Whu? You mean that there weren't any dogs in the premises. C'mon, let's just assume my premises, and use logic, just to see if we end up with dogs in the conclusion!
@Pirate44444 By definition, atheism is a worldview that asserts that there is no God. And naturalism is a worldview that asserts there is no supernatural.
the tittle is ridiculously misleading. Dr Shook is correct when he says that due to the lack of evidence put forward to support the claim that there is something supernatural you should therefore dismiss such claims, what is wrong with that. I must have forgot that theist are not keen on logic and reasoning, I won't be making that mistake again.
@mrgarlicbread100 I don't like the title too, but Craig is right when he says that it doesn't follow *logically* and as an *evidence* that without evidences in a strict sense for supernatural world you should affirm that there isn't anything supernatural. It would be still a matter of reasoning here, not of logic neither of evidence. So, as many in subjects in life, it's in the field of reasoning that they both are discussing about it, becoming as near as they can of this matter.
@mrgarlicbread100 Christians are keen on logic. We just aren't keen on adopting your premises. We have our faith, and it is in no way inferior to your doubt.
An atheists will never discuss his epistemology and the source of his assumptions. Why? Because he likes to have absolute manipulation and control. Of course, if one accepts your premises, the logic flows unavoidably.
If we assume no God exists as a first premise, it is LOGICALLY IMPERMISSIBLE to find God in the conclusion.
Craig is a master at twisting words. And he uses the tactic of throwing out assertions until his opponent is swamped. Making an assertion takes 3 seconds, debunking it takes maybe 5 minutes. In a 30 minute debate, all he has to do is toss out 6 assertions and his opponent will lose, regardsless of the validity of those assertions.
Now speaking of the supernatural hasn't advanced science detected an energy force that can not be seen? I believe they have detected an energy that can not be seen which many believe is the spirit realm. It is not a dense energy. Just because you don't see something doesn't mean it is not there just as you do not see air but we know it is there. Nobody in science will speak of the spirit realm as in "ghosts" but many have seen them & that is a fact. I think some sane people keep quiet about that
The Highly Exalted Scientific Method is now above ALL things. Not only can we use it to test physical things, but we can test non-physical things with it.
Pesky math has been cowed. But not only math, but if 2=1, then the logical law of contradiction is discarded.
All things in heaven and earth, see the power of the scientific method when taken as an axiom!
@RomansGalatians You're writing like a a doofus. Newton did not disprove math in any way- all he disproved was that his supposition about how gravity would impact different sized objects was not true. Tell me you are joking: If this really has to be explained to you, your critical thinking skills are kaput. over. zero nada.
@hexum7 You deny knowledge and think that ignorance will make you not guilty? That is your way of life. And when someone confronts you on basic knowledge, you play dumb. Well, stay dumb. Get lost. You're blocked.
@RomansGalatians Right, block me, because I've called out your horse shit for what it is- typical cowardly twit who shrinks form any challenge to his 'superior' crappy arguments.
I don't know why people still use math. Newton proved math false with the scientific method.
He dropped a 2lb ball and a 1 lb ball. Thus, the 2lb ball should hit the ground in half the time. But when he dropped both, they both hit the ground in 2 seconds!
Thus, 2 = 2/2. Therefore, math has been disproven by the scientific method.
@Douglaslid Both Christian Evidentialists and Atheist Evidentialists are fools. The only difference is that atheists are too much a bunch of pussies to make a proposition that can be deconstructed.
Reason doesn't draw from the conclusions, it is inferred from the premises. And all reason starts, ultimately, with faith.
@RomansGalatians You make baseless assumptions about what I think and then rant against what you assume. Evidence is a very important part of validating knowledge but not the only part. Science depends on people building on proven knowledge then using deduction or intuition to posit a theory about something that is unknown. They then devise experiments to get the evidence to prove the theory. This is how progress is made.
@Douglaslid So you just have this "intuition." LOLOLOL. Oh that's rich. Holy Roller Doug has unicorns dancing inside his eyelids.
First you tell me you have "faith" in "minds", then you tell me that you can look at your computer and induce that an intelligent mind made it, now you're telling me about your "intuition".
Listen, stick to empirical data. Enough of your fairy tales.
@hexum7 If, as your first axiom, you exclude God and ASSUME that NO God exists, then it is LOGICALLY IMPERMISSIBLE to find Him in your conclusions!
You try to SKIP OVER epistemology and axioms, and go straight to theorums, smuggling in atheism into your UNSPOKEN axiom. Then you think that you have PROVEN something when you find NO God in your conclusion! It's a sham.
@RomansGalatians Ah, I think I understand now what you are getting at scientific studies- if that is what you are referring to- do not presuppose anything except the properties of thing thing that they are studying.To do otherwise, would render any study invalid i.e I propose that water pressure will cause ball filled with air to float . If so, the ball will float. If it floats, it will rise to the top of a bowl of water. cont.
@hexum7 .cont. Therefore propose an experiment in will place air-filled balls in water and record the results- If the results are as expected, I have proven that there is a co-relation between the two.
HOWEVER, an experiment cannot tell me if it is actually air pressure which causes balls to float. It cannot tell me if another agent, say, a god of orbs, is not pulling balls upward. (cont.)
@hexum7 So can the experiment tell you whether the scientific method is valid? Can the experiment conclude with you discovering that logic is not valid? Can the experiment conclude that the mind observing it doesn't really exist?
I don't think that you understand - scientific experiments are regulated and peer reviewed in order to assure that the methods are valid. logic isn't a philosophy or hypothesis- it exists without needing to be conjured up . Logic can be used incorrectly- but that is the fault of the user, not logic.
@RomansGalatians " Can the experiment conclude that the mind observing it doesn't really exist?" As i already explained, an experiment can only conclude that what was expected to occur if A, does or doesn't occur.
@RomansGalatians(cont. pt. 3) That is why no scientific experiment, except those specifically designed to test for god can start with the premise that a a god, a witch, etc. is causing the results.
@RomansGalatians it is not 'smuggling in atheism" It is not a sham. There have been many studies of supernatural phenomenon- None which have yielded any positive results yet, and so religious types simply pretend they never happened or dismiss them as biased.
@hexum7 And don't tell me that the NEGATIVE is the necessary assumption. In the first place, first axioms have no rules excepting that they don't self contradict, because then we could never draw conclusions from them.
Secondly, if that be so, we couldn't assume our own existence, logic, math, and so many other positive assumptions upon which science is based.
@hexum7 And thirdly, we MUST have at least one, if not many, positive axioms. First axioms cannot all be negative. So to state that a first axiom MUST be presumed to be negative simply is irrational.
@Douglaslid Just stop and think for one minute about what assumptions lie behind science. Think about how inferences are drawn from premises, not from conclusions.
Then ask yourself "If I assume God from the beginning, how would that effect my conclusions when I view data?"
Then ask yourself "If I assume NO God from the beginning, is it ever possible to infer God from looking at evidence?"
You see NO God because you have excluded Him from your premises. It's that simple.
@Douglaslid You fancy yourself so cleaver because you can deconstruct evidentialism. Any fool can deconstruct evidentialism. Greek skeptics did it thousands of years ago.
One of these days you may realize that you, like I, start with a faith proposition and then reason from there.
@Douglaslid Maybe it's like on Terminator, the computer was made by other computers and machines. Maybe it's like on Matrix, and your brain is just plugged in, and that so-called "computer" in front of you is just a program designed by the oracle of the matrix.
The same thing happens when you, at an epistemological level (top priority), you try to compute a logical contradiction.
It paralyzes you in ambivalence.
Such is the case with atheists. They have super computers inherited from their Maker. But they try to compute the proposition "all propositions that are not supported by empirical evidence must be rejected." Of course, they must reject the contradictory proposition. They get dim.
Try computing a Word from God and you'll get somewhere.
There was this episode of Star Trek where the ship's computer had a virus in control of navigation or something. But they could still have the computer perform normal ship functions.
So, in order to preoccupy the computer Spok commanded "Executive order top priority, Compute Pi."
And the whole ship dimmed and the 25th Century super computer was incapacitated.
That is what happens when you put your mind to running in circles.
Atheists think that ignorance of the positive = omniscience of the negative.
So, then, they simply state their proposition in the negative, and claim omniscience.
And from that lofty spire of omniscience of the negative, they mock all positive propositions.
Not that I really believe that they are ignorant. They are not. But even if they were, it does not logically imply that they are omniscient of the negative.
@BJ151 thats where you are wrong because most people started out believing the supernatural, dedicated their lives to it, so the supernatural didnt show itself to them. so thats why they chose a different path where they are not so easily indocrinated.
Atheists are the biggest believers in magic on the planet.Every reasonable person knows nothing always comes from nothing,we never see something come from nothing,ever,much less everything coming from nothing.
@CBALLEN I suspect that you know that the scientific study of singularities and the attempts to reconcile the general theory of relativity with quantum theory is much more complex than “everything from nothing.” Also science and atheism are not the same thing, as I am sure religious scientists would be quick to tell you. Whether or not God exists cannot be proved either way particularly when alleged to transcend the known universe; outside of personal faith it is unknowable.
@Dougl I understand there once was nothing then there was everything.I understand ,by the Law of information,that matter can't exist before information exists.I understand that all information comes from intelligence and all intelligence comes from life.So life had to exist before anything natural could exist.This is real science,anything that diverges from it is wishful thinking that can't be proven,but only imagined without proof .Everything that begins to exist must have a beginner.
@CBALLEN If you postulate a being (God) who transcends the known universe, then by default it is impossible to know anything about the properties of such a being. One can choose to believe that such a being has certain properties, perhaps based on a belief in revealed scripture but that is different from knowledge. It is my view that is impossible to prove or to disprove the existence of such a being and to construct proofs like the KCA is therefore futile.
@Douglaslid Then you must deny the only scientific answer of why we exist and since there is no other scientific answer,that is the most reasonable answer.
@CBALLEN Since I don't accept you belief as a "scientific answer" we must leave it there. I am happy to accept that we don't know all the answers and, although in my sixties, I am still enthusiastic and excited by science and cosmology. I am sure that our young scientists will unravel the secrets of black holes and will then be very close to understanding the conditions immediately before the big bang.
@RomansGalatians Nothing in life is certain, we may all be wiped out by some cosmic event tomorrow. However, while we are here I have faith in the almost boundless capacity and ingenuity of the human mind.
@Douglaslid Well, that's nice that you admit that you have a mind. However, I fail to understand how an empiricist can have "faith" in a "mind," neither of which are empirically verified.
I have faith in a boundless Mind. I don't really see how we are that far apart.
Though I do contend that we do have certainty. No, not of empirical things, but we know logic for example. Even if our eyes fool us, we know by logic that straight/bent pencils don't exist. The law of contradiction is sound.
@Douglaslid "If you think there is no evidence of human ingenuity, how are you transmitting these posts?"
Fallacy of Induction, much? How can one merely look at a computer and infer a human mind. Maybe it was an alien mind that made it. Maybe it always existed. Maybe God made it. Maybe the molecules just fell together that way. Maybe the molecules just fell together, made a brain, which is nothing more than electric pulses, and that brain made the computer, bound by the laws of nature.
FAIL!!! Atheism makes no claims, thus it has no arguments.
You first as the claimant need to show that there is a god, and so far every attempt has failed.
Also Craig, if morality is authored by god it's by definition Subjective and not Objective. You would think someone with a PhD. in philosophy would know that.
@baldurus1 Atheism has no arguments? Why do they write books? Why do they meet every year? What do they talk about? "Uh, hello, my name is Mr. Atheist and I have nothing to say to you." LOL
@YesYou123333 The arguments are AGAINST theism which infringes upon the lives of the non-believers, not FOR Atheism. Or what are your arguments against unicorns? Obviously we have no need to write books against unicorns or people who believe in unicorns, because unicornism isn't trying to infringe upon anyone's rights and liberties.
@YesYou123333 Atheists have NO arguments. Dr Shook and most atheists need to learn basic logic. It is really embarrassing to hear this Shook talk. Dr Craig is just way more intelligent that all atheists.
You know there is more than one definition of "atheism", right? The one Shook holds is that there is no God (not simple disbelief) because he's a naturalist (nothing beyond nature; precludes supernatural entities), so he does make a claim about God.
Also it's bad to comment on someone's view of morality when you don't know it, and it's worst to comment on it when the holder has already answered the objection in detail.
@Kiithknight No there isn't, Atheism is the lack pf belief in a god. Rejection of a god is Anti-theism. And the concept Atheism makes no statements or claims.
I didn't comment on his VIEW of morality i commented on the nature of morality which Craig has completely misunderstood. No matter what details he gives, they are wrong. Morality from someone is by definition subjective. There are no ways around it.
Most philosophical dictionaries (and even regular ones) and encyclopedias still primarily define atheism as a belief in no God. Take the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for example. The point is moot, though, since Shook defines atheism as belief in no God in this debate (and in his life, see naturalist).
Morality is either objective or non-existence. Subjective morality is just preference, so there is no good or evil someone ought or ought not do. Evidence for this?
@Kiithknight Wrong, in every single modern dictionary the first definition is 1. Lack of belief in a god. Some dictionaries have a second definition, and they always start with the word ARCHAIC. Archaic as in obsolete, no longer in use.
"Evidence for this" I can't prove a negative, it doesn't work like that.
Can you provide me a single moral act that is objective?
Dictionary(.)com, Princeton, Wikipedia, University of Aberdeen’s philosophical dictionary, Stanford’s philosophical encyclopedia, philosophy-dictionary(.)org, I could go on. Even the ones which define it as simple disbelief have belief in no God as a second definition. The archaic definition is “godless” – read carefully next time.
@Kiithknight I said MODERN dictionaries. Dictionary(.)com 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. The belief that there is no god, is not a rejection of god. It's a LACK of belief. " belief in no God" That is not a rejection of god, i lack a belief in god=belief in no god.
You have to be joking right now. There’s a world of difference between those two definitions. “belief that there is no God” is a truth/knowledge claim that no such being exists and requires evidence; “disbelief in the existence of…” is to admit ignorance on the matter, which does not require evidence.
@Kiithknight BELIEF is not knowledge, neither is lack of belief. I am an Atheist i don't believe in a god, but i can't know if there is or isn't a god.
LOL!!! What do you the in the definition of disbelief is? The dictionary defines it as "Lack of faith in something."=Lack of belief.
Belief makes a knowledge claim unless you're a fideist (belief is devoid of reason/rationality). But that makes belief useless in all but a personal sense. On that view you can believe anything without asserting it's true, and that's delusional.
"Lack of faith" is a good definition. You know the Christian definition of faith is that it's based on evidence, right (Heb. 11:1)? "Lack of faith" would be "not enough evidence to assert". Thanks for the definition.
@Kiithknight You're right, if you claim belief in something that needs justification. Lack of belief however does not. Or are you justified to provide evidence for your disbelief in unicorns? I think not.
In the absence of a defeater, I am rational to believe moral experience.
No action is inherently moral, so no. A moral action (action motivated by moral intention) would be helping someone cross the street to safety.
“Any argument for moral skepticism will be based upon premises which are less obvious than the existence of objective moral values themselves.” – L. Antony
You’re claiming it’s subjective. That’s a knowledge claim; provide evidence.
Subjective means it depends on the subject. Subjective morality is the stance that moral values and duties depend on the person who holds them. This makes them no more than opinions and preferences, which are not binding. Subjective morality is no morality.
@Kiithknight No you gave an example of an act. Or are you saying that it would be immoral not to walk an old lady across the street?
Where else would we get morality if not from ourselves? The Universe consists of matter and energy, what is morality? Matter or energy? From where does it permeate?
I'm sure your article is very interesting but i am willing to bet 100$ that it's nothing i haven't heard before. We can have a discussion about the topic here. Without referencing this and that.
You asked for a moral act, and I gave you a moral act. Concerned with their safety, you help them cross the street.
You're just assuming naturalism. On your view I agree there would be no objective morals, and even if there were there'd be no reason to follow them. But I disagree with naturalism because it cannot establish itself.
If you're not willing to even look at evidence, why bother posting? Seems like religious zeal to shut your eyes and ears to it.
@Kiithknight I'm interested in having a discussion, you learn more when you're challenged than from reading obscure articles. Just humor me and give another example of a immoral or moral act, something more challenging than helping old ladies.
I wanted you to read it and respond, but oh well. I'll give you another example once you deal with the first one.
I never claimed lack of belief requires evidence. But the belief that no God exists is a belief, not non-belief. Shook defined his beliefs as there being nothing beyond nature, which requires evidence. You may not, but I was not commenting on you.
The Christian definition of faith is not that. If you want to use the definition you gave, then I have no faith.
@Kiithknight Then would you kindly disprove Allah, Baa'al, Azrukhal, Thor, Odin, Zeus, Juju etc. etc. etc. I'm assuming you don't believe in these gods? Am i right?
We already have evidence for nothing existing beyond nature, until something is proven disbelief is warranted. His position is a response to a truth statement that hasn't meet it's burden of proof, his disbelief is justified and requires no evidence. Because no evidence to the contrary exist.
In order to disprove those gods all I have to do is hold to a view which is more plausible than its negation and makes their existence logically impossible. I believe that YHWH exists. I have arguments to get to a monotheistic God, and then I look at the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus to say God revealed Himself in Jesus.
His belief is not justified. All he can say is that he doesn't know if there is anything beyond nature, not that nature is all there is.
Don't be so presumptuous. Jesus has met my burden of proof. I'll refer you to the Bible (of course) and the Resurrection of Jesus by Licona. Take some time and read those two sources for starters (the latter is about 640 pages).
@Kiithknight Do you have any eyewitness accounts? No you don't. The earliest account of Yeshua is from 80-100 AD, over 50 years after his supposed death and resurrection.
And even if there were direct eyewitness accounts that still wouldn't justify belief. We have eyewitness accounts of alien abductions all the time.
Again please read the references I gave. I have no desire to get into a historical debate over Youtube with a 400 character limit per message.
Your dates are off. Paul writes from a source which existed around 5 years after Yeshua's death. The Gospels' sources were much earlier than the writings themselves. Mark was written before 80AD. Even if this is so, it takes ~2 generations to start accumulating legendary stories. Take those things to start research.
@Kiithknight Walking an old lady across the street isn't a moral question, but since you want to stick with that one. Fine. Is it immoral for a dog not to guide an old lady across the street? No of course not. Objective morality would make morality objective to anyone and anything. We don't condemn dogs for not guiding people across a street. But that is exactly what we should do if morality was objective. Objective morality can not discern between humans and dogs.
Sure it is since you're concerned with her safety.
Dogs are not moral agents, everything they do is amoral. Objective morality discerns between moral agents (people, God) and otherwise (dogs, trees, rocks, etc.). Please don't try and debate something if you don't even know what the terms mean and apply to.
Also you're combining moral values and duties as one thing, which they're not. Is and ought are very different things.
@Kiithknight :) If morality is dependent on people and/or god it's like i said from the beginning, subjective. Something that is objective can NOT discern, because it's objective.
A rock is an objective object, a rock is a rock whether there is anyone to identify it as a rock.
Again you're trying to employ the Euthyphro dilemma, so please review the video I sent at the beginning.
Morality is objective. Only moral agents can act morally or immorally. These two things are logically consistent. You're assuming the dog has the same properties as a person, which is absurd. It is objectively true that rocks are not living, but that doesn't mean all things are non-living. In the same way persons are moral agents, but other things lack agency.
@Kiithknight I never said humans are not living. If morality is objective it CAN'T be a property OF man. It must be outside of man. Read the definition of objective in philosophy carefully.
I agree with that definition. Putting it in context of this, objective morality states that morality is universal and binding no matter what anyone thinks about it. But the very definition of morality is that it is only binding in moral agents. Rocks, for example, are not moral agents.
@Kiithknight No, Universal truths are true whether there is a mind to conceive it or not.
Yes morality is only binding to moral agents, now we are finally getting somewhere. But objective morality is not. Objective by definition means that it must be true independent of a mind to conceive it. Making it true for animals, plants, humans etc.
@Kiithknight Definition morality "Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior." The key word here is distinction.
@Kiithknight Objective(philosophy) definition. "Objectivity is a central philosophical concept which has been variously defined by sources. A proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are met and are "mind-independent"—that is, not met by the judgment of a conscious entity or subject."
@Kiithknight "you're combining moral values and duties" That is what i said, helping an ol lady across the street is not a moral value but a duty. That is why i asked you to give a better example.
No it's not a duty. I said you DO help them across, not that you SHOULD. Those are separate things. It is a moral action to help someone across the street because you are concerned with their safety regardless of any obligation to do so.
it's like a battle of idiots. Shook can't even get a point across and Craig is just a clown yucking it up for the audience. Nothing in this 5 min. video was useful.
@kleykenb John 1:8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us.
YOU are not a Christian, that is why you claim to have no sin. If you repent, your sin is taken away. But that is done by an IMPUTED payment; imputed by Christ's perfect life, not mine
@kleykenb You're a parasite. Why don't you state your basic epistemological position.
You don't have one do you?
By the rules of any debate forum, all I need do is state my position: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Boom, I won. Coward was too afraid to step up to the podium and state a positive proposition as to his position. You default.
. . . unless you do have a position. I'd loooove to hear it. Cross-eyed, contradicting dunce.
@kleykenb Of course science is a theorum that makes NUMEROUS presuppositions, not the least of which are logic, math, and a mind capable of observing the experiment.
Science cannot prove the scientific method. Thus if science is your ONLY source, then it deconstructs itself.
You think that science encompasses all knowledge. But, a real scientist knows that he has PURPOSEFULLY narrowed his scope to physical observation. Yet he judiciously uses philosophical knowledge when he does so.
The bible has never explained a single thing. It doesn't provide an explanation of anything.
No explanation of how the universe came to be. It doesn't explain how life came to be.
It says God did it ... but how did God did it ? Hmmm... we shouldn't be interested in such thing. Well, tough luck, it's human nature to be curious and that curiousity led to science and science filled the gaps that religion never even tried to fill.
You think that the Bible encompasses all knowledge. But a real religionist knows that he has PURPOSEFULLY narrowed his scope to a-physical observation.
The Bible can not prove the Biblical method. This if the Bible is you ONLY source, then it deconstructs itself.
@kleykenb You might be getting me mixed up with a different debator. I never claimed that God came into being out of nothing. He always existed. The Bible is talking about the beginning of physical and created things.
All thought must begin with a proposition (a rational one). Otherwise we digress into an infinite regression. And of course that axiom is not provable, because then it would not be the FIRST axiom. You mock a first axiom, yet thought cannot begin without one.
@kleykenb Far from being OPPOSED to reason, having a first axiom is where all rational thought must begin. We both start with first axioms based on faith. When you can admit that, and state your first axiom, we could begin a debate.
@kleykenb Though you are intelligent in many ways, you are a very shallow thinker. The hard sciences do not stand alone. They stand on the shoulders of philosophies, presupposing Christian axioms of logic, the existence of a mind, and order in the Cosmos (not Chaos)
Science will never disprove logic. It cannot. It presupposes logic as a first axiom. Scientific method is on the theorum level. What you believe on the axiom level will color all your perceptions on the theorum level. Can't u see?
it is super natural for cells to form one life form that must depend on an entirely different life form made of different cell with different DNA which are instructions that cell follows. And the level of faith required to believe that cells can over millions of years come up with all the DNA information across all our life forms with all knowledge of all the scientific mechanics within our ecosystem required to maneuver an organism through its life cycle i tantamount to schizophrenia. GOD is.
They always like embarking on debates without defining terms. Would it not be a good idea, before embarking on the problem of evil, to define its cheif term?
No, that's a bit much for an atheist, who has no answer himself, but his entire purpose is to obfiscate truth. By doing so he hopes to escape accountability. But solipsism is not an escape. It's just denial.
@kleykenb Before anyone can delve into the problem of evil, we must define terms.
Critics think that the definition of "evil" has meaning apart from God, and is superior to God.
We can delve deeper into the question, but if you think that such a proposition is so ridiculous as to be mocked, then there really is no need for further discussion on the topic.
I don't mind teaching you. But if you are to mock, you must first tell me the basis of your mockery. How do YOU know what is moral?
@kleykenb Now before I get too far off topic, I want to say this: Relativism is the biggest difficulty when embarking on this topic. The terms slip and slide all over the place. Before long, we have ambiguous meanings for the chief term about which we are discussing!
So, what is the Rock upon which we can base a definition? My first contention is that goodness and evil are not terms superior to God. Rather they are derivative terms, subject to God, and have no meaning apart from Him.
@kleykenb In the Bible, "sin" generally refers to the IMPUTED nature from our father Adam that we have inherited.
Likewise, when the Bible speaks of the Righteousness of a Christian, it is speaking of the IMPUTED Righteousness that comes from Christ. Christ paid for our sins 2000 years ago on the cross.
Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness. Thus, morality is defined as an accountability to God. And righteousness is defined as Christ paying that bill.
@kleykenb LOL. You want me to answer every theological question under the Sun? Go take a Sunday school course.
Silly child. You cannot answer the first question about the topic that we are debating. But you think you can cross-examine me endlessly about every theological topic under the Sun?
Remember, we were debating morality. And you couldn't answer anything. So, you try to stay on cross-exam to cover your ignorance. But we all know that if a question is asked of you, you pee yourself.
@kleykenb Seriously, you are just silly. You grab verses from ten different places, throw them together out of context, and you try to make sense of it.
When, after 3 seconds of reflexion you cannot come up with an answer, you proclaim the Bible doesn't make sense.
And that really is the theme of your life: You judge the Bible by your SELF. If kley doesn't understand, then that means the Bible is dumb. You obviously have no answers, so why don't you read the book of Romans?
@kleykenb Well, at least your Quintessesnce proposition doesn't contradict itself, unlike your previous axiom: "If a propositon is not supported by empirical evidence, it must be dismissed." Shucks, Gomer, guess we're forced to dismiss empiricism.
Well, at least your logic is improving, though you still are basing your faith off the imagination in your own mind.
Have you heard of the doctrine of Total Moral Depravity? It is the doctrine that states that man is INCAPABLE of being free from sin without God. Basically, we are born into sin.
I have no qualm with your assertion that children are selfish and are immoral. If children were 350 lbs and as strong as a linebacker, a temper tantrum would be a force to reckon with!
@RomansGalatians But just because man is morally incapable of acting without sin does not mean that he is unaware of morality.
Now, to respond to one of your assertions: You do not believe that evil exists. You know, this was Augustine's position. Evil does not exist metaphysically. It is the LACK of something. Thus, God created everything, but is not responsible for evil because evil is not a created thing.
I disagree with Augustine. But what do you call that which is NOT moral?
All cows have 3 stomachs. Bessie is a cow.
Thus, dogs have stomachs.
Whu? You mean that there weren't any dogs in the premises. C'mon, let's just assume my premises, and use logic, just to see if we end up with dogs in the conclusion!
I guess you just don't like logic.
RomansGalatians 2 hours ago
@Pirate44444 By definition, atheism is a worldview that asserts that there is no God. And naturalism is a worldview that asserts there is no supernatural.
SDSk8eR777 3 hours ago
the tittle is ridiculously misleading. Dr Shook is correct when he says that due to the lack of evidence put forward to support the claim that there is something supernatural you should therefore dismiss such claims, what is wrong with that. I must have forgot that theist are not keen on logic and reasoning, I won't be making that mistake again.
mrgarlicbread100 1 day ago
@mrgarlicbread100 I don't like the title too, but Craig is right when he says that it doesn't follow *logically* and as an *evidence* that without evidences in a strict sense for supernatural world you should affirm that there isn't anything supernatural. It would be still a matter of reasoning here, not of logic neither of evidence. So, as many in subjects in life, it's in the field of reasoning that they both are discussing about it, becoming as near as they can of this matter.
olivleonardo 11 hours ago
@mrgarlicbread100 Christians are keen on logic. We just aren't keen on adopting your premises. We have our faith, and it is in no way inferior to your doubt.
An atheists will never discuss his epistemology and the source of his assumptions. Why? Because he likes to have absolute manipulation and control. Of course, if one accepts your premises, the logic flows unavoidably.
If we assume no God exists as a first premise, it is LOGICALLY IMPERMISSIBLE to find God in the conclusion.
RomansGalatians 3 hours ago
@mrgarlicbread100 The issue isn't logic. The issue is epistemology.
I can't get an atheist to tell me the basic proposition of his epistemology. Wonder why?
RomansGalatians 3 hours ago
Comment removed
mrgarlicbread100 1 day ago
All Craig does is he insists that atheists and naturalists claim that there is no God. But they don't.
Pirate44444 1 day ago
at 4:29 Craig says nobody claims that the lack of proof against the supernatural means you should believe in the supernatural.
at 4:53 Craig makes exactly that claim
Craig is a master at twisting words. And he uses the tactic of throwing out assertions until his opponent is swamped. Making an assertion takes 3 seconds, debunking it takes maybe 5 minutes. In a 30 minute debate, all he has to do is toss out 6 assertions and his opponent will lose, regardsless of the validity of those assertions.
Beggar42 1 day ago
Dr. Craig is not trying to humiliate Dr.Shook. He is defending his religion from a "naturalist" who is saying his God does not exist, and failing
peteradt1 2 days ago
I guess this is what happens when you follow a religion the is interested in humiliating others.
estuchedepeluche 2 days ago
Now speaking of the supernatural hasn't advanced science detected an energy force that can not be seen? I believe they have detected an energy that can not be seen which many believe is the spirit realm. It is not a dense energy. Just because you don't see something doesn't mean it is not there just as you do not see air but we know it is there. Nobody in science will speak of the spirit realm as in "ghosts" but many have seen them & that is a fact. I think some sane people keep quiet about that
ambergolde 2 days ago
Some holy roller "math priests" still hold out that math is true, but it has been disproven by science.
RomansGalatians 2 days ago
The Highly Exalted Scientific Method is now above ALL things. Not only can we use it to test physical things, but we can test non-physical things with it.
Pesky math has been cowed. But not only math, but if 2=1, then the logical law of contradiction is discarded.
All things in heaven and earth, see the power of the scientific method when taken as an axiom!
RomansGalatians 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
2=1! How can anyone trust math?
The Almighty Scientific Method, when taken as an axiom, has disproven the theorum of math.
RomansGalatians 2 days ago
@RomansGalatians You're writing like a a doofus. Newton did not disprove math in any way- all he disproved was that his supposition about how gravity would impact different sized objects was not true. Tell me you are joking: If this really has to be explained to you, your critical thinking skills are kaput. over. zero nada.
hexum7 2 days ago
@hexum7 Don't pretend that you don't get my point, you pretensious twit.
RomansGalatians 2 days ago
@RomansGalatians I get your point- it was a stupid one......How about just making your point, without all the cutesy word games? Ever think of that?
And you call Me pretentious (note spelling LOL)
hexum7 2 days ago
@hexum7 You deny knowledge and think that ignorance will make you not guilty? That is your way of life. And when someone confronts you on basic knowledge, you play dumb. Well, stay dumb. Get lost. You're blocked.
RomansGalatians 2 days ago
@RomansGalatians Right, block me, because I've called out your horse shit for what it is- typical cowardly twit who shrinks form any challenge to his 'superior' crappy arguments.
hexum7 2 days ago
2=1! How can anyone trust math?
The Almighty Scientific Method, when taken as an axiom, has disproven the theorum of math!
RomansGalatians 2 days ago
I don't know why people still use math. Newton proved math false with the scientific method.
He dropped a 2lb ball and a 1 lb ball. Thus, the 2lb ball should hit the ground in half the time. But when he dropped both, they both hit the ground in 2 seconds!
Thus, 2 = 2/2. Therefore, math has been disproven by the scientific method.
RomansGalatians 2 days ago
God is just about as logical as unicorns and mermaids
LatencyProblem 3 days ago
@LatencyProblem
What reasons do you have for believing that?
seattlefs 3 days ago
@Douglaslid Both Christian Evidentialists and Atheist Evidentialists are fools. The only difference is that atheists are too much a bunch of pussies to make a proposition that can be deconstructed.
Reason doesn't draw from the conclusions, it is inferred from the premises. And all reason starts, ultimately, with faith.
RomansGalatians 3 days ago
@RomansGalatians You make baseless assumptions about what I think and then rant against what you assume. Evidence is a very important part of validating knowledge but not the only part. Science depends on people building on proven knowledge then using deduction or intuition to posit a theory about something that is unknown. They then devise experiments to get the evidence to prove the theory. This is how progress is made.
Douglaslid 2 days ago
@Douglaslid So you just have this "intuition." LOLOLOL. Oh that's rich. Holy Roller Doug has unicorns dancing inside his eyelids.
First you tell me you have "faith" in "minds", then you tell me that you can look at your computer and induce that an intelligent mind made it, now you're telling me about your "intuition".
Listen, stick to empirical data. Enough of your fairy tales.
RomansGalatians 2 days ago
@RomansGalatians Enough of your straw men and playing coy and cutesy- Can you just simplysay whatever it is that you're trying to get at for once?
hexum7 2 days ago
@hexum7 If, as your first axiom, you exclude God and ASSUME that NO God exists, then it is LOGICALLY IMPERMISSIBLE to find Him in your conclusions!
You try to SKIP OVER epistemology and axioms, and go straight to theorums, smuggling in atheism into your UNSPOKEN axiom. Then you think that you have PROVEN something when you find NO God in your conclusion! It's a sham.
RomansGalatians 2 days ago
@RomansGalatians Ah, I think I understand now what you are getting at scientific studies- if that is what you are referring to- do not presuppose anything except the properties of thing thing that they are studying.To do otherwise, would render any study invalid i.e I propose that water pressure will cause ball filled with air to float . If so, the ball will float. If it floats, it will rise to the top of a bowl of water. cont.
hexum7 2 days ago
@hexum7 dude, I am not talking about scientific studies. I am talking about epistemology.
RomansGalatians 2 days ago
@hexum7 .cont. Therefore propose an experiment in will place air-filled balls in water and record the results- If the results are as expected, I have proven that there is a co-relation between the two.
HOWEVER, an experiment cannot tell me if it is actually air pressure which causes balls to float. It cannot tell me if another agent, say, a god of orbs, is not pulling balls upward. (cont.)
hexum7 2 days ago
@hexum7 So can the experiment tell you whether the scientific method is valid? Can the experiment conclude with you discovering that logic is not valid? Can the experiment conclude that the mind observing it doesn't really exist?
RomansGalatians 2 days ago
@RomansGalatians
I don't think that you understand - scientific experiments are regulated and peer reviewed in order to assure that the methods are valid. logic isn't a philosophy or hypothesis- it exists without needing to be conjured up . Logic can be used incorrectly- but that is the fault of the user, not logic.
hexum7 2 days ago
@RomansGalatians " Can the experiment conclude that the mind observing it doesn't really exist?" As i already explained, an experiment can only conclude that what was expected to occur if A, does or doesn't occur.
hexum7 2 days ago
@RomansGalatians(cont. pt. 3) That is why no scientific experiment, except those specifically designed to test for god can start with the premise that a a god, a witch, etc. is causing the results.
hexum7 2 days ago
@RomansGalatians it is not 'smuggling in atheism" It is not a sham. There have been many studies of supernatural phenomenon- None which have yielded any positive results yet, and so religious types simply pretend they never happened or dismiss them as biased.
hexum7 2 days ago
@hexum7 I'm not sure if you are being silly, or if u really don't understand the simple points I am making. Can you please address my last post.
RomansGalatians 2 days ago
@RomansGalatians what was your last post- youtube sometimes has a delay between them
hexum7 2 days ago
@hexum7 And don't tell me that the NEGATIVE is the necessary assumption. In the first place, first axioms have no rules excepting that they don't self contradict, because then we could never draw conclusions from them.
Secondly, if that be so, we couldn't assume our own existence, logic, math, and so many other positive assumptions upon which science is based.
RomansGalatians 2 days ago
@hexum7 And thirdly, we MUST have at least one, if not many, positive axioms. First axioms cannot all be negative. So to state that a first axiom MUST be presumed to be negative simply is irrational.
RomansGalatians 2 days ago
@RomansGalatians Nothing beats a good old ad hominem rant to replace mature, rational debate,eh? Did you enjoy that? goodbye
Douglaslid 2 days ago
@Douglaslid Just stop and think for one minute about what assumptions lie behind science. Think about how inferences are drawn from premises, not from conclusions.
Then ask yourself "If I assume God from the beginning, how would that effect my conclusions when I view data?"
Then ask yourself "If I assume NO God from the beginning, is it ever possible to infer God from looking at evidence?"
You see NO God because you have excluded Him from your premises. It's that simple.
RomansGalatians 2 days ago
@Douglaslid You fancy yourself so cleaver because you can deconstruct evidentialism. Any fool can deconstruct evidentialism. Greek skeptics did it thousands of years ago.
One of these days you may realize that you, like I, start with a faith proposition and then reason from there.
RomansGalatians 3 days ago
@Douglaslid Maybe it's like on Terminator, the computer was made by other computers and machines. Maybe it's like on Matrix, and your brain is just plugged in, and that so-called "computer" in front of you is just a program designed by the oracle of the matrix.
RomansGalatians 3 days ago
The same thing happens when you, at an epistemological level (top priority), you try to compute a logical contradiction.
It paralyzes you in ambivalence.
Such is the case with atheists. They have super computers inherited from their Maker. But they try to compute the proposition "all propositions that are not supported by empirical evidence must be rejected." Of course, they must reject the contradictory proposition. They get dim.
Try computing a Word from God and you'll get somewhere.
RomansGalatians 4 days ago
There was this episode of Star Trek where the ship's computer had a virus in control of navigation or something. But they could still have the computer perform normal ship functions.
So, in order to preoccupy the computer Spok commanded "Executive order top priority, Compute Pi."
And the whole ship dimmed and the 25th Century super computer was incapacitated.
That is what happens when you put your mind to running in circles.
RomansGalatians 4 days ago
Parading around their ignorance like the Emperor's New Clothes.
RomansGalatians 4 days ago
Atheists think that ignorance of the positive = omniscience of the negative.
So, then, they simply state their proposition in the negative, and claim omniscience.
And from that lofty spire of omniscience of the negative, they mock all positive propositions.
Not that I really believe that they are ignorant. They are not. But even if they were, it does not logically imply that they are omniscient of the negative.
RomansGalatians 4 days ago
@BJ151 thats where you are wrong because most people started out believing the supernatural, dedicated their lives to it, so the supernatural didnt show itself to them. so thats why they chose a different path where they are not so easily indocrinated.
runeoner 4 days ago
Atheists are the biggest believers in magic on the planet.Every reasonable person knows nothing always comes from nothing,we never see something come from nothing,ever,much less everything coming from nothing.
CBALLEN 5 days ago
@CBALLEN I suspect that you know that the scientific study of singularities and the attempts to reconcile the general theory of relativity with quantum theory is much more complex than “everything from nothing.” Also science and atheism are not the same thing, as I am sure religious scientists would be quick to tell you. Whether or not God exists cannot be proved either way particularly when alleged to transcend the known universe; outside of personal faith it is unknowable.
Douglaslid 4 days ago
@Dougl I understand there once was nothing then there was everything.I understand ,by the Law of information,that matter can't exist before information exists.I understand that all information comes from intelligence and all intelligence comes from life.So life had to exist before anything natural could exist.This is real science,anything that diverges from it is wishful thinking that can't be proven,but only imagined without proof .Everything that begins to exist must have a beginner.
CBALLEN 4 days ago
@CBALLEN If you postulate a being (God) who transcends the known universe, then by default it is impossible to know anything about the properties of such a being. One can choose to believe that such a being has certain properties, perhaps based on a belief in revealed scripture but that is different from knowledge. It is my view that is impossible to prove or to disprove the existence of such a being and to construct proofs like the KCA is therefore futile.
Douglaslid 4 days ago
@Douglaslid Then you must deny the only scientific answer of why we exist and since there is no other scientific answer,that is the most reasonable answer.
CBALLEN 4 days ago
Comment removed
Douglaslid 4 days ago
@CBALLEN Since I don't accept you belief as a "scientific answer" we must leave it there. I am happy to accept that we don't know all the answers and, although in my sixties, I am still enthusiastic and excited by science and cosmology. I am sure that our young scientists will unravel the secrets of black holes and will then be very close to understanding the conditions immediately before the big bang.
Douglaslid 4 days ago
@Douglaslid Sounds like your faith in things that you cannot observe is certain.
RomansGalatians 4 days ago
@RomansGalatians Nothing in life is certain, we may all be wiped out by some cosmic event tomorrow. However, while we are here I have faith in the almost boundless capacity and ingenuity of the human mind.
Douglaslid 3 days ago
@Douglaslid Well, that's nice that you admit that you have a mind. However, I fail to understand how an empiricist can have "faith" in a "mind," neither of which are empirically verified.
I have faith in a boundless Mind. I don't really see how we are that far apart.
Though I do contend that we do have certainty. No, not of empirical things, but we know logic for example. Even if our eyes fool us, we know by logic that straight/bent pencils don't exist. The law of contradiction is sound.
RomansGalatians 3 days ago
@RomansGalatians If you think there is no evidence of human ingenuity, how are you transmitting these posts, by telepathy?
Douglaslid 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Douglaslid "If you think there is no evidence of human ingenuity, how are you transmitting these posts?"
Fallacy of Induction, much? How can one merely look at a computer and infer a human mind. Maybe it was an alien mind that made it. Maybe it always existed. Maybe God made it. Maybe the molecules just fell together that way. Maybe the molecules just fell together, made a brain, which is nothing more than electric pulses, and that brain made the computer, bound by the laws of nature.
RomansGalatians 3 days ago
Comment removed
Douglaslid 4 days ago
Dr. Shook should go back to school and learn basic logic. This guy has a PHD???.....Dr Craig is simply a giant when it comes to debates.
democracyrules2000 5 days ago
FAIL!!! Atheism makes no claims, thus it has no arguments.
You first as the claimant need to show that there is a god, and so far every attempt has failed.
Also Craig, if morality is authored by god it's by definition Subjective and not Objective. You would think someone with a PhD. in philosophy would know that.
Craig can't argue himself out of a paper bag.
baldurus1 5 days ago 2
@baldurus1 Atheism has no arguments? Why do they write books? Why do they meet every year? What do they talk about? "Uh, hello, my name is Mr. Atheist and I have nothing to say to you." LOL
YesYou123333 5 days ago
@YesYou123333 The arguments are AGAINST theism which infringes upon the lives of the non-believers, not FOR Atheism. Or what are your arguments against unicorns? Obviously we have no need to write books against unicorns or people who believe in unicorns, because unicornism isn't trying to infringe upon anyone's rights and liberties.
baldurus1 5 days ago
@YesYou123333 Atheists have NO arguments. Dr Shook and most atheists need to learn basic logic. It is really embarrassing to hear this Shook talk. Dr Craig is just way more intelligent that all atheists.
democracyrules2000 4 days ago
@baldurus1
You know there is more than one definition of "atheism", right? The one Shook holds is that there is no God (not simple disbelief) because he's a naturalist (nothing beyond nature; precludes supernatural entities), so he does make a claim about God.
Also it's bad to comment on someone's view of morality when you don't know it, and it's worst to comment on it when the holder has already answered the objection in detail.
watch?v=wBvi_auKkaI
Kiithknight 4 days ago
@Kiithknight No there isn't, Atheism is the lack pf belief in a god. Rejection of a god is Anti-theism. And the concept Atheism makes no statements or claims.
I didn't comment on his VIEW of morality i commented on the nature of morality which Craig has completely misunderstood. No matter what details he gives, they are wrong. Morality from someone is by definition subjective. There are no ways around it.
baldurus1 3 days ago
@baldurus1
Most philosophical dictionaries (and even regular ones) and encyclopedias still primarily define atheism as a belief in no God. Take the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for example. The point is moot, though, since Shook defines atheism as belief in no God in this debate (and in his life, see naturalist).
Morality is either objective or non-existence. Subjective morality is just preference, so there is no good or evil someone ought or ought not do. Evidence for this?
Kiithknight 3 days ago
@Kiithknight Wrong, in every single modern dictionary the first definition is 1. Lack of belief in a god. Some dictionaries have a second definition, and they always start with the word ARCHAIC. Archaic as in obsolete, no longer in use.
"Evidence for this" I can't prove a negative, it doesn't work like that.
Can you provide me a single moral act that is objective?
baldurus1 3 days ago
@baldurus1
Dictionary(.)com, Princeton, Wikipedia, University of Aberdeen’s philosophical dictionary, Stanford’s philosophical encyclopedia, philosophy-dictionary(.)org, I could go on. Even the ones which define it as simple disbelief have belief in no God as a second definition. The archaic definition is “godless” – read carefully next time.
Can’t prove a negative?
lupirapaces(.)co(.)cc/pdf/essays/OmegleRefutation3_YouCantProveaNegative(.)pdf
Kiithknight 3 days ago
@Kiithknight I said MODERN dictionaries. Dictionary(.)com 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. The belief that there is no god, is not a rejection of god. It's a LACK of belief. " belief in no God" That is not a rejection of god, i lack a belief in god=belief in no god.
baldurus1 3 days ago
@baldurus1
You have to be joking right now. There’s a world of difference between those two definitions. “belief that there is no God” is a truth/knowledge claim that no such being exists and requires evidence; “disbelief in the existence of…” is to admit ignorance on the matter, which does not require evidence.
lupirapaces(.)co(.)cc/pdf/essays/OmegleRefutation01_AtheismEquivalence(.)pdf
Quoting someone for an obvious observation is not appealing to authority.
Kiithknight 3 days ago
@Kiithknight BELIEF is not knowledge, neither is lack of belief. I am an Atheist i don't believe in a god, but i can't know if there is or isn't a god.
LOL!!! What do you the in the definition of disbelief is? The dictionary defines it as "Lack of faith in something."=Lack of belief.
baldurus1 3 days ago
@baldurus1
Belief makes a knowledge claim unless you're a fideist (belief is devoid of reason/rationality). But that makes belief useless in all but a personal sense. On that view you can believe anything without asserting it's true, and that's delusional.
"Lack of faith" is a good definition. You know the Christian definition of faith is that it's based on evidence, right (Heb. 11:1)? "Lack of faith" would be "not enough evidence to assert". Thanks for the definition.
Kiithknight 3 days ago
@Kiithknight You're right, if you claim belief in something that needs justification. Lack of belief however does not. Or are you justified to provide evidence for your disbelief in unicorns? I think not.
baldurus1 3 days ago
@Kiithknight Faith definition, "belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact."
baldurus1 3 days ago
@baldurus1
In the absence of a defeater, I am rational to believe moral experience.
No action is inherently moral, so no. A moral action (action motivated by moral intention) would be helping someone cross the street to safety.
“Any argument for moral skepticism will be based upon premises which are less obvious than the existence of objective moral values themselves.” – L. Antony
You’re claiming it’s subjective. That’s a knowledge claim; provide evidence.
Kiithknight 3 days ago
@Kiithknight Do you understand what the term subjective means? I don't think you do.
I can provide you with my morality, i can't make any knowledge claims about any others morality.
Appeals to authority doesn't impress me.
It's called a truth statement, there are no knowledge claims.
Subjective means that there are no qualifiers, hence i can't prove something that doesn't exist.
You will first have to provide a moral act that you consider to be objective before i can debunk it.
baldurus1 3 days ago
Comment removed
baldurus1 3 days ago
@Kiithknight Do you understand what the term subjective means? I don't think you do.
I can provide you with my morality, i can't make any truth statements about any others morality.
Appeals to authority doesn't impress me.
It's called a truth statement, there are no knowledge claims.
Subjective means that there are no qualifiers, hence i can't prove something that doesn't exist.
You will first have to provide a moral act that you consider to be objective before i can debunk it.
baldurus1 3 days ago
@baldurus1
Subjective means it depends on the subject. Subjective morality is the stance that moral values and duties depend on the person who holds them. This makes them no more than opinions and preferences, which are not binding. Subjective morality is no morality.
apologetics101(.)co(.)cc/pdf/apologetics101/Week2_Outline(.)pdf
I gave an example of a moral act.
As an aside these .co.cc sites are mine, so I'm not just throwing other people's work at you.
Kiithknight 3 days ago
@Kiithknight No you gave an example of an act. Or are you saying that it would be immoral not to walk an old lady across the street?
Where else would we get morality if not from ourselves? The Universe consists of matter and energy, what is morality? Matter or energy? From where does it permeate?
I'm sure your article is very interesting but i am willing to bet 100$ that it's nothing i haven't heard before. We can have a discussion about the topic here. Without referencing this and that.
baldurus1 3 days ago
@baldurus1
You asked for a moral act, and I gave you a moral act. Concerned with their safety, you help them cross the street.
You're just assuming naturalism. On your view I agree there would be no objective morals, and even if there were there'd be no reason to follow them. But I disagree with naturalism because it cannot establish itself.
If you're not willing to even look at evidence, why bother posting? Seems like religious zeal to shut your eyes and ears to it.
Kiithknight 3 days ago
@Kiithknight I'm interested in having a discussion, you learn more when you're challenged than from reading obscure articles. Just humor me and give another example of a immoral or moral act, something more challenging than helping old ladies.
baldurus1 3 days ago
@baldurus1
I wanted you to read it and respond, but oh well. I'll give you another example once you deal with the first one.
I never claimed lack of belief requires evidence. But the belief that no God exists is a belief, not non-belief. Shook defined his beliefs as there being nothing beyond nature, which requires evidence. You may not, but I was not commenting on you.
The Christian definition of faith is not that. If you want to use the definition you gave, then I have no faith.
Kiithknight 3 days ago
@Kiithknight Then would you kindly disprove Allah, Baa'al, Azrukhal, Thor, Odin, Zeus, Juju etc. etc. etc. I'm assuming you don't believe in these gods? Am i right?
We already have evidence for nothing existing beyond nature, until something is proven disbelief is warranted. His position is a response to a truth statement that hasn't meet it's burden of proof, his disbelief is justified and requires no evidence. Because no evidence to the contrary exist.
baldurus1 3 days ago
@baldurus1
In order to disprove those gods all I have to do is hold to a view which is more plausible than its negation and makes their existence logically impossible. I believe that YHWH exists. I have arguments to get to a monotheistic God, and then I look at the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus to say God revealed Himself in Jesus.
His belief is not justified. All he can say is that he doesn't know if there is anything beyond nature, not that nature is all there is.
Kiithknight 3 days ago
@Kiithknight Has Jesus meet the burden of proof in your opinion?
I don't think so.
baldurus1 3 days ago
@baldurus1
Don't be so presumptuous. Jesus has met my burden of proof. I'll refer you to the Bible (of course) and the Resurrection of Jesus by Licona. Take some time and read those two sources for starters (the latter is about 640 pages).
Kiithknight 3 days ago
@Kiithknight Do you have any eyewitness accounts? No you don't. The earliest account of Yeshua is from 80-100 AD, over 50 years after his supposed death and resurrection.
And even if there were direct eyewitness accounts that still wouldn't justify belief. We have eyewitness accounts of alien abductions all the time.
baldurus1 3 days ago
@baldurus1
Again please read the references I gave. I have no desire to get into a historical debate over Youtube with a 400 character limit per message.
Your dates are off. Paul writes from a source which existed around 5 years after Yeshua's death. The Gospels' sources were much earlier than the writings themselves. Mark was written before 80AD. Even if this is so, it takes ~2 generations to start accumulating legendary stories. Take those things to start research.
Kiithknight 3 days ago
@Kiithknight What is that source?
baldurus1 3 days ago
@Kiithknight Walking an old lady across the street isn't a moral question, but since you want to stick with that one. Fine. Is it immoral for a dog not to guide an old lady across the street? No of course not. Objective morality would make morality objective to anyone and anything. We don't condemn dogs for not guiding people across a street. But that is exactly what we should do if morality was objective. Objective morality can not discern between humans and dogs.
baldurus1 3 days ago
@baldurus1
Sure it is since you're concerned with her safety.
Dogs are not moral agents, everything they do is amoral. Objective morality discerns between moral agents (people, God) and otherwise (dogs, trees, rocks, etc.). Please don't try and debate something if you don't even know what the terms mean and apply to.
Also you're combining moral values and duties as one thing, which they're not. Is and ought are very different things.
Kiithknight 3 days ago
@Kiithknight :) If morality is dependent on people and/or god it's like i said from the beginning, subjective. Something that is objective can NOT discern, because it's objective.
A rock is an objective object, a rock is a rock whether there is anyone to identify it as a rock.
baldurus1 3 days ago
@baldurus1
Again you're trying to employ the Euthyphro dilemma, so please review the video I sent at the beginning.
Morality is objective. Only moral agents can act morally or immorally. These two things are logically consistent. You're assuming the dog has the same properties as a person, which is absurd. It is objectively true that rocks are not living, but that doesn't mean all things are non-living. In the same way persons are moral agents, but other things lack agency.
Kiithknight 3 days ago
@Kiithknight I never said humans are not living. If morality is objective it CAN'T be a property OF man. It must be outside of man. Read the definition of objective in philosophy carefully.
baldurus1 3 days ago
@baldurus1
I agree with that definition. Putting it in context of this, objective morality states that morality is universal and binding no matter what anyone thinks about it. But the very definition of morality is that it is only binding in moral agents. Rocks, for example, are not moral agents.
Kiithknight 3 days ago
@Kiithknight No, Universal truths are true whether there is a mind to conceive it or not.
Yes morality is only binding to moral agents, now we are finally getting somewhere. But objective morality is not. Objective by definition means that it must be true independent of a mind to conceive it. Making it true for animals, plants, humans etc.
baldurus1 3 days ago
@Kiithknight Definition morality "Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior." The key word here is distinction.
baldurus1 3 days ago
@Kiithknight Objective(philosophy) definition. "Objectivity is a central philosophical concept which has been variously defined by sources. A proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are met and are "mind-independent"—that is, not met by the judgment of a conscious entity or subject."
baldurus1 3 days ago
@Kiithknight "you're combining moral values and duties" That is what i said, helping an ol lady across the street is not a moral value but a duty. That is why i asked you to give a better example.
baldurus1 3 days ago
@baldurus1
No it's not a duty. I said you DO help them across, not that you SHOULD. Those are separate things. It is a moral action to help someone across the street because you are concerned with their safety regardless of any obligation to do so.
Kiithknight 3 days ago
@Kiithknight And who judges the morality of that action?
baldurus1 3 days ago
@baldurus1
God
Kiithknight 3 days ago
@Kiithknight Ahhh so the bible is true because the bible says it's true.
baldurus1 3 days ago
@baldurus1
To clear confusion, I read "act" not "moral act" from your post. My mistake. The example applies to what you asked though.
Kiithknight 3 days ago
@baldurus1
non-existent*
Kiithknight 3 days ago
it's like a battle of idiots. Shook can't even get a point across and Craig is just a clown yucking it up for the audience. Nothing in this 5 min. video was useful.
LEMONedOblaat 5 days ago
Comment removed
kleykenb 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kleykenb John 1:8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us.
YOU are not a Christian, that is why you claim to have no sin. If you repent, your sin is taken away. But that is done by an IMPUTED payment; imputed by Christ's perfect life, not mine
RomansGalatians 5 days ago
@kleykenb You're a parasite. Why don't you state your basic epistemological position.
You don't have one do you?
By the rules of any debate forum, all I need do is state my position: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Boom, I won. Coward was too afraid to step up to the podium and state a positive proposition as to his position. You default.
. . . unless you do have a position. I'd loooove to hear it. Cross-eyed, contradicting dunce.
RomansGalatians 5 days ago
Comment removed
kleykenb 4 days ago
@kleykenb When directly challenged, the coward Atheist didn't offer a proposition, Gomer, can you believe it?
When you're man enough to actually offer a proposition as to WHAT YOUR POSITION IS, let me know.
RomansGalatians 4 days ago
Comment removed
kleykenb 4 days ago
@kleykenb Of course science is a theorum that makes NUMEROUS presuppositions, not the least of which are logic, math, and a mind capable of observing the experiment.
Science cannot prove the scientific method. Thus if science is your ONLY source, then it deconstructs itself.
You think that science encompasses all knowledge. But, a real scientist knows that he has PURPOSEFULLY narrowed his scope to physical observation. Yet he judiciously uses philosophical knowledge when he does so.
RomansGalatians 4 days ago
@RomansGalatians
You're proposition is laughable.
The bible has never explained a single thing. It doesn't provide an explanation of anything.
No explanation of how the universe came to be. It doesn't explain how life came to be.
It says God did it ... but how did God did it ? Hmmm... we shouldn't be interested in such thing. Well, tough luck, it's human nature to be curious and that curiousity led to science and science filled the gaps that religion never even tried to fill.
kleykenb 3 days ago
You think that the Bible encompasses all knowledge. But a real religionist knows that he has PURPOSEFULLY narrowed his scope to a-physical observation.
The Bible can not prove the Biblical method. This if the Bible is you ONLY source, then it deconstructs itself.
kleykenb 3 days ago
@kleykenb You're proposition is . . . wait, what's your proposition?
Come up with a non contradictory sentence that tells me what your basis for epistemology is!
To say "I always lie" contradicts itself.
To say "We must reject all propositions that are not based on empirical evidence" contradicts itself.
But to say "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." doesn't deconstruct itself logically.
No, it is not proven by empirical evidence, but that is not MY proposition.
RomansGalatians 3 days ago
Comment removed
kleykenb 3 days ago
@kleykenb You might be getting me mixed up with a different debator. I never claimed that God came into being out of nothing. He always existed. The Bible is talking about the beginning of physical and created things.
All thought must begin with a proposition (a rational one). Otherwise we digress into an infinite regression. And of course that axiom is not provable, because then it would not be the FIRST axiom. You mock a first axiom, yet thought cannot begin without one.
RomansGalatians 3 days ago
@kleykenb Far from being OPPOSED to reason, having a first axiom is where all rational thought must begin. We both start with first axioms based on faith. When you can admit that, and state your first axiom, we could begin a debate.
RomansGalatians 3 days ago
@kleykenb Though you are intelligent in many ways, you are a very shallow thinker. The hard sciences do not stand alone. They stand on the shoulders of philosophies, presupposing Christian axioms of logic, the existence of a mind, and order in the Cosmos (not Chaos)
Science will never disprove logic. It cannot. It presupposes logic as a first axiom. Scientific method is on the theorum level. What you believe on the axiom level will color all your perceptions on the theorum level. Can't u see?
RomansGalatians 3 days ago
Comment removed
kleykenb 3 days ago
Comment removed
kleykenb 3 days ago
Comment removed
kleykenb 3 days ago
Comment removed
kleykenb 3 days ago
Comment removed
kleykenb 3 days ago
Comment removed
kleykenb 3 days ago
OWNED! Atheism is a joke.
MrHav1k 6 days ago
man, Shook was getting pissed, hahahahaha
rurouni152 6 days ago
"Dr. William Lane Craig exposes the logical fails within this common atheist argument"
Where I don't see it....like at all!!
01ross10 6 days ago
Comment removed
kleykenb 6 days ago
Comment removed
kleykenb 6 days ago
Comment removed
kleykenb 6 days ago
Comment removed
kleykenb 6 days ago
Comment removed
kleykenb 6 days ago
Comment removed
RomansGalatians 1 week ago
it is super natural for cells to form one life form that must depend on an entirely different life form made of different cell with different DNA which are instructions that cell follows. And the level of faith required to believe that cells can over millions of years come up with all the DNA information across all our life forms with all knowledge of all the scientific mechanics within our ecosystem required to maneuver an organism through its life cycle i tantamount to schizophrenia. GOD is.
altops 1 week ago
Comment removed
kleykenb 1 week ago
this is pointless because it's between two philosophers having too much time on their hands, why not write a book or do something productive.
MrBigEnchilada 1 week ago
Comment removed
kleykenb 1 week ago
Comment removed
kleykenb 1 week ago
Comment removed
kleykenb 1 week ago
Atheists are so stupid.
They always like embarking on debates without defining terms. Would it not be a good idea, before embarking on the problem of evil, to define its cheif term?
No, that's a bit much for an atheist, who has no answer himself, but his entire purpose is to obfiscate truth. By doing so he hopes to escape accountability. But solipsism is not an escape. It's just denial.
RomansGalatians 1 week ago
@kleykenb Before anyone can delve into the problem of evil, we must define terms.
Critics think that the definition of "evil" has meaning apart from God, and is superior to God.
We can delve deeper into the question, but if you think that such a proposition is so ridiculous as to be mocked, then there really is no need for further discussion on the topic.
I don't mind teaching you. But if you are to mock, you must first tell me the basis of your mockery. How do YOU know what is moral?
RomansGalatians 1 week ago
Comment removed
kleykenb 1 week ago
@kleykenb Now before I get too far off topic, I want to say this: Relativism is the biggest difficulty when embarking on this topic. The terms slip and slide all over the place. Before long, we have ambiguous meanings for the chief term about which we are discussing!
So, what is the Rock upon which we can base a definition? My first contention is that goodness and evil are not terms superior to God. Rather they are derivative terms, subject to God, and have no meaning apart from Him.
RomansGalatians 1 week ago
@kleykenb In the Bible, "sin" generally refers to the IMPUTED nature from our father Adam that we have inherited.
Likewise, when the Bible speaks of the Righteousness of a Christian, it is speaking of the IMPUTED Righteousness that comes from Christ. Christ paid for our sins 2000 years ago on the cross.
Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness. Thus, morality is defined as an accountability to God. And righteousness is defined as Christ paying that bill.
RomansGalatians 6 days ago
Comment removed
kleykenb 6 days ago
@kleykenb No doubt that you are delving into a deep issue debated by theologians. Note that Paul addresses these ideas in Romans.
"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned— "
You should read Romans 5.
RomansGalatians 6 days ago
Comment removed
kleykenb 6 days ago
@kleykenb LOL. You want me to answer every theological question under the Sun? Go take a Sunday school course.
Silly child. You cannot answer the first question about the topic that we are debating. But you think you can cross-examine me endlessly about every theological topic under the Sun?
Remember, we were debating morality. And you couldn't answer anything. So, you try to stay on cross-exam to cover your ignorance. But we all know that if a question is asked of you, you pee yourself.
RomansGalatians 6 days ago
Comment removed
kleykenb 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kleykenb Seriously, you are just silly. You grab verses from ten different places, throw them together out of context, and you try to make sense of it.
When, after 3 seconds of reflexion you cannot come up with an answer, you proclaim the Bible doesn't make sense.
And that really is the theme of your life: You judge the Bible by your SELF. If kley doesn't understand, then that means the Bible is dumb. You obviously have no answers, so why don't you read the book of Romans?
RomansGalatians 6 days ago
Comment removed
kleykenb 6 days ago
@kleykenb Im not gonna waste my time with your pointless comments. I won't read or reply any response.
MrAlexito19 6 days ago
@MrAlexito19
Yep. Impossible to disprove the existence of the Quintessence.
kleykenb 1 MrAlexito19 0
kleykenb 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kleykenb Well, at least your Quintessesnce proposition doesn't contradict itself, unlike your previous axiom: "If a propositon is not supported by empirical evidence, it must be dismissed." Shucks, Gomer, guess we're forced to dismiss empiricism.
Well, at least your logic is improving, though you still are basing your faith off the imagination in your own mind.
RomansGalatians 6 days ago
Comment removed
kleykenb 1 week ago
@kleykenb Very interesting thoughts.
Have you heard of the doctrine of Total Moral Depravity? It is the doctrine that states that man is INCAPABLE of being free from sin without God. Basically, we are born into sin.
I have no qualm with your assertion that children are selfish and are immoral. If children were 350 lbs and as strong as a linebacker, a temper tantrum would be a force to reckon with!
RomansGalatians 1 week ago
@RomansGalatians But just because man is morally incapable of acting without sin does not mean that he is unaware of morality.
Now, to respond to one of your assertions: You do not believe that evil exists. You know, this was Augustine's position. Evil does not exist metaphysically. It is the LACK of something. Thus, God created everything, but is not responsible for evil because evil is not a created thing.
I disagree with Augustine. But what do you call that which is NOT moral?