So much of what Shook says is based on ignorance or lack. His definition of atheism is so void that even a stick would meet the criteria. He takes totally no burden of proof. He is skeptical of Craig's arguments without offering reasons why. His defense seems more based on ignorance and his own confusion about many of the difficult concepts that Craig brings forth.
@smitty0521 Fine tuning begs the question and assumes the universe has a purpose Moral objective argument circular reasoning. Ontological incoherent definition of maximal greatness, cosmological causality is incapable of being discussed prior to the universe. The most interesting of them is the Cosmological Craig admitted that the argument fails but still uses it.
@emailpobox666 To argue for fine tuning, you must show a great degree of complexity (easy to show by looking at the list of constants in the back of a physics text book) and a compatibility with a very specific pattern, namely life. My experience through college and medical school has led me to believe that life does require a very specific pattern in all the complexity of the universe.
So, to me the evidence, while not being a mathematical proof, does point strongly to a designer.
@smitty0521 Fine tuning begs the question when it assumes that the universe has a goal/purpose to create life.Just becasuse the human mind is pattern seekuing doesn not mean there is an actual pattern to discern. In the end it is Faith not these failed arguments
@emailpobox666 Regarding causality, I found that a little reading of aristotle on this subject is helpful. He describes a material causality and an efficient cause. If you ask why a light is on, the material cause would involve electricity and light bulbs while the efficient cause would be the person who flipped the switch on.
The origin of the universe would, clearly, not have a material cause, but I believe that with a supernatural world view, an efficient cause (ie God) is sufficient.
@smitty0521 Causality was incoherent prior to the universe existing. Aristtle was commenting on causality within the framework of spasce time. Goood try though.
I think Shook's opening statement was solid and true. I have difficulties with WLC, he kinda circles around the arguments against his arguments without ever confronting them and his overall arrogance seems missplaced. Would love to see WLC in a real debate without any moderator. Like the one between Lennox and Dawkins. Any links guys?
i just cant quite get behind dr shook. part of me wants to but when all is said and done the arguments for the existence of God seem to far outweigh the arguments for the opposed.
@TheEarthFirst: "An atheist does not hold a belief in a god. That however is not the same thing as saying there is no god." I'm confused... how can you believe something different than what you think or say? if you are an atheist, then you absolutely REJECT any existence of deities. An atheist is not one who says, "well, there is probably no god because im not sure." but one who says "There aren't any deities, there is not enough evidence to justify the claim of deities"
@sandyandcrustybungle 4 Choices agnostic atheist ,gnostic atheist , agnostic theist ,and gnostic theist, Most atheists are agnostic atheists . The gnostic atheists are just as bad as the gnostic theists saying the absolutely know for sure that....
@emailpobox666 Either call yourself an agnostic, or an atheist. Much easier for people to understand. Atheism is a contradiction in itself. Agnosticism, however, is a reasonable position to be in.
@ghae1 Agnosticism is a position on knowledge examples I know god exists . I do not know that god exists.Atheism is a reaction to a claim that a god exists. No evidence no evidence has been provided for the claim so it is rejected. I reject the claim of Jesus , Muhammad etc.I define my self as an atheist but i make no claim to infinite knowledge. There might be a god I just have not been provided any evidence for me to believe so
@emailpobox666 An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist. Atheism: The doctrine or belief that there is no God. An atheist is convinced there is no God. Do you disagree with this?
@ghae1 An agnostic says he doesn't know if there is a god. an agnostic being aware of Jesus Mohammad Krishna is still unconvinced therefore an a-theist. An atheist is convinced that the gods that that most humanity worships do not meet any of the burden of proof. as I have said many times before I will be open anytime someone iswilling an able to provide evidence
@sandyandcrustybungle - An atheist says that there is not enough evidence for he, himself to believe in god go to church , pray etc... Most atheists won't say there is no god because we cannot prove there isn't any. I believe that god is highly unlikely due to the lack of good solid evidence that there is one.
this is just so embarrasingly poor from craig. he just seems like someone so desperate for answers he'll leap to any plausible conclusion despite a lack of actual evidence.. It's frustrating to watch really
Objective moral values as WLC defines them very clearly DO NOT exist. I doubt he would claim objects green is immoral. Yet imagine a society wherein the chemical used to make green paint is both scarce and used in the cure for an extremely deadly and painful disease. In this society, painting objects green directly increases human suffering and therefore must be considered immoral. He can claim that God instills the ability to reason morality through evolution but not objective morality.
@sandyandcrustybungle Wow. . Let's leave the etymology to the professionals. The term atheism comes from the Greek word atheos, meaning godless. Atheos is derived from 'a', meaning "without," and 'theos', meaning "deity". Simply put Atheism literally means "no god"..
That's why the encyclopedia of philosophy (and practically every standard dictionary) defines atheism as the belief that there is no God.
@KBrimstone you realise that that's almost exactly what the other guy said except without the ancient greek stuff and you just came to a different interpretation of those word origins based on your own presuppositions? it's totally irrelevant what the word means; address the arguments and the issues don't distract everyone from the real issues with semantics
@messakg123@messakg123 No he said Atheism means without belief in the existence of God. That isn't a full and rich enough definition an Agnostic is without belief in an existence of God. Atheism is the a belief that there is no God. or that the proposition "God exists" is false... which entails a mental state (a lack of belief in God.) Sometimes semantics are important so we can know what we are trying to prove or disprove.
@KBrimstone No, what im saying is that you both agreed that "a"=not, "theos"=god and "ism"=belief. You just applied your presupposition that atheism is an assertion that there is no god by saying that when you put them together you get "not-god belief" but the other was using his presupposition to say is was "not god-belief". And I would agree that sometimes semantics are important. But not here since youre just arguing over a label rather than an actual argument.
@sandyandcrustybungle - Craigs definition is a strawman. Not unlike the rest of his arguments. You are correct. A - without. Without theism. Without a belief in the existence of a god. An atheist does not hold a belief in a god. That however is not the same thing as saying there is no god. An atheist says there is not enough evidence for a god therefore he doesnt personally hold a belief in a god. Craig uses his anal retentive definition to try to trap the atheist in a corner.
Fine tuning also is a good disproof for god, because it demands that god can only create the universe one certain way to allow for life. This means god is limited in his power and means god is restricted by those same specific things and therefore not all powerful. Lastly a more complex being creating a complex universe demands that god was fine tuned by someone or something else.
If articulate bullshit was the next great energy source then William Lane Craig would be a perpetual motion machine. I have to assume that most people won't have the capacity to really parse everything he says and discover its intellectual dishonesty. He says it so well. Why can't he use his powers of eloquence for good?
William Craig's main tactic is to set up straw-men and easily break them down. For example, he insists that that the atheist (or naturalist) assumes the universe had no beginning. And then he makes himself out to be the hero by considering the Big Bang theory. But he knows damn well that no atheist ever said they KNEW that the universe had no beginning. It was merely one passing idea that has been replaced with a newer better idea.
it's ridiculous how craig always goes on about the historical evidence for jesus.. truth is there is no concrete evidence at all. he is just one of many legends as was apolonious. it's just that jesus stuck. there is no other document found which gives a detailed account of this so called jesus.
@1919dpg How could you possibly know that? There are Roman documents written by the Roman Empire that tell us Jesus was a real person and did the actions described in the Bible.
@22hinRICHs i do not know for sure but it is most probably the case. i think so because there are numerous legends of men with the exact same story as jesus roaming around the meditaranean. look up horrus and apolonious. btw the roman writings you mention like the 1 of josephas wrote of the so called jesus from hearsay after the crucifixtion. thus not a witness. even if it had been written at the time jesus was alive, it would still not be valid as it would have been hearsay frm fanatics
@1919dpg Their is not a multitude of historical evidence of the crucifixion of Jesus, but their is enough to prove his existence. Tacitus the Roman historian who was very outspoken against Christians and referred to them as a plague is one. Anyway their is no debating Jesus existed, what is debatable is was he a) The Son of God, b) a wise teacher possibly even a prophet, or c) some fanatical nut that started a cult.
I like how atheists still try to defend their debaters even though William Lane Craig destroys everyone in his path. You all say that theism is so far fetched and theists are idiots, when atheism is no more scientific than theism.
@TheEarthFirst Did you watch this video?? It's quite clear that John Shook was utterly humiliated. Who gave him his Ph.D? I suggest you watch a few of William Lane Craig's other debates on the topic of the existence of God against other atheists. I only hope that your ignorance does not block the logical component of your brain and you watch them with an open mind and an open heart.
@22hinRICHs - Humiliated? Frustrated maybe , because of Craigs need to define the parameters of everything. Craig strawmans constantly. He defines atheism in a way that makes it absurd. Then he defines morals in such a way that using that definition , you would have to conclude there is a god.This is the only thing Craig shines at , setting the definitions and rules. So the whole debate is an argument about definitions. I did watch his other debates. Craig has the same arguments over and over.
@TheEarthFirst Are you saying his definition of Atheism is false? His arguments continue to cudgel atheists one after another, so why not use them? They are logically valid and make perfect sense.
@22hinRICHs - Craigs definition of an atheist is someone who says there is no god. Craig uses this definition because he can easily defend it. He can say the atheist could never be sure there was no god so atheism makes no sense. His definition is wrong in most cases. The vast majority of atheists only contend there is not an adequate ammount of proof for a god. So Craig is building a strawman he can knock right down.
@22hinRICHs watch the God debate with Sam Harris and Craig. Not only does Harris humiliate Craig, but also the guys from the audience, and it is because it is so easy to mock theists. Lev.24:16 "He that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him." Well, I've been saying for years that god, the bible and religion are bullshit, and yet, here I am, safe and sound :)
@pakicote a person of your intellect obviously realizes that the law (the things written in Lev.) was done away with when Christ died on the cross, right?
because if not, then i wouldn't try to justify myself by quoting scripture that you have no knowledge of.
@tucanblitz wow, no man, you've just opened my eres. I thought god was eternal and didn't change, but if he is unsure of what he said before jesus came, then I'll just tear out the first 1200 pages of my bible. And don't be shy, quote whatever you want, there will always be something in the bible to contradict what the bible says.
@tucanblitz wow, no man, you've just opened my eres. I thought god was eternal and didn't change, but if he is unsure of what he said before jesus came, then I'll just tear out the first 1200 pages of my bible. And don't be shy, quote whatever you want, there will always be something in the bible to contradict what the bible says.
@pakicote Jesus said,“Blessed are you when people insult you,persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.Rejoice and be glad,because great is your reward in heaven,for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you” (Matt. 5.11-12).
Here you are safe and sound.Thank God, our society and tolerance evolved so far, that not every anonymous, intolerant, stupid jerk being stoned by congregation, cause of posting dipshit behind his pc.
@pakicote Jesus said,“Blessed are you when people insult you,persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.Rejoice and be glad,because great is your reward in heaven,for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you” (Matt. 5.11-12).
Here you are safe and sound.Thank God, our society and tolerance evolved so far, that not every anonymous, intolerant stupid jerk being stoned by congregation, cause of posting dipshit behind his pc.
This is probably the worst debate I have ever seen from Dr. Craig. I'm an atheist, but I do think that he is usually a good debater. This debate however seems to put him in a funny situation, and the way he tries to get out is by misrepresenting positions and methods. It seemed he really did not get the point that others were trying to make
@ateopuertorico Exactly. 99.9999% + of the universe is more hostile to human life than almost anything on Earth, but we are supposed to believe The Universe is fine tuned for life? Send a human body out with no suit into the vacuum of space,see how fine tuned space is for life or any other planet that we know of out of all the many. The universe is filled with black holes, radiation, asteroid belts, ect. If God designed the universe for life, then I agree, he sucks
@terminat1 All science points to the fact that there is no intelligence that created the universe. There is nothing intelligent about a black hole where not even light can escape, nothing intelligent about stars that explode, no purpose to lifeless gas giants, no purpose for asteroid belts and radiation, all evidence points to a random universe. What God would fine tune a universe for life in a universe where life freezes to death and suffocates without space suits? God? My ass, grow up child.
@ateopuertorico Do you really believe total randomness could form a viable universe? Really, really believe it?
If you answer honestly, then you should answer 'no.' And that implies that some kind of supernatural Creator is responsible for the creation of the universe.
@terminat1 Quantum theory and special relativity indicate that “nothing” is simply a boiling brew of virtual particles popping in and out of existence, "nothing" has weight. Now, There is the same amount of - energy in the universe as + energy. The - energy of gravity balances out the + energy of matter. If there is the same amount of - energy as + energy, that means the universe = 0. The only universe that can = 0 is one that came from “nothing”. Most likely due to Quantum fluctuations, not God
@terminat1 Randomness didn't create the universe, there has always been 0 energy just like there is now. The + energy of matter balances out the - energy of gravity, meaning there has always been 0 energy, meaning nothing was created that wasn't there before.
@terminat1 My problem isn't the christian God, it's the idea that some form of intelligence created the universe, which is impossible, the universe is retarded and random, not intelligent. Anyone who says asteroid belts and black holes aren't random is a retard.
@terminat1 Wow, your ignorance on science must be vast for you to think that way, let me just elaborate on one common sense, if the universe had been any different, perhaps life would not even exist, but that doesn't mean that its perfect for life, we are here due to a series of events that luckily we did not end in complete extinction, take a good look at this solar system, a bunch of dead planets and only one that barely can sustain life, if there is a god and he made this, then he sucks.
@terminat1 The total energy of the universe = 0. The positive energy in matter balances out the negative energy of gravity exactly and always is 0. What's so great about a universe that = 0? Well, only such a universe can come from "nothing". If there was a "before" the big bang, then the energy total would still be 0. No energy was ever created that wasn't there already at the big bang, meaning no creator needed.
@terminat1 You know deep down that God is a myth and The Bible is a fairy tail written thousands of years ago, and that nothing happens when you die, because you are dead. Hopefully you wake up to reality, it's a lot more exciting.
@terminat1 You can mock me all you want, but the more science you learn the more insignificant and pathetic your god seems. We live in one planet of one solar system that is in a group of stars in a galaxy that are more than 300 billion of a galaxy of trillions of galaxies, and you're telling me there's a god who chose the people from the desert a few thousand years ago so we can believe we are his ultimate creation? Yeah, I can see a sort of ego in religion, I think I'll pass.
hahaha Pathetic? why are you getting yourself all worked up kid ? Typical atheist, insulting and crying and so immature. If your going to "intelligently" criticize someones belief you'd better understand it first buddy. the more science we know? haha you do realize that the the standard "expanding model theory" was proposed by a priest? You do know that the greatest scientist Newton, Galileo, Mendel, Copernicus, Einstein and the list goes did not see any. . .
.... conflict with "science" and religion. in fact Copernicus said this revealed the handy work of GOD! so ill take THERE word over some kid like you :). Oh and by the way you should study "Western Civilization" and find out how Christianity preserved and transmitted Knowledge and science, so lets grow up shall we. Oh also im a Bio major at UW, i don't see any conflict with my faith so lets grow up from this idiotic reasoning.
@MrLuisylupe So what inspired those men to great discoveries about life and the universe? Was it the bible? If they had gone by faith they would have simply accepted what the bible said and would have never done any science. It doesn't matter if a scientists has a religious belief, the science they discover is what really matters. And then you mention Galileo, the same man the church has imprisoned for his discoveries, Einstein was not a Christian but a pantheist. Craig is an idiot.
wow see what i mean! such a poor understanding of history, and frankly its embarrassing. Seriously, if my history professors were here they would chuckle at your lack of knowledge. TAKE NOTES. Galileo was NOT "imprisoned" for his "discoveries" in science! He was put under "house arrest" for advancing his theory of scriptural interpretation, and embarrassing the Pope when he published "Dialogue Concerning the two Chief World Systems"
Furthermore, "His house" arrest was as Historian Whitehead notes "the worst that happened to men of science, was that Galileo suffered an honorable detention and a mild reproof, before dying peacefully in his bed". So quit getting all excited over the "IMPRISONMENT" and trying to make a rhetorical point. And Einstein was a believer in God, specifically a Deist "a believer in God, by reason rather than revelation". and i believe that the idiot here is the illiterate
@MrLuisylupe And let me tell you that there is a GREAT difference between a scientific illiterate Christian and a scientist Christian, the scientific illiterate believes blindly in what they are told, a scientists understand the universe works in a natural way but yet hold a belief that someone was behind it, but they also accept that they have absolutely no evidence for their belief in god, ask any scientist out there and they will not show any evidence for god.
No evidence for God? Of course no scientist has scientific evidence that God exist, you bozo, you cant submit God to a light compound microscope and see his strand of DNA, NOBODY has ever argued that position. Craig, if you truly sit down and read his books, list a cumulative argument for the existence of God, that is reference to the best explanation of the Origins of the Universe, Fine Tuning, Morality, Personal Experience and the list goes on . . .
So i challenge YOU to read his books if your so confident that God does not exist, what are you afraid of? i bet your just another illiterate kid you doesn't even understand the argument but gets all excited when you get with your unsophisticated atheist children and pad each others backs, thinking your so bright. Oh, i also recommend reading the British philosopher Antony Flew, the famous 20th century atheist who in 2004 became a believer in God. Do it you might. .
@MrLuisylupe Craig's fallacy comes from argument from ignorance, "If there was a beginning, then someone had to create it" Science in the other hand never has said that the universe created itself or was created, science only points out what we know, we know there were per-existing forces in the universe, the 4 forces, all in a singularity, and then it began to expand, forming the elements that made life possible. Craig even goes as far as to give credit to the bible god.
@MrLuisylupe As far as we're concerned the universe might have always existed, the cause is unknown but we can't jump from "I don't know" to "God did it" God has to be proven first to even be considered an option. We have never seen anything create itself out of nothing, things we create are always from per-existing things in the first place, the whole universe, life, all just a product of already existing things, and all we know to exist is matter. God is just in your head.
hahahaha the universe might have always existed? hahaha you did not just seriously say that? Oh my, see that is why i just love getting on this website to see how uneducated people throw out random nonsense :). READ, Stephen Hawkins "A Brief History of Time"; or Roger Penrose. I trully think you dont know what your taking about. sorry if im spelling it out. Please if we are to have an educated dialogue, please know your material.
@MrLuisylupe I'm only speaking science, energy cannot be created nor destroyed, the universe is made of energy, all in what scientists call the singularity, this is why I said the universe might have always existed, only that it was different back then, perhaps the size of an atom. Of course a religious mind such as yours cannot wrap your head around that and prefer to think this invisible space daddy created everything with his magic.
@MrLuisylupe The big problem I have with religious people is how their faith gets in the way of their reasoning, Isaac Newton stopped his science cause he came into a problem that he thought was impossible to solve, and said that only god can know such things, yet scientists that came after him continued his work and even perfected it. God is the easy and lazy way out to answer big questions, yet they are not real answers, and science is the ONLY one answering them with evidence.
There is a huge difference between blind faith and faith. EVERYONE has faith in something. I have Faith in God, he is real in my life and i trully think that, you athiest are somehow hurt, or angry at God. I dont know. The other option is " your dillusional". See there you go agian NOT understanding history and pulling material "out of context". Im seriously not spending anymore of my valuable time with you. I've got more sophisticated individuals to dialogue with. Bye :)
@MrLuisylupe Faith in god is blind faith, faith in general is blind, I have trust in my best friend that he would not betray me, but that doesn't mean I could be wrong, he could have already done things behind my back, or he could someday do so, this is why I don't use faith, faith doesn't reassure anything, it doesn't make anything more real, all it means is that you believe in anything for no good reason.
@ateopuertorico I suppose when your driving down the road, you have "faith" that the other car will stay on the correct lane not causing an accident. Is it blind faith? i dont think so, your "experience" has taught you to have "faith" that he will follow the laws and stay on the lane. So experience is a form on knowledge, proof one might say. But to write it off and say "faith doest reassure anything" is complete nonsense. Here you dont even agree with "naturalist" who hold that experience is a
@ateopuertorico form of knowledge. Im guessing your single? if you dont have faith that you will find a woman who loves you "well actually" Love cant be tested scientifically so i suppose you dont believe that eighter, so i take that back. I bet you are single hahaha well anyways kid, to say that you dont use faith in anything, is to say you dont have faith in a loved one, you dont trust anyone and ironically your not a scientist, a scientist who has faith that nature is tangible.
@MrLuisylupe Have fun talking to people who agree with you to strengthen your beliefs and make yourself happy with your imaginary friend, I'll go and enjoy reality thank you.
@ateopuertorico haha oh yea :).... we are social beings, we love to make ourselfs happy. You on the other hand are probably miserable and incomplete thats why i said before your "dillusional". As William David Thoreau said "people live lives of quiet desperation" and as Paul said "claiming to be wise they became fools". Go enjoy your caveman reality kid :) because even on evolutionary terms nobody wants your inferior genes, sad but true. Bye mr. champion of reality hahahahaha
@MrLuisylupe I see no reason of why I should be sad or miserable, I wasn't born in the middle east for instance, so I'm not afraid to wake up in the morning and be killed by a suicide bomber. I wasn't born into a family of creationists, so they didn't push Christianity to me as hard as other families do, and accept me as an Atheist. I have good friends, I have a good life, should I be miserable for not having an imaginary friend like you? lol, don't make me laugh.
haha thank God you werent! I thank God everyday i wake up in a predominate Christian society, shaped Chirstian morals and values, where i dont have to worry about being killed by a fanatic athiest, who's sole purpose in life is to eliminate Jews, Homosexuals, Christian Priests, and the list goes on, and who in a span of 10 years caused more than 10 MILLION deaths. Not even Bin Laden in his wildest dreams can measure up to these Atheistic regimes. Im sure you have
@MrLuisylupe 10 million deaths? Where are you getting that false information? Are you trying to bring the Stalin argument to me? Are you seriously trying to compare men who thought of themselves as gods and did exactly what your religion did, to create a totalitarianism government from which everyone is oppressed. The 3 Abrahamic religions, that worship the same fucking god, have killed more people in history than any other idealism, religion, or whatever.
hahaha wow now i see how to get you all worked up on :). don't get mad kid its the truth, and your right I'm wrong, the atheistic regimes have not caused more than 10 million deaths, they have caused tens and tens of millions. I stand corrected. Yea, wow now your a Historian? 3 Abrahamic religions killing more people in History than any other idealism? hahahaha total nonsense. Go to School.
@MrLuisylupe Why even bother with you, I don't have to convince you of factual things, in this planet there has never been an Atheist country, there has only been a theocracy and communism, and communism only makes the leader into a god, the only god people can worship. The U.S. has been the closest thing to a secular nation, but through the years it has been slowly being poisoned by religion, back then the founding fathers knew how terrible religion is, and people have forgotten.
@MrLuisylupe I only wish people like you would be honest with others and yourselves, you seem to lock yourself into this bubble, in it you believe in whatever you want to believe, and no matter what people tell you or show you, nothing will change your mind. A closed mind is not worth wasting time, so I say to you good day, and good bye.
Thank you for being more polite this time. Well i was actually an atheist and as a result of my exploring and studying the subject, i came to the conclusion that there must be a God. Now, i am not in a bubble, most of my professors are atheist. I try to spend time understanding your world view puertorico. I evaluate evidence with a skeptical lens on both sides. As a result my faith is stronger. Is it not more probable that the 5% who claim that 95% of us suffer
some sort of delusion, are they themselves not diluted? I as you to look at the evidence with an open heart and mind. From what i have seen you have a lot of misunderstandings of my faith and history. If your willing to chat on email, i will gladly go in-depth to what we have barely touched upon. Don't close your mind please. Have a great day buddy.
@MrLuisylupe Is that so Mr. Atheist? What was your conclusive, verifiable and concrete evidence that god exists? And since when does majority equals truth?
@MrLuisylupe How dare you say that the new atheists are against people's freedoms? How dare you turn things around when YOUR religion is the one slowing down humanity since the dark ages? Fuck your god, fuck your religion, and fuck you.
Wow, hahaha, don't worry im not impressed by your insults, there meaningless to me. I just love seeing the true colors come out when atheist are exposed to the truth and get into dialogue with educated Christians. Bye Caveman :)
@TheEarthFirst No we haven't, if He would not have died, then He could not have been resurrected thus saving humanity. If you are to criticize Christianity, I suggest you do a little research.
@MrLuisylupe - I'm amazed that someone who beleives in talking snakes and donkeys, that the world is only 6 thousand years old can call another group of people delusional. How vauable can your time be when you waste it on your knees talking to someone who is most likely not there?
@TheEarthFirst I am not a Christian however, 100% of the Catholic Church hierarchy (largest group of Christians in the world) believes in Evolution. Only 90% of world renound Physicists support Evolution, 10% believe it violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. My point is your comments about people believing the world is 6k old years etc being dillusional, "To dismiss all religious people based on the actions of the most literalist dumb ones, I think is bigotry." - Andrew Sullivan.
@TheEarthFirst For lack of any better label, I'll say Deist. I'm 100% certain that the Universe is a physical functioning system with intelligence behind it (That is all I am 100% sure of). Beyond that I have a 'suspicion' (for lack of a better word) that their is a god. Philosophically Christians make a compelling argument for Jesus, but looking at history, governments, the catholic church, corrupt historians, and the apostle paul it seems quite and elaborate mess of things has been created.
@lion575 - Thanx Lion. Personally I completly understand the Deist point of view. I thought about taking that religion myself. It sounds like our opinions aren't that far apart. I consider myself non - religious. It's just my way of not taking on a title that people have already misrepresented ( Atheism, Agnostism etc...). I could never know who or what god is or if he exists so I don't practice a religion. Thanx for your intelligent response
6 thousand years old? hahaha, good lie, way to write off Christians by saying that we ALL believe in a "6 thousand year old earth". Not the Christians that i have had the privilege of studying with. :) So please quit being so ignorant.
I suppose your an atheist or agnostic, your faith in your belief i would argue is misguided. Yet, this is not the place or time so if you would like to understand orthodoxy Christianity, as the Catholic Church teaches, i will gladly take the time to sweep away misconceptions?
@MrLuisylupe - I understand it enough. If I did have misconceptions , I doubt they would be large enough to make me have faith in anything. I know there is a difference between the Catholic Church and the fundamental religion i was rasied in. However, I'm more concerned with the validity of the Bible itself than different dogmas.
wtf 9 and a half minutes in and he just asserted that the universe must have had a cause (no cause can predate everything because it would be included in everything), and then he jumped straight to "this being"?!?!? what being?!
He hadn't even properly demonstrated the big bang was the creation of everything, nor that it could have had a 'cause' before it, but not even CLOSE to demonstrating this cause was a being.
@terminat1 The Universe didn't come from nothing....Craig is a moron and one of the most retarded debaters I have ever seen, what an insult to human intelligence this man is.
@terminat1 "Nothing" isn't actually nothing, there are always virtual particles popping in an out of existence, which indicates no need for a God to create the universe. Believers lose in the battle of life.
@terminat1 atheists don't agree that everything came from nothing, but never mind atheist opinion, what matters is what cosmologists/physicists think about it. Its NOT the current scientific model that the big bang was everything coming from nothing, just that everything came from a very very dense state. That is the big bang model.
We can speculate about before that e.g. maybe everything came from nothing, or maybe from a hyperspace multiverse, or a black hole in another universe, it's unknown!
@terminat1 Early man only lived to be about 25 and most died because of teeth problems in the worst pain imaginable, most children died at child birth. People died eating bad food, disease with no treatments were common, early ape-man tribes killing each other for women and resources...What intelligence would set a stage like that? It's humans that invented shelter, farming, technology, hospitals, dentistry. We now live to about 80 and most children survive birth. Our intelligence is real.
@theBartone9119 Well, dying due to disease all comes from the curse brought on because of man's rebellion against God. It's not God's fault that man sinned. Man chose to sin.
The 'ape-man' evolutionary idea is, of course, not true.
@terminat1 If I had to make a logical guess I would say an accident seems more probable than intelligence. No intelligence that cared about us would put us on a planet with volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes, earth quakes, cancer, diseases, famine ect. Millions of kids die each day in agonizing pain, meaning no loving God can exist. Heaven is a fairy tail by people scared of death and not being able to cop with the fact that it's all over, it's a comfortable delusion.
@theBartone9119 I really don't think that's logical. I mean, come on. Engineers and architects, etc., spend countless hours designing and building bridges, roads, space shuttles, cars, and the like, and these things are astronomically less complex than the simplest bacterium. Even the space shuttle pales in comparison to the simplest cell.
And all of it was supposed to be a mindless accident? No way. That's why the Bible says in Romans 1 that every man knows in his heart that God must exist.
@terminat1 Actually I believe the exact opposite, I think every man knows in his heart that God does not exist, and it;s just a comfortable delusions because it can't be disproven. Also , you are just proving my point that no designer can design without a physical brain. Cars, space shuttles, all came from the the biological human brains. Plus the universe looks like a mindless accident, black holes? asteroids? lifeless planets? Gas giants? A car has more use to us than a black hole.
@theBartone9119 Well, then, sorry, but you're in flat denial. You honestly believe that randomness can create the human brain, DNA, chickens, Jupiter, and earthworms? Wow, with that kind of thinking, you must play the lottery regularly!
The odds of your winning the lotto regularly are astronomically more likely than the universe forming by chance. But I know better than to think you're going to start playing the lotto without restraint. Why won't you?
@theBartone9119 The universe looks like a mindless accident? Do you realize the fine-tuning of the universe? Do you realize how complex the orbits of the stars and planets are? How the solar system is actually a huge celestial clock? This was all supposed to be a 'mindless accident?' Really?
Just because the universe is large and only the Earth, Moon, Sun, and close stars apparently provide any real use for us, doesn't mean it is uncreated. God could have created that other stuff for Himself.
@theBartone9119 Well, those things are here because of a curse due to sin. Of course, you don't accept that conclusion, because you don't believe the Bible, but it does explain why there are evils in the world.
one way that a genetic code can mutate is to accidentally copy a part of the code, lengthening the entire genome. A later mutation to this repeated part and bam, new 'information', a longer genome with new genes.
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke can you give an example of a gentic mutation or an evolutinary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome? (richard dawkins was certainly stumped by this)
@92xtaylor I just did :P see below I guess you missed it, the message 9 mins ago(that richard dawkins stumped video is a fake, and there are lots of other video's with good {great} answers to the question)
Biophysicist/information theorist Dr Lee Spetner points out that mutations have never been observed to add information, but only reduce it—this includes even the rare helpful mutations. And he points out that natural selection is insufficient to accumulate slight advantages, as it would be too weak to overcome the effects of chance, which would tend to eliminate these mutants.21
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke Natural selection requires self-reproducing entities. Producing even the simplest self-reproducing organism (see aside) by a chance combination of chemicals is even more incredible than producing the Annals of Ennius by dropping letters on the ground.
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke Living things require long molecules with precise arrangements of smaller ‘building blocks’. Not only will the ‘building blocks’ not combine in the right order, but they are unlikely, by natural means, to build up large molecules at all! Rather, large molecules tend to break down into smaller ones. Also, the ‘building blocks’ are unstable.
@92xtaylor okay so assuming you've conceded the evolution of sexes and stuff now that we've moved to the origin of the first replicators? :P I don't think you did take all that in but okay lets move on to abiogenesis.
all you need is an example of a naturally occurring self replicating molecule? like crystals growing, such things have been discovered in clays. It's a great topic, and you really must look into things more! and be way more careful about declaring things impossible
but in anycase bro im getting tired been up for a awhile lol hope you find your answer that makes you happy (whatever it brings you to.) God bless and have a wonderful day! :)
@92xtaylor I just really need to correct something you said in your signoff message, "hope you find your answer that makes you happy (whatever it brings you to.)"
I'm searching for the truth, and it doesn't matter if what I find makes me happy or not, I'm going to believe what I'm convinced of by the evidence.
If that was how you decide what to believe, I hope you realize how very unscientific that is, and how unlikely it is that your beliefs will map to reality
wait a minute, I thought you were asking for information of the evolution of sexes, I missed it the first time... "please explain to me the organ of sex"? lol well men have a penis, and girls have a...
the evolution of them you mean? it will be a similar explanation to the evolution of any other body part, the survival/reproduction chance advantages.
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke Sex is vastly different then just an organ. It is two completly fully devolped sexual organs that match the other gender. this is vastly impossible thru natrul guidelines. Evolution is mutation changing things slowly. But for sex it would have to be a fully compatible sexual repoduction system (two different genders) in the exact same time frame and area. I do not know of any evidence that suggest this has occured
@92xtaylor ya look into the 'horizontal' gene transfer that predated sexual gene mixing. Happened way before sexual organs
really look into 'argument from ignorance' fallacies, you mustn't proclaim things impossible just because you don't understand the natural process yet
(I mean you said you thought some people were in denial of any evidence no matter how convincing, so I guess my question was do you think it's like that with allll non believers, and what you thought those evidences were)
basically one of the main reasons I know of that makes sexual reproduction an advantage over cloning/mitosis, is how if you have two parents with a bad eye gene, the child may be born blind, but if only one parent has the faulty gene then the working gene will be 'expressed'.
what god-pointing repeated coincidences have you had?
and do you think those happen for everyone, and that's how god shows himself but we are in denial?
@IseeRightThrough2you Nonsense, they're choosing to believe what they do. They have chosen what ever consequences come from that, even consequences that they might not have imagined; it's not that they deserve hell anymore than a christian would. No christian is spared from hell because he deserves heaven, for no one is worthy of heaven. Only those who obtain forgiveness by loving God, and loving their neighbors as themselves will enter heaven.
@Satarack I am mentally unable to choose what I believe. What I believe entirely depends on what I have been convinced of through evidence, reasoned argument and understanding.
I haven't chosen not to believe in god, and if I every find any convincing evidence, I will have no choice but to believe. As it stands, I have no choice but to disbelieve
@IseeRightThrough2you But that is not as simple as it sounds. If I just cry out, 'Jesus, forgive me!" But I do not know Jesus, then my words are hollow. How can I receive forgiveness if I do not know what that is? How can I love God if I do not know who God is? The only way to understand is to walk in the shoes of God, to follow his word to love others and to love him. How can I understand limitless compassion if I do not try to be compassionate myself? It would be hypocrisy.
@chrisbowman777 'Atheism is a faith claim that insists that "since there is no God, every cause must be natural."' Is that so? I do so enjoy being told what I think by people who don't know me. Pray, tell me what I am thinking about now. (Hint: It's being vigorously rogered with an eighteen-inch dildo).
So much of what Shook says is based on ignorance or lack. His definition of atheism is so void that even a stick would meet the criteria. He takes totally no burden of proof. He is skeptical of Craig's arguments without offering reasons why. His defense seems more based on ignorance and his own confusion about many of the difficult concepts that Craig brings forth.
smitty0521 2 days ago
@smitty0521 Fine tuning begs the question and assumes the universe has a purpose Moral objective argument circular reasoning. Ontological incoherent definition of maximal greatness, cosmological causality is incapable of being discussed prior to the universe. The most interesting of them is the Cosmological Craig admitted that the argument fails but still uses it.
emailpobox666 1 day ago
@emailpobox666 To argue for fine tuning, you must show a great degree of complexity (easy to show by looking at the list of constants in the back of a physics text book) and a compatibility with a very specific pattern, namely life. My experience through college and medical school has led me to believe that life does require a very specific pattern in all the complexity of the universe.
So, to me the evidence, while not being a mathematical proof, does point strongly to a designer.
smitty0521 1 day ago
@smitty0521 Fine tuning begs the question when it assumes that the universe has a goal/purpose to create life.Just becasuse the human mind is pattern seekuing doesn not mean there is an actual pattern to discern. In the end it is Faith not these failed arguments
emailpobox666 20 hours ago
@emailpobox666 Regarding causality, I found that a little reading of aristotle on this subject is helpful. He describes a material causality and an efficient cause. If you ask why a light is on, the material cause would involve electricity and light bulbs while the efficient cause would be the person who flipped the switch on.
The origin of the universe would, clearly, not have a material cause, but I believe that with a supernatural world view, an efficient cause (ie God) is sufficient.
smitty0521 1 day ago
@smitty0521 Causality was incoherent prior to the universe existing. Aristtle was commenting on causality within the framework of spasce time. Goood try though.
emailpobox666 21 hours ago
I think Shook's opening statement was solid and true. I have difficulties with WLC, he kinda circles around the arguments against his arguments without ever confronting them and his overall arrogance seems missplaced. Would love to see WLC in a real debate without any moderator. Like the one between Lennox and Dawkins. Any links guys?
soygoratsu 3 days ago
0:47:19 "Dose God Exist?" Seriously?
MusicByMartin 3 days ago
i just cant quite get behind dr shook. part of me wants to but when all is said and done the arguments for the existence of God seem to far outweigh the arguments for the opposed.
84mwalk 5 days ago
Ultimate spiral power will be the end of the universe. So it's logically also the begining. One big spiral, yeah that'd be nice.
Anon1376642 1 week ago
@TheEarthFirst: "An atheist does not hold a belief in a god. That however is not the same thing as saying there is no god." I'm confused... how can you believe something different than what you think or say? if you are an atheist, then you absolutely REJECT any existence of deities. An atheist is not one who says, "well, there is probably no god because im not sure." but one who says "There aren't any deities, there is not enough evidence to justify the claim of deities"
sandyandcrustybungle 2 weeks ago
@sandyandcrustybungle If evidence is produced an atheist would be willing to consider it. Does this make sens to you
emailpobox666 1 week ago
@sandyandcrustybungle 4 Choices agnostic atheist ,gnostic atheist , agnostic theist ,and gnostic theist, Most atheists are agnostic atheists . The gnostic atheists are just as bad as the gnostic theists saying the absolutely know for sure that....
emailpobox666 1 week ago
@emailpobox666 Either call yourself an agnostic, or an atheist. Much easier for people to understand. Atheism is a contradiction in itself. Agnosticism, however, is a reasonable position to be in.
ghae1 1 week ago
@ghae1 I am an agnostic atheist
emailpobox666 1 week ago
@emailpobox666 So, you`re basically an agnostic? What exactly is the difference between an agnostic, and an atheist?
ghae1 1 week ago
@ghae1 Agnosticism is a position on knowledge examples I know god exists . I do not know that god exists.Atheism is a reaction to a claim that a god exists. No evidence no evidence has been provided for the claim so it is rejected. I reject the claim of Jesus , Muhammad etc.I define my self as an atheist but i make no claim to infinite knowledge. There might be a god I just have not been provided any evidence for me to believe so
emailpobox666 1 week ago
@emailpobox666 An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist. Atheism: The doctrine or belief that there is no God. An atheist is convinced there is no God. Do you disagree with this?
ghae1 1 week ago
@ghae1 An agnostic says he doesn't know if there is a god. an agnostic being aware of Jesus Mohammad Krishna is still unconvinced therefore an a-theist. An atheist is convinced that the gods that that most humanity worships do not meet any of the burden of proof. as I have said many times before I will be open anytime someone iswilling an able to provide evidence
emailpobox666 1 week ago
@sandyandcrustybungle - An atheist says that there is not enough evidence for he, himself to believe in god go to church , pray etc... Most atheists won't say there is no god because we cannot prove there isn't any. I believe that god is highly unlikely due to the lack of good solid evidence that there is one.
TheEarthFirst 1 week ago
this is just so embarrasingly poor from craig. he just seems like someone so desperate for answers he'll leap to any plausible conclusion despite a lack of actual evidence.. It's frustrating to watch really
messakg123 2 weeks ago
Just one huge argument from ignorance by craig here...
messakg123 3 weeks ago
Objective moral values as WLC defines them very clearly DO NOT exist. I doubt he would claim objects green is immoral. Yet imagine a society wherein the chemical used to make green paint is both scarce and used in the cure for an extremely deadly and painful disease. In this society, painting objects green directly increases human suffering and therefore must be considered immoral. He can claim that God instills the ability to reason morality through evolution but not objective morality.
therzaoflollygags 3 weeks ago
[ ] William Lane Craig understands mathematics
therzaoflollygags 3 weeks ago
@TheEarthFirst:
(a- without)
+
(theism - belief in the existence of a god)
=
without belief in the existence of god
... pretty simple, stop trying to intricate the definition... Craig's definition is logically spot on
sandyandcrustybungle 3 weeks ago
@sandyandcrustybungle Wow. . Let's leave the etymology to the professionals. The term atheism comes from the Greek word atheos, meaning godless. Atheos is derived from 'a', meaning "without," and 'theos', meaning "deity". Simply put Atheism literally means "no god"..
That's why the encyclopedia of philosophy (and practically every standard dictionary) defines atheism as the belief that there is no God.
KBrimstone 3 weeks ago
@KBrimstone you realise that that's almost exactly what the other guy said except without the ancient greek stuff and you just came to a different interpretation of those word origins based on your own presuppositions? it's totally irrelevant what the word means; address the arguments and the issues don't distract everyone from the real issues with semantics
messakg123 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
KBrimstone 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@messakg123 @messakg123 No he said Atheism means without belief in the existence of God. That isn't a full and rich enough definition an Agnostic is without belief in an existence of God. Atheism is the a belief that there is no God. or that the proposition "God exists" is false... which entails a mental state (a lack of belief in God.) Sometimes semantics are important so we can know what we are trying to prove or disprove.
KBrimstone 2 weeks ago
@KBrimstone No, what im saying is that you both agreed that "a"=not, "theos"=god and "ism"=belief. You just applied your presupposition that atheism is an assertion that there is no god by saying that when you put them together you get "not-god belief" but the other was using his presupposition to say is was "not god-belief". And I would agree that sometimes semantics are important. But not here since youre just arguing over a label rather than an actual argument.
messakg123 2 weeks ago
@sandyandcrustybungle - Craigs definition is a strawman. Not unlike the rest of his arguments. You are correct. A - without. Without theism. Without a belief in the existence of a god. An atheist does not hold a belief in a god. That however is not the same thing as saying there is no god. An atheist says there is not enough evidence for a god therefore he doesnt personally hold a belief in a god. Craig uses his anal retentive definition to try to trap the atheist in a corner.
TheEarthFirst 2 weeks ago
Fine tuning also is a good disproof for god, because it demands that god can only create the universe one certain way to allow for life. This means god is limited in his power and means god is restricted by those same specific things and therefore not all powerful. Lastly a more complex being creating a complex universe demands that god was fine tuned by someone or something else.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 weeks ago
What is god made of?
How does the immaterial bring about the material, and where is the evidence for it?
Furthermore time is just a way to show events, but how real is time?
Also the nothing physicists speak of the quantum vacuum, not a literal nothing.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 weeks ago
If articulate bullshit was the next great energy source then William Lane Craig would be a perpetual motion machine. I have to assume that most people won't have the capacity to really parse everything he says and discover its intellectual dishonesty. He says it so well. Why can't he use his powers of eloquence for good?
zerobeat18 3 weeks ago
William Craig's main tactic is to set up straw-men and easily break them down. For example, he insists that that the atheist (or naturalist) assumes the universe had no beginning. And then he makes himself out to be the hero by considering the Big Bang theory. But he knows damn well that no atheist ever said they KNEW that the universe had no beginning. It was merely one passing idea that has been replaced with a newer better idea.
zerobeat18 3 weeks ago
The fact that there was a Big Bang "proves" the existence of a god as much as a lightning proves the existence of Zeus.
Aguijon1982 3 weeks ago
Craig: "I have discovered my opponent believes in X
I will defend 2 contentions tonight, one is that there is no reason to believe X is true, and secondly, there is reason to believe Y is true.
Z can only happen if Y is true, therefore Y is true, and X is not true."
Read the above, and you will never need to watch another Craig debate.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
it's ridiculous how craig always goes on about the historical evidence for jesus.. truth is there is no concrete evidence at all. he is just one of many legends as was apolonious. it's just that jesus stuck. there is no other document found which gives a detailed account of this so called jesus.
1919dpg 1 month ago
@1919dpg How could you possibly know that? There are Roman documents written by the Roman Empire that tell us Jesus was a real person and did the actions described in the Bible.
22hinRICHs 1 month ago
@22hinRICHs i do not know for sure but it is most probably the case. i think so because there are numerous legends of men with the exact same story as jesus roaming around the meditaranean. look up horrus and apolonious. btw the roman writings you mention like the 1 of josephas wrote of the so called jesus from hearsay after the crucifixtion. thus not a witness. even if it had been written at the time jesus was alive, it would still not be valid as it would have been hearsay frm fanatics
1919dpg 1 month ago
@22hinRICHs and not a direct account
1919dpg 1 month ago
@1919dpg Their is not a multitude of historical evidence of the crucifixion of Jesus, but their is enough to prove his existence. Tacitus the Roman historian who was very outspoken against Christians and referred to them as a plague is one. Anyway their is no debating Jesus existed, what is debatable is was he a) The Son of God, b) a wise teacher possibly even a prophet, or c) some fanatical nut that started a cult.
lion575 1 month ago
I like how atheists still try to defend their debaters even though William Lane Craig destroys everyone in his path. You all say that theism is so far fetched and theists are idiots, when atheism is no more scientific than theism.
22hinRICHs 1 month ago
@22hinRICHs
Absolutely, i cannot believe how ignorant and blind those so called "brights" are hahaha. But we have to Pray for them brother, no other option.
MrLuisylupe 1 month ago
@22hinRICHs - Craig hs never destroyed an atheist. He spent this whole debate defining atheism and doing little else.
TheEarthFirst 1 month ago
@TheEarthFirst Did you watch this video?? It's quite clear that John Shook was utterly humiliated. Who gave him his Ph.D? I suggest you watch a few of William Lane Craig's other debates on the topic of the existence of God against other atheists. I only hope that your ignorance does not block the logical component of your brain and you watch them with an open mind and an open heart.
22hinRICHs 1 month ago
@22hinRICHs - Humiliated? Frustrated maybe , because of Craigs need to define the parameters of everything. Craig strawmans constantly. He defines atheism in a way that makes it absurd. Then he defines morals in such a way that using that definition , you would have to conclude there is a god.This is the only thing Craig shines at , setting the definitions and rules. So the whole debate is an argument about definitions. I did watch his other debates. Craig has the same arguments over and over.
TheEarthFirst 1 month ago
@TheEarthFirst Are you saying his definition of Atheism is false? His arguments continue to cudgel atheists one after another, so why not use them? They are logically valid and make perfect sense.
22hinRICHs 1 month ago
@22hinRICHs - Craigs definition of an atheist is someone who says there is no god. Craig uses this definition because he can easily defend it. He can say the atheist could never be sure there was no god so atheism makes no sense. His definition is wrong in most cases. The vast majority of atheists only contend there is not an adequate ammount of proof for a god. So Craig is building a strawman he can knock right down.
TheEarthFirst 1 month ago 2
@22hinRICHs - I watched it through several times, just not recently. I wish we could go over it point by point. Wouldnt be easy though.
TheEarthFirst 1 month ago
@22hinRICHs watch the God debate with Sam Harris and Craig. Not only does Harris humiliate Craig, but also the guys from the audience, and it is because it is so easy to mock theists. Lev.24:16 "He that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him." Well, I've been saying for years that god, the bible and religion are bullshit, and yet, here I am, safe and sound :)
pakicote 1 month ago 2
@pakicote a person of your intellect obviously realizes that the law (the things written in Lev.) was done away with when Christ died on the cross, right?
because if not, then i wouldn't try to justify myself by quoting scripture that you have no knowledge of.
if so, you're an idiot.
tucanblitz 1 month ago
@tucanblitz wow, no man, you've just opened my eres. I thought god was eternal and didn't change, but if he is unsure of what he said before jesus came, then I'll just tear out the first 1200 pages of my bible. And don't be shy, quote whatever you want, there will always be something in the bible to contradict what the bible says.
pakicote 1 month ago
@pakicote would you be so kind as to point out one of these "contradictions"?
btw, you're welcome for me opening your "eres."
tucanblitz 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tucanblitz wow, no man, you've just opened my eres. I thought god was eternal and didn't change, but if he is unsure of what he said before jesus came, then I'll just tear out the first 1200 pages of my bible. And don't be shy, quote whatever you want, there will always be something in the bible to contradict what the bible says.
pakicote 1 month ago 7
Comment removed
eddybrox 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pakicote Jesus said,“Blessed are you when people insult you,persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.Rejoice and be glad,because great is your reward in heaven,for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you” (Matt. 5.11-12).
Here you are safe and sound.Thank God, our society and tolerance evolved so far, that not every anonymous, intolerant, stupid jerk being stoned by congregation, cause of posting dipshit behind his pc.
eddybrox 1 month ago
Comment removed
eddybrox 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pakicote Jesus said,“Blessed are you when people insult you,persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.Rejoice and be glad,because great is your reward in heaven,for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you” (Matt. 5.11-12).
Here you are safe and sound.Thank God, our society and tolerance evolved so far, that not every anonymous, intolerant stupid jerk being stoned by congregation, cause of posting dipshit behind his pc.
eddybrox 1 month ago
Why do the debates in the comments always descend into meaningless name-calling?
PaulySmith93 1 month ago
@PaulySmith93 Because it's the internet.
afluffymango 1 month ago
Man, I was at this debate and the introduction by that guy was pretty amateur hour haha.
RushDrum99 1 month ago
Both Penrose and Hawking do not see the need for God in their models, so why do some theists act as if it were the opposite?
Itsokdontpanic 1 month ago
3:48 WHAT THE FUCK? He changed the debate right before my very eyes from "does god exist" to naturalism vs supernaturalism.
SDub817 1 month ago
@SDub817 well it is sort of the same thing. Supernaturalism means that there would have to be something outside of the natural world, i.e. God.
bertoxx11 1 month ago
This is probably the worst debate I have ever seen from Dr. Craig. I'm an atheist, but I do think that he is usually a good debater. This debate however seems to put him in a funny situation, and the way he tries to get out is by misrepresenting positions and methods. It seemed he really did not get the point that others were trying to make
ABrogaard89 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ateopuertorico Exactly. 99.9999% + of the universe is more hostile to human life than almost anything on Earth, but we are supposed to believe The Universe is fine tuned for life? Send a human body out with no suit into the vacuum of space,see how fine tuned space is for life or any other planet that we know of out of all the many. The universe is filled with black holes, radiation, asteroid belts, ect. If God designed the universe for life, then I agree, he sucks
theBartone9119 2 months ago
@terminat1 All science points to the fact that there is no intelligence that created the universe. There is nothing intelligent about a black hole where not even light can escape, nothing intelligent about stars that explode, no purpose to lifeless gas giants, no purpose for asteroid belts and radiation, all evidence points to a random universe. What God would fine tune a universe for life in a universe where life freezes to death and suffocates without space suits? God? My ass, grow up child.
theBartone9119 2 months ago
Religious logic: You admit you can't prove that all that there is in the universe is the material world, therefore, you admit the supernatural exists.
NO
We admit we cannot prove that all that there is, is simply material, but we have no reason to believe there is anything other than that.
Why is the religious mind so 2 dimensional? Black and white, up or down. Sheesh.
ateopuertorico 2 months ago
@ateopuertorico Do you really believe total randomness could form a viable universe? Really, really believe it?
If you answer honestly, then you should answer 'no.' And that implies that some kind of supernatural Creator is responsible for the creation of the universe.
terminat1 2 months ago
@terminat1 Quantum theory and special relativity indicate that “nothing” is simply a boiling brew of virtual particles popping in and out of existence, "nothing" has weight. Now, There is the same amount of - energy in the universe as + energy. The - energy of gravity balances out the + energy of matter. If there is the same amount of - energy as + energy, that means the universe = 0. The only universe that can = 0 is one that came from “nothing”. Most likely due to Quantum fluctuations, not God
theBartone9119 2 months ago
@terminat1 Randomness didn't create the universe, there has always been 0 energy just like there is now. The + energy of matter balances out the - energy of gravity, meaning there has always been 0 energy, meaning nothing was created that wasn't there before.
theBartone9119 2 months ago
@terminat1 My problem isn't the christian God, it's the idea that some form of intelligence created the universe, which is impossible, the universe is retarded and random, not intelligent. Anyone who says asteroid belts and black holes aren't random is a retard.
theBartone9119 2 months ago
@terminat1 Wow, your ignorance on science must be vast for you to think that way, let me just elaborate on one common sense, if the universe had been any different, perhaps life would not even exist, but that doesn't mean that its perfect for life, we are here due to a series of events that luckily we did not end in complete extinction, take a good look at this solar system, a bunch of dead planets and only one that barely can sustain life, if there is a god and he made this, then he sucks.
ateopuertorico 2 months ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 2 months ago
@ateopuertorico Yeah, and you believe that mindless accidents formed a viable universe, which is absolutely ridiculous.
And I'm sure you could do a better job than God. Have you considered the possibility that maybe God didn't make those planets for habitation?
terminat1 2 months ago
@terminat1 The total energy of the universe = 0. The positive energy in matter balances out the negative energy of gravity exactly and always is 0. What's so great about a universe that = 0? Well, only such a universe can come from "nothing". If there was a "before" the big bang, then the energy total would still be 0. No energy was ever created that wasn't there already at the big bang, meaning no creator needed.
theBartone9119 2 months ago
@terminat1 You know deep down that God is a myth and The Bible is a fairy tail written thousands of years ago, and that nothing happens when you die, because you are dead. Hopefully you wake up to reality, it's a lot more exciting.
theBartone9119 2 months ago
Comment removed
ateopuertorico 2 months ago
@terminat1 You can mock me all you want, but the more science you learn the more insignificant and pathetic your god seems. We live in one planet of one solar system that is in a group of stars in a galaxy that are more than 300 billion of a galaxy of trillions of galaxies, and you're telling me there's a god who chose the people from the desert a few thousand years ago so we can believe we are his ultimate creation? Yeah, I can see a sort of ego in religion, I think I'll pass.
ateopuertorico 2 months ago
@ateopuertorico
hahaha Pathetic? why are you getting yourself all worked up kid ? Typical atheist, insulting and crying and so immature. If your going to "intelligently" criticize someones belief you'd better understand it first buddy. the more science we know? haha you do realize that the the standard "expanding model theory" was proposed by a priest? You do know that the greatest scientist Newton, Galileo, Mendel, Copernicus, Einstein and the list goes did not see any. . .
MrLuisylupe 1 month ago
@MrLuisylupe
.... conflict with "science" and religion. in fact Copernicus said this revealed the handy work of GOD! so ill take THERE word over some kid like you :). Oh and by the way you should study "Western Civilization" and find out how Christianity preserved and transmitted Knowledge and science, so lets grow up shall we. Oh also im a Bio major at UW, i don't see any conflict with my faith so lets grow up from this idiotic reasoning.
MrLuisylupe 1 month ago
@MrLuisylupe So what inspired those men to great discoveries about life and the universe? Was it the bible? If they had gone by faith they would have simply accepted what the bible said and would have never done any science. It doesn't matter if a scientists has a religious belief, the science they discover is what really matters. And then you mention Galileo, the same man the church has imprisoned for his discoveries, Einstein was not a Christian but a pantheist. Craig is an idiot.
ateopuertorico 1 month ago
@ateopuertorico
wow see what i mean! such a poor understanding of history, and frankly its embarrassing. Seriously, if my history professors were here they would chuckle at your lack of knowledge. TAKE NOTES. Galileo was NOT "imprisoned" for his "discoveries" in science! He was put under "house arrest" for advancing his theory of scriptural interpretation, and embarrassing the Pope when he published "Dialogue Concerning the two Chief World Systems"
MrLuisylupe 1 month ago
@MrLuisylupe
Furthermore, "His house" arrest was as Historian Whitehead notes "the worst that happened to men of science, was that Galileo suffered an honorable detention and a mild reproof, before dying peacefully in his bed". So quit getting all excited over the "IMPRISONMENT" and trying to make a rhetorical point. And Einstein was a believer in God, specifically a Deist "a believer in God, by reason rather than revelation". and i believe that the idiot here is the illiterate
MrLuisylupe 1 month ago
@MrLuisylupe
atheist who apparently has ZERO understanding of history. Pitiful if you ask me.
MrLuisylupe 1 month ago
@MrLuisylupe So house arrest is not imprisoned? Wow, I didn't know that.
ateopuertorico 1 month ago
@MrLuisylupe And let me tell you that there is a GREAT difference between a scientific illiterate Christian and a scientist Christian, the scientific illiterate believes blindly in what they are told, a scientists understand the universe works in a natural way but yet hold a belief that someone was behind it, but they also accept that they have absolutely no evidence for their belief in god, ask any scientist out there and they will not show any evidence for god.
ateopuertorico 1 month ago
@ateopuertorico
No evidence for God? Of course no scientist has scientific evidence that God exist, you bozo, you cant submit God to a light compound microscope and see his strand of DNA, NOBODY has ever argued that position. Craig, if you truly sit down and read his books, list a cumulative argument for the existence of God, that is reference to the best explanation of the Origins of the Universe, Fine Tuning, Morality, Personal Experience and the list goes on . . .
MrLuisylupe 1 month ago
@MrLuisylupe
So i challenge YOU to read his books if your so confident that God does not exist, what are you afraid of? i bet your just another illiterate kid you doesn't even understand the argument but gets all excited when you get with your unsophisticated atheist children and pad each others backs, thinking your so bright. Oh, i also recommend reading the British philosopher Antony Flew, the famous 20th century atheist who in 2004 became a believer in God. Do it you might. .
MrLuisylupe 1 month ago
@MrLuisylupe
learn something kid :).
MrLuisylupe 1 month ago
@MrLuisylupe Craig's fallacy comes from argument from ignorance, "If there was a beginning, then someone had to create it" Science in the other hand never has said that the universe created itself or was created, science only points out what we know, we know there were per-existing forces in the universe, the 4 forces, all in a singularity, and then it began to expand, forming the elements that made life possible. Craig even goes as far as to give credit to the bible god.
ateopuertorico 1 month ago
@MrLuisylupe As far as we're concerned the universe might have always existed, the cause is unknown but we can't jump from "I don't know" to "God did it" God has to be proven first to even be considered an option. We have never seen anything create itself out of nothing, things we create are always from per-existing things in the first place, the whole universe, life, all just a product of already existing things, and all we know to exist is matter. God is just in your head.
ateopuertorico 1 month ago
@ateopuertorico
hahahaha the universe might have always existed? hahaha you did not just seriously say that? Oh my, see that is why i just love getting on this website to see how uneducated people throw out random nonsense :). READ, Stephen Hawkins "A Brief History of Time"; or Roger Penrose. I trully think you dont know what your taking about. sorry if im spelling it out. Please if we are to have an educated dialogue, please know your material.
MrLuisylupe 1 month ago
@MrLuisylupe
Note that Hawking and Penrose provide models for a finite universe that work *without* necessitating the postulation of a creator.
MrGralgrathor 1 month ago
@MrLuisylupe I'm only speaking science, energy cannot be created nor destroyed, the universe is made of energy, all in what scientists call the singularity, this is why I said the universe might have always existed, only that it was different back then, perhaps the size of an atom. Of course a religious mind such as yours cannot wrap your head around that and prefer to think this invisible space daddy created everything with his magic.
ateopuertorico 1 month ago
@MrLuisylupe The big problem I have with religious people is how their faith gets in the way of their reasoning, Isaac Newton stopped his science cause he came into a problem that he thought was impossible to solve, and said that only god can know such things, yet scientists that came after him continued his work and even perfected it. God is the easy and lazy way out to answer big questions, yet they are not real answers, and science is the ONLY one answering them with evidence.
ateopuertorico 1 month ago
@ateopuertorico
There is a huge difference between blind faith and faith. EVERYONE has faith in something. I have Faith in God, he is real in my life and i trully think that, you athiest are somehow hurt, or angry at God. I dont know. The other option is " your dillusional". See there you go agian NOT understanding history and pulling material "out of context". Im seriously not spending anymore of my valuable time with you. I've got more sophisticated individuals to dialogue with. Bye :)
MrLuisylupe 1 month ago
@MrLuisylupe Faith in god is blind faith, faith in general is blind, I have trust in my best friend that he would not betray me, but that doesn't mean I could be wrong, he could have already done things behind my back, or he could someday do so, this is why I don't use faith, faith doesn't reassure anything, it doesn't make anything more real, all it means is that you believe in anything for no good reason.
ateopuertorico 1 month ago
@ateopuertorico I suppose when your driving down the road, you have "faith" that the other car will stay on the correct lane not causing an accident. Is it blind faith? i dont think so, your "experience" has taught you to have "faith" that he will follow the laws and stay on the lane. So experience is a form on knowledge, proof one might say. But to write it off and say "faith doest reassure anything" is complete nonsense. Here you dont even agree with "naturalist" who hold that experience is a
MrLuisylupe 1 month ago
@ateopuertorico form of knowledge. Im guessing your single? if you dont have faith that you will find a woman who loves you "well actually" Love cant be tested scientifically so i suppose you dont believe that eighter, so i take that back. I bet you are single hahaha well anyways kid, to say that you dont use faith in anything, is to say you dont have faith in a loved one, you dont trust anyone and ironically your not a scientist, a scientist who has faith that nature is tangible.
MrLuisylupe 1 month ago
@MrLuisylupe Have fun talking to people who agree with you to strengthen your beliefs and make yourself happy with your imaginary friend, I'll go and enjoy reality thank you.
ateopuertorico 1 month ago
@ateopuertorico haha oh yea :).... we are social beings, we love to make ourselfs happy. You on the other hand are probably miserable and incomplete thats why i said before your "dillusional". As William David Thoreau said "people live lives of quiet desperation" and as Paul said "claiming to be wise they became fools". Go enjoy your caveman reality kid :) because even on evolutionary terms nobody wants your inferior genes, sad but true. Bye mr. champion of reality hahahahaha
MrLuisylupe 1 month ago
@MrLuisylupe I see no reason of why I should be sad or miserable, I wasn't born in the middle east for instance, so I'm not afraid to wake up in the morning and be killed by a suicide bomber. I wasn't born into a family of creationists, so they didn't push Christianity to me as hard as other families do, and accept me as an Atheist. I have good friends, I have a good life, should I be miserable for not having an imaginary friend like you? lol, don't make me laugh.
ateopuertorico 1 month ago
@ateopuertorico
haha thank God you werent! I thank God everyday i wake up in a predominate Christian society, shaped Chirstian morals and values, where i dont have to worry about being killed by a fanatic athiest, who's sole purpose in life is to eliminate Jews, Homosexuals, Christian Priests, and the list goes on, and who in a span of 10 years caused more than 10 MILLION deaths. Not even Bin Laden in his wildest dreams can measure up to these Atheistic regimes. Im sure you have
MrLuisylupe 1 month ago
@MrLuisylupe
a wonderful life :) keep telling yourself that. :)
MrLuisylupe 1 month ago
@MrLuisylupe 10 million deaths? Where are you getting that false information? Are you trying to bring the Stalin argument to me? Are you seriously trying to compare men who thought of themselves as gods and did exactly what your religion did, to create a totalitarianism government from which everyone is oppressed. The 3 Abrahamic religions, that worship the same fucking god, have killed more people in history than any other idealism, religion, or whatever.
ateopuertorico 1 month ago
@ateopuertorico
hahaha wow now i see how to get you all worked up on :). don't get mad kid its the truth, and your right I'm wrong, the atheistic regimes have not caused more than 10 million deaths, they have caused tens and tens of millions. I stand corrected. Yea, wow now your a Historian? 3 Abrahamic religions killing more people in History than any other idealism? hahahaha total nonsense. Go to School.
MrLuisylupe 2 weeks ago
@MrLuisylupe Why even bother with you, I don't have to convince you of factual things, in this planet there has never been an Atheist country, there has only been a theocracy and communism, and communism only makes the leader into a god, the only god people can worship. The U.S. has been the closest thing to a secular nation, but through the years it has been slowly being poisoned by religion, back then the founding fathers knew how terrible religion is, and people have forgotten.
ateopuertorico 2 weeks ago
@MrLuisylupe I only wish people like you would be honest with others and yourselves, you seem to lock yourself into this bubble, in it you believe in whatever you want to believe, and no matter what people tell you or show you, nothing will change your mind. A closed mind is not worth wasting time, so I say to you good day, and good bye.
ateopuertorico 2 weeks ago
@ateopuertorico
Thank you for being more polite this time. Well i was actually an atheist and as a result of my exploring and studying the subject, i came to the conclusion that there must be a God. Now, i am not in a bubble, most of my professors are atheist. I try to spend time understanding your world view puertorico. I evaluate evidence with a skeptical lens on both sides. As a result my faith is stronger. Is it not more probable that the 5% who claim that 95% of us suffer
MrLuisylupe 2 weeks ago
some sort of delusion, are they themselves not diluted? I as you to look at the evidence with an open heart and mind. From what i have seen you have a lot of misunderstandings of my faith and history. If your willing to chat on email, i will gladly go in-depth to what we have barely touched upon. Don't close your mind please. Have a great day buddy.
PS (sorry if i disrespected you in any way)
MrLuisylupe 2 weeks ago
@MrLuisylupe Is that so Mr. Atheist? What was your conclusive, verifiable and concrete evidence that god exists? And since when does majority equals truth?
ateopuertorico 2 weeks ago
@MrLuisylupe How dare you say that the new atheists are against people's freedoms? How dare you turn things around when YOUR religion is the one slowing down humanity since the dark ages? Fuck your god, fuck your religion, and fuck you.
ateopuertorico 1 month ago
@ateopuertorico
Wow, hahaha, don't worry im not impressed by your insults, there meaningless to me. I just love seeing the true colors come out when atheist are exposed to the truth and get into dialogue with educated Christians. Bye Caveman :)
MrLuisylupe 2 weeks ago
@MrLuisylupe - Christians are the anit-semites. They have been blaming Jews for their imaginary savior's death for centuries.
TheEarthFirst 1 month ago
@TheEarthFirst No we haven't, if He would not have died, then He could not have been resurrected thus saving humanity. If you are to criticize Christianity, I suggest you do a little research.
22hinRICHs 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@22hinRICHs - "If you are to criticize Christianity, I suggest you do a little research."
If you look at who the anti -semites are it's Christians and Muslims. The 3 Abrahamic religions rarley stop fighting amoungst themselves.
TheEarthFirst 1 month ago
@22hinRICHs I'm with you and Craig!
luv2bkenzie 1 month ago
@TheEarthFirst
Great caricature of my faith.
MrLuisylupe 2 weeks ago
@MrLuisylupe - I'm amazed that someone who beleives in talking snakes and donkeys, that the world is only 6 thousand years old can call another group of people delusional. How vauable can your time be when you waste it on your knees talking to someone who is most likely not there?
TheEarthFirst 1 month ago
@TheEarthFirst I am not a Christian however, 100% of the Catholic Church hierarchy (largest group of Christians in the world) believes in Evolution. Only 90% of world renound Physicists support Evolution, 10% believe it violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. My point is your comments about people believing the world is 6k old years etc being dillusional, "To dismiss all religious people based on the actions of the most literalist dumb ones, I think is bigotry." - Andrew Sullivan.
lion575 1 month ago
@lion575 - Can I ask what religion you are?
TheEarthFirst 1 month ago
@TheEarthFirst For lack of any better label, I'll say Deist. I'm 100% certain that the Universe is a physical functioning system with intelligence behind it (That is all I am 100% sure of). Beyond that I have a 'suspicion' (for lack of a better word) that their is a god. Philosophically Christians make a compelling argument for Jesus, but looking at history, governments, the catholic church, corrupt historians, and the apostle paul it seems quite and elaborate mess of things has been created.
lion575 1 month ago
@lion575 - Thanx Lion. Personally I completly understand the Deist point of view. I thought about taking that religion myself. It sounds like our opinions aren't that far apart. I consider myself non - religious. It's just my way of not taking on a title that people have already misrepresented ( Atheism, Agnostism etc...). I could never know who or what god is or if he exists so I don't practice a religion. Thanx for your intelligent response
TheEarthFirst 1 month ago
@lion575 -"My point is your comments about people believing the world is 6k old years etc being dillusional,"
I was commenting on someone who seems to have a fundamental view, so I gave an answer rebutting that view.
About Evolution, it doesn't violate the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. It has nothing to do with the 2nd law of Thermodynamics , that's Cosomology.
TheEarthFirst 1 month ago
@TheEarthFirst
6 thousand years old? hahaha, good lie, way to write off Christians by saying that we ALL believe in a "6 thousand year old earth". Not the Christians that i have had the privilege of studying with. :) So please quit being so ignorant.
MrLuisylupe 2 weeks ago
@MrLuisylupe - Nice that some Christians believe some reality but not all do.
TheEarthFirst 2 weeks ago
@TheEarthFirst
I suppose your an atheist or agnostic, your faith in your belief i would argue is misguided. Yet, this is not the place or time so if you would like to understand orthodoxy Christianity, as the Catholic Church teaches, i will gladly take the time to sweep away misconceptions?
MrLuisylupe 2 weeks ago
@MrLuisylupe - I understand it enough. If I did have misconceptions , I doubt they would be large enough to make me have faith in anything. I know there is a difference between the Catholic Church and the fundamental religion i was rasied in. However, I'm more concerned with the validity of the Bible itself than different dogmas.
TheEarthFirst 2 weeks ago
wtf 9 and a half minutes in and he just asserted that the universe must have had a cause (no cause can predate everything because it would be included in everything), and then he jumped straight to "this being"?!?!? what being?!
He hadn't even properly demonstrated the big bang was the creation of everything, nor that it could have had a 'cause' before it, but not even CLOSE to demonstrating this cause was a being.
"bring the universe into being. This being"
switched definitions of being
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 2 months ago
8 minutes in and WLC has embarrassed himself by claiming the big bang proves everything came from nothing
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 2 months ago
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke Even atheists agree on this. What other option is there?
terminat1 2 months ago
@terminat1 The Universe didn't come from nothing....Craig is a moron and one of the most retarded debaters I have ever seen, what an insult to human intelligence this man is.
theBartone9119 2 months ago
@terminat1 "Nothing" isn't actually nothing, there are always virtual particles popping in an out of existence, which indicates no need for a God to create the universe. Believers lose in the battle of life.
theBartone9119 2 months ago
@terminat1 atheists don't agree that everything came from nothing, but never mind atheist opinion, what matters is what cosmologists/physicists think about it. Its NOT the current scientific model that the big bang was everything coming from nothing, just that everything came from a very very dense state. That is the big bang model.
We can speculate about before that e.g. maybe everything came from nothing, or maybe from a hyperspace multiverse, or a black hole in another universe, it's unknown!
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 2 months ago
@terminat1 Early man only lived to be about 25 and most died because of teeth problems in the worst pain imaginable, most children died at child birth. People died eating bad food, disease with no treatments were common, early ape-man tribes killing each other for women and resources...What intelligence would set a stage like that? It's humans that invented shelter, farming, technology, hospitals, dentistry. We now live to about 80 and most children survive birth. Our intelligence is real.
theBartone9119 2 months ago
@theBartone9119 Well, dying due to disease all comes from the curse brought on because of man's rebellion against God. It's not God's fault that man sinned. Man chose to sin.
The 'ape-man' evolutionary idea is, of course, not true.
terminat1 2 months ago
@terminat1 If I had to make a logical guess I would say an accident seems more probable than intelligence. No intelligence that cared about us would put us on a planet with volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes, earth quakes, cancer, diseases, famine ect. Millions of kids die each day in agonizing pain, meaning no loving God can exist. Heaven is a fairy tail by people scared of death and not being able to cop with the fact that it's all over, it's a comfortable delusion.
theBartone9119 2 months ago
@theBartone9119 I really don't think that's logical. I mean, come on. Engineers and architects, etc., spend countless hours designing and building bridges, roads, space shuttles, cars, and the like, and these things are astronomically less complex than the simplest bacterium. Even the space shuttle pales in comparison to the simplest cell.
And all of it was supposed to be a mindless accident? No way. That's why the Bible says in Romans 1 that every man knows in his heart that God must exist.
terminat1 2 months ago
@terminat1 Actually I believe the exact opposite, I think every man knows in his heart that God does not exist, and it;s just a comfortable delusions because it can't be disproven. Also , you are just proving my point that no designer can design without a physical brain. Cars, space shuttles, all came from the the biological human brains. Plus the universe looks like a mindless accident, black holes? asteroids? lifeless planets? Gas giants? A car has more use to us than a black hole.
theBartone9119 2 months ago
@theBartone9119 Well, then, sorry, but you're in flat denial. You honestly believe that randomness can create the human brain, DNA, chickens, Jupiter, and earthworms? Wow, with that kind of thinking, you must play the lottery regularly!
The odds of your winning the lotto regularly are astronomically more likely than the universe forming by chance. But I know better than to think you're going to start playing the lotto without restraint. Why won't you?
terminat1 2 months ago
@theBartone9119 The universe looks like a mindless accident? Do you realize the fine-tuning of the universe? Do you realize how complex the orbits of the stars and planets are? How the solar system is actually a huge celestial clock? This was all supposed to be a 'mindless accident?' Really?
Just because the universe is large and only the Earth, Moon, Sun, and close stars apparently provide any real use for us, doesn't mean it is uncreated. God could have created that other stuff for Himself.
terminat1 2 months ago
@theBartone9119 Well, those things are here because of a curse due to sin. Of course, you don't accept that conclusion, because you don't believe the Bible, but it does explain why there are evils in the world.
terminat1 2 months ago
one way that a genetic code can mutate is to accidentally copy a part of the code, lengthening the entire genome. A later mutation to this repeated part and bam, new 'information', a longer genome with new genes.
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 2 months ago
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke can you give an example of a gentic mutation or an evolutinary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome? (richard dawkins was certainly stumped by this)
92xtaylor 2 months ago
@92xtaylor I just did :P see below I guess you missed it, the message 9 mins ago(that richard dawkins stumped video is a fake, and there are lots of other video's with good {great} answers to the question)
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 2 months ago
@92xtaylor here's my fav show addressing this youtube.com/watch?v=QZoMnz9JgGI
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 2 months ago
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke that link sends me back to home lol
Biophysicist/information theorist Dr Lee Spetner points out that mutations have never been observed to add information, but only reduce it—this includes even the rare helpful mutations. And he points out that natural selection is insufficient to accumulate slight advantages, as it would be too weak to overcome the effects of chance, which would tend to eliminate these mutants.21
92xtaylor 2 months ago
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke Natural selection requires self-reproducing entities. Producing even the simplest self-reproducing organism (see aside) by a chance combination of chemicals is even more incredible than producing the Annals of Ennius by dropping letters on the ground.
92xtaylor 2 months ago
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke Living things require long molecules with precise arrangements of smaller ‘building blocks’. Not only will the ‘building blocks’ not combine in the right order, but they are unlikely, by natural means, to build up large molecules at all! Rather, large molecules tend to break down into smaller ones. Also, the ‘building blocks’ are unstable.
92xtaylor 2 months ago
@92xtaylor okay so assuming you've conceded the evolution of sexes and stuff now that we've moved to the origin of the first replicators? :P I don't think you did take all that in but okay lets move on to abiogenesis.
all you need is an example of a naturally occurring self replicating molecule? like crystals growing, such things have been discovered in clays. It's a great topic, and you really must look into things more! and be way more careful about declaring things impossible
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 2 months ago
but in anycase bro im getting tired been up for a awhile lol hope you find your answer that makes you happy (whatever it brings you to.) God bless and have a wonderful day! :)
92xtaylor 2 months ago
@92xtaylor k gnight good chat
hope you and any creationist readers took in some information here
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 2 months ago
@92xtaylor I just really need to correct something you said in your signoff message, "hope you find your answer that makes you happy (whatever it brings you to.)"
I'm searching for the truth, and it doesn't matter if what I find makes me happy or not, I'm going to believe what I'm convinced of by the evidence.
If that was how you decide what to believe, I hope you realize how very unscientific that is, and how unlikely it is that your beliefs will map to reality
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 2 months ago
wait a minute, I thought you were asking for information of the evolution of sexes, I missed it the first time... "please explain to me the organ of sex"? lol well men have a penis, and girls have a...
the evolution of them you mean? it will be a similar explanation to the evolution of any other body part, the survival/reproduction chance advantages.
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 2 months ago
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke Sex is vastly different then just an organ. It is two completly fully devolped sexual organs that match the other gender. this is vastly impossible thru natrul guidelines. Evolution is mutation changing things slowly. But for sex it would have to be a fully compatible sexual repoduction system (two different genders) in the exact same time frame and area. I do not know of any evidence that suggest this has occured
92xtaylor 2 months ago
@92xtaylor ya look into the 'horizontal' gene transfer that predated sexual gene mixing. Happened way before sexual organs
really look into 'argument from ignorance' fallacies, you mustn't proclaim things impossible just because you don't understand the natural process yet
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 2 months ago
(I mean you said you thought some people were in denial of any evidence no matter how convincing, so I guess my question was do you think it's like that with allll non believers, and what you thought those evidences were)
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 2 months ago
basically one of the main reasons I know of that makes sexual reproduction an advantage over cloning/mitosis, is how if you have two parents with a bad eye gene, the child may be born blind, but if only one parent has the faulty gene then the working gene will be 'expressed'.
what god-pointing repeated coincidences have you had?
and do you think those happen for everyone, and that's how god shows himself but we are in denial?
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 2 months ago
@lotmein20 So since somebody doesn't believe the same things you do, they deserve eternal torture? I hope you see the lunacy of this view.
IseeRightThrough2you 2 months ago
@IseeRightThrough2you Nonsense, they're choosing to believe what they do. They have chosen what ever consequences come from that, even consequences that they might not have imagined; it's not that they deserve hell anymore than a christian would. No christian is spared from hell because he deserves heaven, for no one is worthy of heaven. Only those who obtain forgiveness by loving God, and loving their neighbors as themselves will enter heaven.
Satarack 2 months ago
@Satarack I am mentally unable to choose what I believe. What I believe entirely depends on what I have been convinced of through evidence, reasoned argument and understanding.
I haven't chosen not to believe in god, and if I every find any convincing evidence, I will have no choice but to believe. As it stands, I have no choice but to disbelieve
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 2 months ago
@IseeRightThrough2you But that is not as simple as it sounds. If I just cry out, 'Jesus, forgive me!" But I do not know Jesus, then my words are hollow. How can I receive forgiveness if I do not know what that is? How can I love God if I do not know who God is? The only way to understand is to walk in the shoes of God, to follow his word to love others and to love him. How can I understand limitless compassion if I do not try to be compassionate myself? It would be hypocrisy.
Satarack 2 months ago
I can't help but picture William Lane Craig in a flowing cape and top hat.
InvincibleIronyMan 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chrisbowman777 'Atheism is a faith claim that insists that "since there is no God, every cause must be natural."' Is that so? I do so enjoy being told what I think by people who don't know me. Pray, tell me what I am thinking about now. (Hint: It's being vigorously rogered with an eighteen-inch dildo).
InvincibleIronyMan 2 months ago
Infinite is a concept, but exist
davidyou256 2 months ago