the apparent laws of nature are not demanded by logic or physical principle” Steven Hawkins
KBrimstone 7 months ago
@KBrimstone No, I'm pointing out that you've never given any reason why any fundamental force of the universe should've been different than it is right now. 'It should have been different because I can't conceive of it existing as it does now' is an argument from incredulity.
ThanToFadeAway 7 months ago
@ThanToFadeAway I have given reasons. If they were set we should see some sort of law making the constants that way. We don't. That's why I and most all scientists agree that the constants and quantities are not that way by physical necessity.
I didn't say it should have been I only need to show it's possible. As long as it's even possible it begs the question why did the Universe falling in this slim range.
You're the one saying "I can't conceive of it existing any other way" Why?
KBrimstone 7 months ago
Even if the laws of physics were unique, it doesn't follow that the physical universe itself is unique. . . . the laws of physics must be augmented by cosmic initial conditions. . . . There is nothing in present ideas about 'laws of initial conditions' remotely to suggest that their consistency with the laws of physics would imply uniqueness. Far from it. . . .
. . . it seems, then, that the physical universe does not have to be the way it is: it could have been otherwise.
-P. C. W. Davies
KBrimstone 7 months ago
@ScienceWebinarSeries "Circular logic, it assumes objective morality exists in the premises"
Not circular at all. It doesn’t assume Objective moral values exist. It’s the second premise! And it’s not trying to prove the existence of Objective moral values.
I’m starting to think you not familiar with these arguments at all.
KBrimstone 8 months ago
@KBrimstone It being the second premise doesn't make it true or any less circular. The argument is that if objective morals exist they have to have an objective source.
ScienceWebinarSeries 7 months ago
"Confirmation bias, it ignores conservation while trying to apply causality."
The Big Bang which is literally the creation of energy. This arguing against the standard Big bang model! Is that what you want to do? You’re going against mainstream science.
Causality is a philosophical principle not a law of nature, so appealing to causality when speaking about metaphysics is perfectly logical.
Not to mention the philosophical arguments for a finite Universe which you don't address.
KBrimstone 8 months ago
@KBrimstone The big bang wasn't an ex nihilo creation event, it was an expansion of space/time. Causality applying to the pre-Planck epoch is invalidated by actual empirical physics, observational data trumps mental masturbation every time.
ScienceWebinarSeries 7 months ago
@KBrimstone Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity or deities
A = without
Theism = Belief in a deity or deities
What I'm calling atheism is atheism, agnosticism goes to lack of potential knowledge of a supernatural being, atheism goes to lack of belief.
ScienceWebinarSeries 8 months ago
@ScienceWebinarSeries Your redefinition makes atheism indistinguishable from agnosticism. On this re-definition, atheism ceases to be a view and is merely a psychological state which my gold fish and my 6 moth year old, who hold no opinion at all on the matter, count as atheists!
But let's put semantics aside for a moment and let me ask you; do you believe the statement "There is no God" is true? That’s what I’m concerned with.
KBrimstone 7 months ago
@KBrimstone No it doesn't
Atheism : Lack of belief in a deity or deities
Agnosticism : Any ultimate reality (In this instance god) is unknowable.
No, I'm an agnostic atheist, they're not mutually exclusive.
ScienceWebinarSeries 7 months ago
@ScienceWebinarSeries Okay you don't want to acknowledge what the Encyclopedia of Philosophy (and countless other glossaries) say? Fine.
Again. Let's forget the semantics for now.
There is no God: true or false?
KBrimstone 7 months ago
@KBrimstone Again, skepticism is not a positive claim
'There is a god' is the positive assertion which necessitates evidence, atheism is the lack of acceptance of this claim until said evidence is presented. This is just burden shifting.
ScienceWebinarSeries 7 months ago
@ScienceWebinarSeries Uh-huh. You've said that.
There is no God: true or false?
No burden shifting here. I'm trying to see where you stand. Becuase if we agree there is no point of argumentation. Right? If we disagree we both should present reasons for or beliefs and weigh them against each other. If you don't know. Then you've got nothing to assert and therefor nothing to say.
KBrimstone 7 months ago
@KBrimstone I've never claimed either and don't pretend to know the ultimate reality is knowable, that's agnosticism.
Though I don't believe god exists, that's atheism.
ScienceWebinarSeries 7 months ago
@ScienceWebinarSeries Oh you've got nothing to say. You don't know if God exists or not and therefore lack belief in a God(s). You call this atheism. Okay. This isn't the classical. definition of atheism but at least
I know your not opposing my view.
So did you find the evidence for both sides (God exist vs God doesn't exist) equally lacking or or both sides equally convincing?
KBrimstone 7 months ago
@KBrimstone I've seen no convincing argumentation for any particular theistic position and arguing against the notion of a being that doesn't have to conform to anything that would distinguish it from non-existence is pointless.
ScienceWebinarSeries 7 months ago
@ScienceWebinarSeries Careful. Your showing your colors.
"being that doesn't have to conform to anything that would distinguish it from non-existence"
If your saying that God is indistinguishable from non-existence you are basically saying God doesn't exist in a long winded way. If you believe that you need reason...for it to at least be reasonable.
And in any event there are good reason to believe God can be distinguished from non-existence (see arguments listed).
KBrimstone 7 months ago
@KBrimstone No, saying that god is indistinguishable from non-existence is pointing out that theists have to construct their concepts in an unfalsifiable way. Sort of like the invisible incorporeal heatless fire breathing dragon in my garage.
As for the arguments listed, I've already shown how their faulty premises lead to faulty conclusions.
ScienceWebinarSeries 7 months ago
@ScienceWebinarSeries Your “invisible incorporeal heatless fire breathing dragon in my garage” question is really just a rhetorically clever sleight of hand; the question doesn’t make much sense in the first place What makes it a dragon if all its attributes are taken away from it? Perhaps it should be rephrased as something like: "Do we know there are not immaterial things around us?"
Cont 2
KBrimstone 7 months ago
@ScienceWebinarSeries To which the answer should be "No" in either of two senses: 1. No, because we have no evidence that there are not immaterial things, or 2. No, because there are immaterial things around us, e.g. God, angels, immaterial minds, qualia, abstract objects like numbers or propositions, etc
KBrimstone 7 months ago
@KBrimstone Again you're just defining your god as unfalsifiable.
ScienceWebinarSeries 7 months ago
@ScienceWebinarSeries Not at all. In classical Philosophy atheist philosophers have tried to show God being logically incoherent.
If you could show that God is like a married bachelor then you would show God can't exist.
More over falsifiability isn't the test for all truth claims for example the belief that the Universe wasn't created yesterday with the appearance of time or that the external world is real. Yet I'm rational to believe these things are true.
KBrimstone 7 months ago
@KBrimstone You can disprove the concepts of a specific god but in general there's a lot of wiggle room
For instance, omnipotence and omniscience are mutually exclusive, if the future is perfectly known no being could have the power to alter it.
ScienceWebinarSeries 7 months ago
@ScienceWebinarSeries "omnipotence and omniscience are mutually exclusive"
Not at all. First let's define terms: omnipotent means being able to do any that is logically possible. omniscience means knowing all true propositions.
So what your really asking is "Does God have the power to alter the future that he knows to be true?" The answer is no. If it didn't happen God wouldn't know it and God can only do the logically possible.
KBrimstone 7 months ago
@KBrimstone If the future is known then it is set and no being, not even god, has the power to do anything, it's all predetermined and just winding out in the one and only way it can.
ScienceWebinarSeries 7 months ago
@ScienceWebinarSeries This is arguing against free will not God. It's fallacious. It's called Theological Fatalism (or Greek Fatalism).
It's perfectly compatible with theistic determinism espoused by Calvinists; however, I believe in libertarian free will.
To explain the compatibility of freewill and God's foreknowledge would be a task all itself. If you are genuinly interested: reasonablefaithDOTorg/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5202
But again the objection fails against God's existence.
KBrimstone 7 months ago
@KBrimstone It's not fallacious, it's an inescapable ramification of omniscience. If the future is entirely known, it is set and unalterable. Free will, neither ours nor gods, can exist simultaneously with omniscience. To say otherwise is literally saying 'The future is both perfectly known and subject to change'
ThanToFadeAway 7 months ago
@ThanToFadeAway
"Free will, neither ours nor gods, can exist simultaneously with omniscience.'
How does knowing that somebody will make a free choice mean that therefore the choice is not free?
Birdieupon 7 months ago
@Birdieupon If it were known to happen then it's not a free choice. If god knew I was going to wear my black shoes instead of brown today then I couldn't have worn my brown unless I were able to contradict gods foreknowledge.
ThanToFadeAway 7 months ago
@ThanToFadeAway
That does not follow. How does knowledge affect whether or not something is done freely? Your free decision affects God's knowledge, not the other way around.
Birdieupon 7 months ago
@Birdieupon If my decisions affect gods knowledge then he's not omniscient.
ThanToFadeAway 7 months ago
@ThanToFadeAway
Omniscient is all-knowing, and he knows what you're freely doing. You're not even making sense.
Birdieupon 7 months ago
@Birdieupon If he knows what I'm going to do then his omniscience is affecting my actions, not the other way around. I'm the only one making sense.
ThanToFadeAway 7 months ago
@ThanToFadeAway
You've not explained how. I've told you that whatever you choose to do will affect his knowledge. This results in him knowing all truths. Please explain how knowledge of something amounts to a cause.
Birdieupon 7 months ago
@Birdieupon I've explained exactly how. I've told you that perfect foreknowledge actually means that it's not a choice because choice would necessitate that options were possible. The knowledge itself doesn't amount to a cause, the fact that the knowledge can be had means that the future is predetermined. The future cannot be perfectly known unless it's perfectly and invariably set.
ThanToFadeAway 7 months ago
@ThanToFadeAway
You forget that God is not bound by time, so why all the emphasis on God knowing what you're going to do "before" you do it? It may seem that way from our perspective, but for a timeless being it means the point still remains: you can choose to freely do something, and God, from his vantage point, can know it.
Why do you maintain that it is impossible to know what people will freely do, and that to therefore know it is to negate the freedom?
Birdieupon 7 months ago
@Birdieupon If he only knows the possibilities of what we can choose then that's not perfect knowledge. The point remains that if what you're going to do was known beforehand then you can't freely choose to do it without contradicting supposedly perfect knowledge. If I say 'I know that you're definitely going to do X Y Z today' there are two possibilities. Either you must do X Y Z or you don't meaning I didn't actually know you were going to do it.
ThanToFadeAway 7 months ago
@ThanToFadeAway
" If he only knows the possibilities of what we can choose then that's not perfect knowledge."
I never said that. I said he knows what you ACTUALLY choose, and the reason for his knowing it is that you choose it. You're assuming that something cannot be logically prior over chronologically prior.
Birdieupon 7 months ago
@Birdieupon Then he doesn't have full and perfect knowledge.
ThanToFadeAway 7 months ago
@Birdieupon I don't know if you are the same person or not but care to repeat myself. Go back and read my previous posts.
KBrimstone 7 months ago
@ThanToFadeAway You're not listening and I'm not keen on repeating myself.
This isn't an argument against God. Even if you subscribe to determinism One can know what is going to happen if you determined it to happen that way. In other words God's omniscience comes from his omnipotence. Omnipotence is the ability to do anything that is logically possible to change what you determine is like a square circle. It's not logical.
KBrimstone 7 months ago
@ThanToFadeAway However I don't believe in determinism. I believe in libertarian freewill which is compatible with foreknowledge. Here is the fatal fallacy:
1. God knows P.
2. P will happen necessarily.
but in truth that doesn't make sense. The way it should be is
1. GOd knows P
2. P will happen.
It's wrong to say that will happen P necessary. P is still contingent. So if a free agent does Q instead God would know that. This is an old Greek fallacy that no philosopher holds to today.
KBrimstone 7 months ago
@ThanToFadeAway But this is really dealing with human free will not God's existence. So I'm not dealing with this Red herring any more unless and until you can give an argument showing why the two attributes are contradictory and not merely assert it. LOL
KBrimstone 7 months ago
@ScienceWebinarSeries Also you might want to bone up on your Latin and philosophy. A = no Theos = God. As in no God(s). In English ism signifies a a worldview: such as CommunISM. Altogether it means: No God worldview. What you are really dealing with is non-theism, which can either mean agnosticism or atheism.
The standard reference work in the field of philosophy: Encyclopedia of philosophy state Atheism is a belief that there is no God.
KBrimstone 7 months ago
@ScienceWebinarSeries So non-thiesm is just your current psychological state. But we aren’t dealing with your psychologica state. We are concerned if you disagree with my claim “There is no God.” If yes then let’s both give reasons for our respective worldviews. If no then we’ve nothing to argue. If you don’t know then you should have nothing to say.
KBrimstone 7 months ago
@KBrimstone "There is no god" is not the same as "I lack belief in god"
Skepticism itself is not a positive assertion.
ScienceWebinarSeries 7 months ago
@ScienceWebinarSeries "There is no god" is not the same as "I lack belief in god"
Agreed. However I think you err in your assertion that atheism is just the lack of beleif in God and not the assertion that there is no God. And I gave to reasons why you wrong which you've ignored.
KBrimstone 7 months ago
@KBrimstone "Nonsense. Atheism is a claim i.e. There is no God. Like ANY claim you need positive evidence in order to rationally hold to that claim." Agreeing with you right. Many atheists nowadays turn rhetorics like this simply to win the argument. I hope they grow backbones like their greater predecessors who actually dare to state their claim clearly.
walkingphilosopher 8 months ago
@walkingphilosopher Tell me about it. That's why
I made the original statement about atheist being irrational.
KBrimstone 7 months ago
@KBrimstone By dodging the actual meaning of atheist and about what they actual believe, I think a more accurate description would be cowardly and intellectually dishonest. But I wouldn't generalize this to all atheist.
walkingphilosopher 7 months ago
@walkingphilosopher Actually what we're doing is not allowing theists to shift the burden of proof. If you claim god exists, the onus is yours to show it.
ThanToFadeAway 7 months ago
@ThanToFadeAway "what we're doing is not allowing theists to shift the burden of proof" My point exactly. Please examine why do you have to NOT allow the theist to shift the burden of proof on you? Your statement said it all. Cause if you don't transfer this burden, you know damn well that you too are in the dark and it is also difficult to be certain of the atheistic position.
walkingphilosopher 7 months ago
@ScienceWebinarSeries "atheism is the only logical position given the bare assertion and complete lack of actual evidence for any theistic claims."
This is the very reasoning I'm talking about. For a claim to be the most reasonable (i.e logical) There must be some proofs for that worldview.
It isn't reasonable to affirm any claim solely on the "lack of evidence" for the contradictory. If by "evidence" you mean empirical evidence" then I can agree; however, logical proofs for theism abound.
KBrimstone 8 months ago
@KBrimstone You're missing the point, it's not a claim. It's the non-acceptance of a claim.
Do you think every positive assertion of existence should be taken as fact until it's disproved?
'logical proofs for theism abound. '
Again, such as?
ScienceWebinarSeries 8 months ago
@ScienceWebinarSeries The default position is always ignorance. You don't affirm something without positive evidence. So at best you are left with agnosticism (I don't know) not atheism (There is no God)
"Again, such as?"
I'm not repeating myself. Deal with the arguments listedt.
KBrimstone 8 months ago
@KBrimstone There is militant atheism, the position that there is no god, but atheism is the lack of acceptance of the positive claim that god exists.
If you don't accept that X exists, then you lack belief that X exists.
I already did.
ScienceWebinarSeries 8 months ago
@ScienceWebinarSeries Unfortunately this is the same old new atheist rhetoric. Please see my resent posts.
KBrimstone 7 months ago
The atheist argument against God because of tragedies doesn't hold water. Natural disasters kill people of all ages, children to 95 year olds. But even with no natural disasters, children to 95 year olds die anyway from hundreds of other causes. And if someone doesn't die as a child they will eventually die later when older. So the atheist argument really becomes "why would a just God let people die at all?" Thus, atheist argument presupposes immortality which is a logical fallacy.
BachScholar 8 months ago
@BachScholar It's not a logical fallacy when discussing a being that can supposedly do anything.
TheLeagueOfReason 8 months ago
@TheLeagueOfReason Whatever you may call it (fallacy, logical fallacy....), the reasoning doesn't make sense. The "disaster" or "unnecessary evil" or "why do bad things happen to good people" argument, which has been put to rest long ago, is still used by atheists. In essence, they are arguing for physical immortality. The "innocent children" phrase is used just to pull at the heart strings of their opponents. But what makes innocent children any more worthy than innocent 95 year olds?
BachScholar 8 months ago
@BachScholar It's never been put to rest, it's been avoided and ignored by theists.
ScienceWebinarSeries 8 months ago
@TheLeagueOfReason
You keep telling yourself that, buddy. :)
SkittlesWithFeathers 8 months ago
@SkittlesWithFeathers Actually think about it for a second. Why would drcraigvideos block someone he *could* refute? Why would anyone? That's saying you think that he thinks
"I can easily refute your points and make a stronger case for theism, but instead will disallow conversation entirely"
TheLeagueOfReason 8 months ago
@TheLeagueOfReason
I think it's just because Craig does not have the time to debate and answer questions for every single atheist in his comments section. :)
SkittlesWithFeathers 8 months ago
@SkittlesWithFeathers The uploader of these videos isn't Craig, it's just a fanboy and moderating comments takes a lot longer than just allowing discussion.
TheLeagueOfReason 8 months ago
@TheLeagueOfReason
Oh, ok. But you have to realize that sometimes Atheists can get really nasty and and their language gets really bad. There are kids like me who enjoy watching these videos and we don't need to be mentally scarred. :)
I get your point though.
SkittlesWithFeathers 8 months ago
@SkittlesWithFeathers I was never nasty, I was never anything but civil and on topic yet several of my accounts (Including TheLeagueOfReason) have been blocked.
ScienceWebinarSeries 8 months ago
@ScienceWebinarSeries
I'm not saying that you are nasty, but many Atheists are. They come to my channel and tell me they hope I get raped and die. :)
The comments section of a video is not really the best place for debating. There are other Christians out there who would want to debate with you over Skype or in a chatroom and answer your questions, like Nephilimfree or shockofgod. Or you could just watch their videos or something. :)
SkittlesWithFeathers 8 months ago
@TheLeagueOfReason
Also, if it's just a "fanboy" uploading these videos, he himself may not know the answers to your and other Atheists questions. He probably just deletes them so the Atheists don't go around gloating. :)
SkittlesWithFeathers 8 months ago
@SkittlesWithFeathers So if someone doesn't know the answer to a question they should block and censor instead of letting it be known that they don't know it? You're saying this on a video about an atheist that supposedly tried to claim a debate never happened?
ScienceWebinarSeries 8 months ago
I would still like to know where theists get the idea that Craig is intelligent. Other than packaging his arguments in slightly fancier words, he hasn't demonstrated an intellectual capacity above that of Ken Ham or Kent Hovind.
TheLeagueOfReason 8 months ago