@enyskept The moment you compare God to anything It/He is not God.
Basically Human definitions of God are a matter of perception...
Which is why we give God the Greatest of Definitions and describe It/Him in the Highest possible way, with our own limited understanding.
God is not one thing or the other...in my mind God is the starting point and end point of all things and all things exist in Him or his "Kingdom"(Universe)
Remember, with philosophy you can prove and disprove the same thing...It is evidence that has to come into play and that brings forth the empirical evidence based theories...
the level of sophistication i see by atheists in these comments is....well its about as high up there as richard dawkins who defends his ideas like his mindless followers through behind a computer screen calling people names.
The fundamental problem of argumentation which atheists have is the assumption that all forms of knowledge, truth and reality can be reduced to the scientific method of material observation - this is grossly mistaken. Knowledge such as metaphysics, ethics and morality (even the presumptions of the scientific method itself) are beyond the limits of sound scientific inquiry. When atheists have the ability to explicate every aspect of the universe, galaxies & alternate dimensions they can argue
What blather. Objective moral duties and responsibilities? One could "GROUND" these things in Yahweh the shrub burning Iron Age god of violent, ignorant peasants, or on scientific reasoning. Questioning the OBJECTIVITY of it all is a fool's errand.
@mouthyweasel - riigghhhttt! why is it do you think, anonymous internet atheist that none of the other atheist, far more prominent than you, hitchens, harris, dennett agree with your postion, not one has yet taken that position in writing or in the debates that Craig easily thrashed the three of them in? Could it be that you are brighter than these atheists?
Please be sensible in your response or don't respond at all, thanks
Gut feelings about things and gaps in evidence for moral value between natural selection does not equal god. Especially one that cares sooo much about who you have sex with, who fancies an Earth created in October 4004 b.c.e.
There goes WLC blathering on again about objective moral values. He doesn't seem to understand there's no such thing. The closest thing to objective morality is a "rule" which like his God, is followed without question. Morality, on the other hand, must be actively considered. Moral behavior always improves over time. It's why we no longer condone slavery and why we allow women to vote and be schooled and hold significant positions in society.
@ChipArgyle No problem. Craig just doesn't stop even when his claims are debunked. it's nice to see that people aren't blindly accepting what he's saying. Objective Moral Values don't exist and the statement is in fact an oxymoron that he won't stop spurting. All of his arguments have been refuted and yet people still look to him as the foremost leader in the argument for theism.
@Schnigtheatheist I agree. If you watch and listen closely, the first thing he does with nearly every one of his arguments is structure them incorrectly by saying something like, "Under the assumption that (insert assertion here) is true, then..." which is complete hokum. He will also go so far as to approach the debate moderator to change the structure of the debate if he thinks he's going up against a savvy opponent. And he's an obfuscating nitwit, which is what impresses the theists.
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
If our sense of morality is a social byproduct then there is no altruism Mr. Craig. Our behavior, like that of baboons, all "altruistic behavior" is truly self serving.
@edichkaa uhh... why do you say that? It seems like a large assumption to say he doesn't believe in the Christian God and he rejects Jesus Christ as his Lord and Saviour, especially when his career - and I can only assume his life passion - is defending that belief system.
@JordanRossMackenzie how can he claim to be a christian and a scholar and not understand that in the eyes of the monotheist,worshiping a false god is probably the worst sin you can commit?
@edichkaa well,i didn't know one way or the other about this guy until in the debate hitchens asks him:what do you prefer i child born in iran to be,a muslim or an atheist?and craig says:i don't have a preference!/well,if you round up 100 christians and ask them what is better between the two,muslim or atheist?oll the real christians will say that an atheist is the lesser of the two evils.
@edichkaa ..... that sounds a bit mixed up. I think theologically speaking you are wrong and it is a massive assumption that 100/100 christians will prefer an athiest over a muslim.
For starters, there is no lesser of two evils. James 2:11. An athiest has sinned against God as much as a muslim has sinned against God (as much as a Christian has sinned against God). The only difference being that we have asked for forgiveness from the Son of God and Saviour.
@JordanRossMackenzie look,it's not really a wise thing to go in to higher knowledge when you talk about practical things.because if we both begin to talk on that level than there will be no reason for discussion at all,because all things are equal and god is in everything so everything and everyone is god and there is no evil cause everything is from god and god is love and on and on.it wasn't an assumption what i said,it's just the way things are.
@edichkaa .......... what? "all things are equal and god is in everything so everything and everyone is god and there is no evil cause everything is from god and god is love and on and on"
I'm not sure if I misunderstood you, but if this is what you believe, then you aren't a Christian. I'm not making a judgement, I'm just saying that this theology doesn't exist in the Bible, and in fact the contrary exists.
@edichkaa It isn't our responsibility to put people into some form of heirarchy of their tresspasses against God. Revenge belongs to the Lord and He will judge righteously.
Secondly, Muslims believe in the same monothiestic God as Christians do. The God of Isaac, Jacob, and Abraham. Unfortunately they don't believe that Jesus was the Son of God who came to save believers from the judgement of their sins. Athiests dispute God's existence. You don't know which is a greater sin, only God does.
@JordanRossMackenzie ...a person teaches anything but the true word of god is on the side of the antichrist,,,,an unbeliever is just a lost child who did not yet see the light,,,,i wont give you passages,,,you need to see things in context,,,,giving isolated passages does not give you the whole picture.I'm Jewish,don't tell me that an atheist and a muslim is the same,and don't tell me Jews and Christians don't see eye to eye on that.that's just not the case buddy boy.
@edichkaa What difference does it make if you are Jewish? The fact is, both muslims and athiests are unbelievers. The muslims may have faith in a monothiestic God who they call Allah, but their are gods and idols all over the place. You think that athiests don't have gods?. How about money, fame, self indulgence - or more biblically speaking the god of this world (Satan). It doesn't matter what false god they believe in, their is no hierarchy of unbelievers. Your theology is bad.
@JordanRossMackenzie so i understand that you are a christian,,alright then,,what would you prefer for your children,the muslim faith or atheism?....it's all the same right?
@edichkaa yes it is all the same. I would prefer them to be athiest only because it may be easier to preach the gospel to them. Often Muslim's are very dogmatic and unreasonable about their beliefs. If my children turned out one athiest and the other muslim, I would believe that one is more damned than the other, nor do I think there is a theological standing for that viewpoint. Both need to accept Jesus Christ's work for their salvation. There is no greater spiritual condemnation that i can see
@JordanRossMackenzie You couldnt be more wrong, Atheism has no inherent morality, no inherent alleigiance, nor any personal traits. It is quite simply the rejection of unfounded viewpoints such as yours. If living for your own purposes is an act of worship then I am my own god. If its ok for you to make such assertions then its ok for an atheist to mock your ideas.
@qualitymasterone - Hating "evil" becomes dangerous depending on what you define as evil. Some of the Christian definitions I agree with: ex: murder. The others are contradictions. I don't see how God can be okay with slavery or abuse of your spouse. I don't see how a loving moral God can command the deaths of homosexuals or women who don't wear veils in Church or people who wear polyester. Very "outdated" and ignorant morals. Think your for yourself please, don't be an ignorant "sheep".
@SpearofDestiny0 for clarification, nowhere in the Law does God command death for people who eat unkosher, don't wear one-fabric clothing, don't wear tzitzit on their garments, etc. And veiled women is not mentioned even at all in the Law except a woman being shamed by having her head uncovered. The rules which have to do with wickedness and righteousness are those that are punishable by death.
@edichkaa "...a person teaches anything but the true word of god is on the side of the antichrist,,,,"
and what do you think athiests teach? Is it the word of God? No, I'm sorry, you are wrong. They are both just unbelievers and unredeemed. They are no greater or worse than each other.
@edichkaa I agree with William Lane Craig, I have no preference between a Muslim, an athiest, or for that matter a Hindu, an agnostic, or a Buddhist. Some are easier to preach to than others, but they are all in the same boat.
There are the redeemed and the unredeemed, and it is because of nothing we have done ourselves, but the work of Christ that has saved us. I won't categorise the unredeemed into bad and really bad, I'll just preach to whoever God puts on my path.
Individuals who would stand to argue that Moral Values don't exist-in a world of Natural Selection-without a concept of god-has clearly not accepted the other species that exist on the planet as family in our place in the infinite universe. They would argue that an Amoral world would appear and Police will stop arresting people for Wrongful Appropriation (of Property-((Rape))Flesh-Ideas-To Take A Life) makes Sense. Laws would have never begun to develop among intelligent apes. This is an insult.
Again with the 'byproduct of evolution' argument to say naturalist morality is not objective. I'd like to know if craig actually thinks the laws of physics are not the byproducts of our universe initial conditions, and say they're not objective.
@sirdelrio "I'd like to know if craig actually thinks the laws of physics are not the byproducts of our universe initial conditions, and say they're not objective."
Interesting analogy............. I'm actually surprised that even Craig would use such a bad argument, as to suggest the "Biblical God" as the author of an objectve morality. He must be very confident in his powers of sophistry and equivocation! - Especially as he is against Hitchens!!
@Tobytrim Whether or not Craig's argument is weak, which I don't think it is, his description of Hitchens's response to the argument is spot on in al the debates I've seen him in; and I'm a huge fan of Hitchens (I'm a Christian). But Hitchens cannot answer that kind of question in a naturalist worldview.
@StephenMcCleskey I don't tend to appraise peoples' performance in a debate, like it was a sports event, as much as how much real truth it reveals to me of the subject discussed.
To that end, I myself have seem Hitchens glance over subjects which I know he could respond to, because I know I could!
I can only assume it's simply his way to sticking to the subject matter, which Craigs dishonest debating style tries to degress. Craig is ALL technique, no substance.
@StephenMcCleskey "Whether or not Craig's argument is weak, which I don't think it is"
That said, a simple demonstration of how weak Craig's assertion (that an object morality exists, and can only be explained by the biblical god as the author), would be to point out that a God is also subject to the moral judgement of those who would believe his morality.
Another example would be the non universality of morality (killing being virtuous in war, God endorsing slavery etc) Craig misses those!
Religion is herd morality. Religion has no objectivity for making moral judgements as it is based upon archaic rules instead of human values. Humans evolved the propensity for religion as a tribalistic behavior. The religious bond is embedded in ones personal belief system such that a religious person can't separate it from oneself to have an "objective" discussion about it. Religious people take all discussion about their god personally.
cause I was a Christian and I now know better than you because I learned so many things from rational and applied proofs of the natural world. By default, you are ignorant.
In order to disprove something there needs firstly to be evidence. If I give you the resurrection just for shits and giggles, there has never been anyone since then who has performed a miracle. No one has ever walked on water, no one has ever suspended the laws of nature. Based on probability and the occurrences of miracles it is reasonable to say miracles are not logical and therefore false.
@benaberry "Based on probability and the occurrences of miracles it is reasonable to say miracles are not logical and therefore false."
Their hasn't been a begining of the universe since the begining of the universe, therfore based on probability and the occurences of the begining of the universe it is not logical and therefore false.
Yes, very reasonable.
There are reasonable theological explanations why miracles stopped. Their inaccurence doesn't disprove them or Jesus' resurection
@benaberry Assuming there is a God - the creation of the universe is the greatest of the miralces. Resurection is small in comparison, I don't know why you find it so hard to comprehend.
You talked about reason before. I think it is reasonable and logical to believe the first hand testimonies of witnesses to Jesus' life, minstry, death, and yes his resurection. Almost all being martyred for their belief.
Unreasonable and illogical would be to dismiss their testimonies.
How can one believe Jesus was resurrected. How can this be proved true. I dont believe it can. Therefore the basis for arguing the christian god to be true is hopeless and asinine.
@bahdahdoop You are completely wrong! The stupid creationist failed, he lost! Hitchens won because he's not a creationist and doesn't believe in fairies! Hitchens Wins! Be quiet!
this was informative & helpful discussion;.I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more strident claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" .The article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is given to general atheistic social perspectives
Christopher Hitchens is the ULTIMATE SHOCK JOCK!!!!!! I love him. More crass than Howard Stern, more British than Noam, more convincing than Rush Limbaugh, more obnoxious than Bill O'Reilly, more captivating than any televangelist & less of a flamer than Anderson Cooper!
Everyone gets BULLIED, all of his opponents go down! Even if he gets cornered he can command his superior articulation to ALTER scientific evidence & come roaring back! In the end it doesn't matter - Long live the HITCHSLAP!
Atheists like to ask questions like "Why would a loving God" do this or that. But that is actually not the most urgent question. God desires to fix your problems first; then, after you can string together two straight days of living right, you may be able to comprehend some of His answers to your questions. In other words, let's fix the leak in YOUR boat first. Once you see how incompetent you are at being really good and loving, you will begin to appreciate just why life seems so unfair.
@OKandNOWwhat The problems are created by god in the first place. Why should someone be punished in the case of adam and eve for wanting to seek knowlegde. This along with questioning authority are some of the most important actions a human can undertake. Its like if I broke your boat because you disobeyed me and if you don't accept my help to fix it I will touture you forever. What kind of system is this? Its not only psychopathic but completely unethicial. It does not lead to human fulfillment
Do U give God's existence the benefit of the doubt? Mere hypothesizing about myths is futile. U say, "The problems are created by God in the 1st place." Humans were created as the SOLUTION to the problem (evil), but we remain solvent ONLY IF we follow instructions. Adam/Eve weren't punished for seeking knowledge; they received the previously stated consequences of their actions. But EVEN THEN God promised reprieve. Let Jesus help U w/ YOUR life, & He'll explain. Ask Him humbly. Don't demand.
@OKandNOWwhat I guess you view hummanity as nothing but pieces on a chess board. im sorry but i have more respect and love for my fellow humans than that. I am truly amazed at the level of servility and abjection that you abide to. In order to live meaningful lives our purpose must be our own. your view is sadomasochistic and psychopathic for it states human life is meaningless without a god. most of all it ruins the human spirit and eliminates self and collective worth.
No, I view humanity as combatants in a war: Either we are actively & knowingly working w/ God or we are blindly & haphazardly working for self, the seed of the serpent. Any meaning that a man may project upon his existence may be noble, but he has nothing but his fickle emotions to tell him whether it is his ideal path. The human spirit is dead w/o God, for God is the Life of man's spirit. Indeed, it is that Life that Adam/Eve lost & Messiah Jesus bought back. U gotta serve somebody.
I think the only reason Hitchens agrees to debate religious zealots like Craig and holds back from completely annihilating them during debates is because Hitchens is a genuinely nice man. The mean spirited intellectual wannabe Craig went on to say that Hitchens "was not intellegent" in another video. Craig is a terribly crass, vulgar human being.
How can there NOT be inconsistency if the Bible clearly says unbelievers are "fools" and "corrupt", and do "abominable" things?
In fact this hypocrite Craig elsewhere insists the root cause of unbelief is sin and cognitive faculties not functioning properly! According this nut-job, a person comming to the end of his/her road without accepting Christ is evil! So Bertrand Russel, Einstein (and most of the greatest scientists of the recent past) were wicked and are now in tormented in Hell??
The experts on "morality" would be Psychologists, Sociologists and Psychiatrist and other researchers in the field human psychology. If Dr Craig is interested in aspects of human psychology it would certainly benefit him to read up on their literature and attend some of their conferences. It would also be worthwhile submitting some of his own research papers to some of the Universities for peer review by these experts.
the hebrews didnt know not to steal or covet others' cattle or wives until they had wandered around for 40 years and then suddenly this character god shouted down to 600,000 simultaneously to "cut that out" ...
in genesis it says god had lunch or dinner or ate with abraham and sarah - it literally says that
how can these cults be allowed to remain - they are scientific stupifiers of the masses using brainwashing from childhood and fearmongering
Hitchens: "I don't believe that a materialistic view doesn't have ethics"
Craig: "Naturalistic worlds don't have a FOUNDATION for moral duties".
Hitchens is trying to misconstrued the argument again as all atheists do. Naturalistic world has ethics but has no foundation for ethical duties. There's no way atheists can avoid this.
Plus subjective morality is wishful thinking: "its wrong because society says it is". So Hitchens IS guilty of wishful thinking.
@nazra7 Religion has NOTHING to do with ethics. I've spent a reasonable amount of time wondering why people think so, the only conclusion I've come to is that what they've been told since youth and they believe it without question.
Some of the nicest and most "ethical" people I know are atheists. What reason do they have? No more or less than a theist. If you're doing good deeds just to please a god, that doesn't even make you a good person. You're still just doing it for yourself.
@Krazed2Kraze Your right, ethics are OBJECTIVE. There is an Objective Morality because God exists. Whether or not you believe that He exists doesn't mean that there is no God. And whether or not you believe that He exists doesn't mean that there is no Objective Morality. God has written his laws in the Hearts of Mankind (as the Bible teaches), and that's why even people who do now 'know' or 'worship' God know righteousness and wickedness.
The Bible teaches that. Read it to learn more. Romans.
@Krazed2Kraze "Some of the nicest and most "ethical" people I know are atheists."
I've met nice atheists too, but not very many. And the most nice ones don't go around telling Christians they're delusional or should become an atheist just as the most nice Christians don't do this to atheists and there's lots of Christians who don't.
"What reason do they have?"
Are you assuming I think atheists are incapable of being ethical? You're sadly mistaking.
@nazra7 So it's better to say that something is wrong because God says it is? Why? I mean, you could argue then that moral duties are imposed to some degree either way, either by God's laws or by societal rules/laws/norms. However, societal laws are subject to revision, whereas God's laws are not. So the bigger question is, is the latter better and/or more "true" because it's unalterable? I truly doubt that it is. How do you know what's "good" without the contrast? I wonder sometimes...
@megavolt67 ...about what the point of morality will be when Satan is defeated and there is only the "one" way (God's way). I mean, it was apparently free thinking (of a sort) itself that allowed Satan to rebel in the first place, and it's free thinking which will allow folks to either have faith or turn away, so if there's a heaven, will everyone be like-minded? It just seems like proposing God as an answer always seems to raise more questions than anything else.
@megavolt67@megavolt67 Futhermore, there's the question of the different Christian denominations, the different ideas on the proper way to follow (and interpret) God's objective moral law. It's just so difficult to determine exactly what a supernatural being wants, and particularly in a continuum where circumstances are indeed ever changing, and where what was practical in olden times (let's say, Old Testament times) may not be so today.
@megavolt67 "So it's better to say that something is wrong because God says it is? "
No its more complicated then that... I can't explain it fully here but please know no Christian thinks something is wrong just because God says it is, God gives reasons as to why he has laws...
@nazra7 If god has reasons to give the laws then what exactly is his role in the matter? Seems to me he is just a messenger in that view, a view by which morality is judged not as being moral because god says it is but moral for other reasons which god tells us. In this view what is the point of god? He obviously is no longer giving divine revelation to the religious and we are evolving our view on ethics through examination. Seems to me we can find out what is moral and not without god.
@nazra7 All god judges now is really whether or not we believed in him/his son(who is him), why would an all powerful all knowing being need to judge? He already knows how it's all going to god down. God punishing Adam and Eve is like me punishing a child for giving him some ice cream, telling him not to eat it and then siting next to him while someone else convinces him to eat the ice cream without saying anything. Except god knew exactly what would happen, when it would happen, and why.
why is it that I cannot understand anything WLC is talking about ? Man I must be stupid. But I do seem to be able to understand everything Hitchens says without thinking about it too much.kinda says something. Dazzle the with brilliance or baffle them with bullshit. That's a quote that immediately comes to mind every time i hear WLC speak.
debating Craig has no point he is using the same lame old arguments for about 20 years now, and doesn't even care if they have been refuted over and over again. Craig is one of the worst christian apologetics in the whole world, just because he gets so much respect for accomplishing absolutely nothing
@gulbirk this is so true. Apparently most people haven't realized by now that Dawkins only interviews/debates idiots who don't know what they're talking about. I guess that's one method he uses to try and seem smart. I really respect Hitchens for debating the foremost Christian apologists.
Hitchens has debated just as many illogical people as Dawkin. D'Souza consistently beings some of the worst arguments to the table, and has done so in front of either of them. Schmuley as well, and he's pretty bad. Dawkins has debated against plenty of prepared and intelligent (though misguided) theists.
@McLarenF1God that might be true, but Dawkins refuses to debate the leading Christian apologists such as Craig, Dembski, Behe, Swinburne, etc. He mainly "debates" priests or bishops. The most formidable opponent I've seen him interview is Alister McGrath, but even then McGrath is a more of a writer than a speaker.
that objective morality question always gets me. I think most people do practice "wish thinking" when we pretend morals are objective. Then again if society didn't consider basic morals objective we might be in trouble
"We see altruistic behavior in apes." "God gave us our morality." I don't understand how someone can hold these two statements and not see the absurdity of seeing a phenomenon being adequately explained in a natural way and attributing it to the supernatural. So what gave the apes their morality? Why would it be the case that apes morality is not god given? Pick your absurdity either a natural phenomenon is supernatural only when humans are involved or god gives apes a sense of morality.
5. That this "god" impregnated a Jewish virgin named "Mary" 2000 years ago & had her birth a son who happens to be also himself!
6. That he/son was tortured to death in order to exculpate us of an original sin that we were created in
etc etc etc!
You see folks, these tards who want to believe sooo much of this ridiculous nonsense have sooo much work ahead of themselves. Just because they think they can cast doubt on science etc... does NOT mean a SINGLE THING!
@terminat1 Bacteria are made from basic building blocks. We call them atoms. Those atoms join together to form molecules, those molecules join to form macromolecules, those macromolecules form structures such as cell walls, cell membranes, organelles, DNA, etc....
Go to school and do some biology. Clearly life arises from dead molecules!
@doaftheloaf Yes. Since abiogenesis has REPEATEDLY been proven to be FALSE, not only I, but many others, can logically say that to continue to be an atheist is to believe in pseudo-science.
A Supreme Being is the best explanation for why anything exists at all, why life exists, etc. The reason you don't see this is because you don't want to see it. The probabilities for an accidental universe are so astronomically unlikely that not believing in God requires a far bigger miracle than doing so.
@terminat1 when has abiogenesis ever been shown to be false?
also, one thing you should know is, the supernatural explanation is ALWAYS more unlikely than the natural one, until it is proven that the supernatural exists, which your side has NEVER done.
@doaftheloaf Scientists have done countless experiments in the lab, working with extremely expensive equipment. Never have they been able to create life; on the contrary, they have come to the conclusion that 'life only comes from life' (the Law of Biogenesis).
This is a genuine law of science which has serious ramifications for the atheist.
The supernatural explanation is 'always' more unlikely than the natural one: you say this only because you are completely biased against God.
@terminat1 actually, i say it because the supernatural has never been proven to exist, and the natural has, so natural explanations will always have a higher likelihood than supernatural ones, until the supernatural is proven to exist.
so, as unlikely as abiogenesis is, it is still more likely than the hypothesis that a deity created us. until, at least, a deity is proven to exist. get cracking, all your work is still ahead of you.
@terminat1 That is simply not true. We have already been able to create the basic building blocks of life from non-life. The earth had a lot longer time to work with then we have had so far. Given enough time a self replicating molecule is bound to form, and once it does evolution takes over and life explodes.
Also there is a possibility that there are a seemingly infinite amount of universes out there, being created and destroyed frequently. These mass numbers mean life is inevitable.
The irony is that these theist tards who try to somehow undermine the rigor and skepticism inherent in the methods of science by claiming that science relies on faith, end up implying that somehow faith is a bad thing!
It's like they accept that our claim that faith is not a good basis for belief, and then try to say that we're guilty of having faith too! It's like theistic tards are saying that we're just as bad as them! LMAO! I don't think so!
@Hornadayfan What you lack in common sense you make up for in spelling. That's awesome. You gotta be good at something. Any other brilliant points you wanna make?
Actually speaking, of which, I think there should be a new genus and species classification for the likes of Craig, and "kidwithoutgun"... called "Homo religious ignoramus"
Isn't it funny that everyone who makes fun of believers are people who don't have the one extra brain cell it takes to realize the truth? Perhaps atheists aren't quite as "evolved" as those who have ears to hear and eyes to see. But the Lord still loves them - that's the good news!
It's funny how these pseudo-analytic theists like to try on their "logic" and "reason" whilst still believing that there is a good reason to think that humans are oh so divinely special because some divine dude (whose existence hasn't even been proven), made it that way!
When they put on their "thinking cap" they just end up parading their ignorance and stupidity! Worst of all is that they manage to seduce the credulous sheep out there who think they have reason on their side. It's pathetic!!
@Mthooz Hmmm, I guess that's why thousands of Christian philosophers and scientists are respected around the world for their knowledge and insight. It's because they're just parading their ignorance, right?
The circumstantial evidence points to a Creator. If you don't think this way, it's because you're biased. And it's not a surprise at all that many people are biased when it comes to this question.
@terminat1 Circumstantial evidence? Like design? Fine tuning? First causes? The only thing we are sure of is the presence of a natural world. But it does not follow at all that therefore there is a super-natural realm from which some freaking puppet master hails!
Oh I totally agree that thousands of Christian philosophers and scientists are respected around the world for their knowledge and insight. But when it comes to philosophy and critical thinking they are intellectual bottom feeders.
@Mthooz That's because you've been deluded into believing that naturalism and atheism are true, and so everything these Christian scientists and philosophers say is necessarily wrong.
You believe that God cannot exist, does not exist, therefore any argument Dr. Craig makes is foolishness. You're biased from the beginning. You can't possibly look at his arguments objectively.
Likewise, you will support the atheists' arguments, even if they aren't sound at all.
@terminat1 It's funny how theistic 'tards like your good self see us as believing atheism to be true! As though atheism stands for something out there! It stands for NOTHING you fool! It merely claims that you people have YET to come anywhere NEAR close to providing us with a good reason to think that some sky-daddy exists, let alone created you, cares for you, cares what you eat and who you sleep with.
For all we know god may indeed exist but you sheep refuse to provide proper evidence.
@terminat1 no, it's because craig's arguments are actually not that good, and can be easily refuted. that's why his arguments are foolishness.
how objectively are you looking at craig's arguments?
if an atheistic argument is crappy, i'm as willing to discard it as with any crappy theistic argument.
i'll give this to craig; he is a skilled orator and debater, and that is why he sometimes wins debates. but his arguments themselves are not all that good.
@doaftheloaf They can be easily refuted because you start with the pre-conceived idea that nature is all there is, and there is no God. So, of course, what he argues can easily be shown to be foolishness.
@terminat1 By the way the term "Christian philosopher" I regard as an oxymoron. Don't you mean Christian theologian? And only other theologians and sheep are capable of respecting their views!
@Mthooz I don't see any reason why a Christian can't also be a philosopher.
Scientists make assumptions that haven't been proven, some of which can't be proven. So don't think that scientists only deal with brute facts, because this is not true.
@terminat1 Yeah, the difference is that philsophers seek as best they can to find the flaws in the scientific method. They question the epistemological basis of scientific reasoning and observations. In fact philosophers are the most vehement critics of the scientific method, and likewise they are the most vehement critics of theism. All you theistic ignoramuses can do is produce half baked attacks at science saying that it requires faith! As though to say that scientists are just as bad as you!
@Mthooz Oh, and insulting theists by calling them 'tards is very immature. I'm sorry, but that makes your position look even less tenable when you have to resort to insulting those with whom you're conversing.
It's not a half-baked attack when it can be shown that the Law of Biogenesis is repeatedly ignored by atheists. You believe life came from non-life, and this conclusion is 100% opposed to true science.
At the outset, your beliefs can be shown to be faith-based, not science-based.
@terminat1 What the HELL? How does you doubt over biogenesis favor your position? You still have yet to provide anything even close to resembling credible evidence for your theism. And you (like most other theists) don't really understand the concept of atheism and confuse it with agnosticism.
You peopel always seem to think that by conflating atheism with agnosticism, you can somehow soften or weaken the atheist position?
Yes it does make me wonder? Do you people lack certain faculties?
@Mthooz It's not difficult: Atheists believe there is no God, agnostics are not certain. There may be a God, and there may not be a God.
Your comments in your previous post were that of an agnostic, I'm sorry to say.
As stated before, the FACT that life only comes from life (a scientific law) shows that the atheist story of life coming from dead chemicals is a lie. This implies a God.
The only reason atheists reject this is because of their feelings, not because of scientific reasons.
@terminat1 This is obviously going over your head! - Atheists DO NOT believe that there is a god. That is not the same as saying "Atheists believe there is no God". Atheists are aware that they cannot prove 100% that there is NO GOD, or a tooth fairy or a flying spag monster etc!
Agnostics are in the EXACT same position in that: 1. They refuse to take the theistic stance. 2. They are aware that by extreme epistemic standards they cannot prove that god does not exist. They are really atheists!
@terminat1 Yeah but you cant prove that the tooth fairy and FSM dont exist can you?
He is in fact more unlikely to exist than those things because its so outragous all the claims that are made about him. You know about him impregnating a virgin, about him being born again as a human and then turning water into wine and then sacrificing himlsef by being tortured and nailed to a cross... etc... etc.. you know the story!!
@terminat1 until you can show that god exists, sure he is.
the difference is that we don't accept the existence of these things based on blind faith. in god's case you do, but in the case of the FSM and tooth fairy you don't. what gives?
@terminat1 Atheists are just not theists. Theists believe in a creator who you can personally get to know. Atheists do not believe that. Atheism is not a proposition (there is no god) but a rejection of a belief (I don't believe that). Agnosticism is, 1 that we do not have enough evidence to claim whether a god does or does not exist, or 2 we can never know whether there is a god. It isn't simply the act of not knowing (most atheists do not claim to know that there is no god period.)
@terminat1 Yeah and also bear in mind what science has taught us about he universe, plants, animals, bugs, humans, volcanos, solar systems and the mind, just to name a few!
And what has theology taught us about the universe? SFA! (SWEET FUCK ALL). It has only served to RETARD the progress of science and understanding how the world and how humans work. How many false claims and false assumptions has religion made compared to science?
@Mthooz When scientists and biologists can explain the origin of the universe or anything about evolution without contradicting themselves and without breaking their own principles and laws of mathematics, physics/quantum physics, laws of biogenesis, chemistry, planetary motion, universal constants and simple laws of nature - then I'll pack it up and call it quits as a Christian. Good luck! The Bible is flawless and confirms creation, likewise creation confirms the Bible. God is science.
@kidwithoutgun Yeah nice circularity there god of the gaps creationist boy! Funny how you people demand of science those high standards, yet you are so content to accept such a pathetic paucity of evidence and reason for your theism!
IF scientists explain the origin of the universe or evolution etc etc etc, you ignoramuses will still find a way to believe in your god!
We know your kind! You can't be reasoned with. Keep your christianity. You obviously need it more than you need truth.
@Mthooz I don't believe in the gap theory. But you're right about my faith not being threatened by so-called scientists/evolutionists, because every time they think they've found the next big break through, creationists find that it just confirms God and the Bible and violates other scientific principles, laws and claims. The truth is stated clearly. You should really check it out for yourself before you argue against it. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
@kidwithoutgun NO! The reason why you think your faith wont be threatened is because you have an unfalsifiable theory! Your god concept is so loose and broad and vague that no matter what observations and evidence people bring to bear on the question, it will never undermine the theory!! And as just as you said, theistic tards will see it as affirming their belief! And if you people think that this merits belief in that theory then you are delusional.
@Mthooz Don't mistake loose and vague for vast and immense. Perhaps even eternal and everlasting. There is an unmoved mover of this Universe and we call Him God. God spans the universe in the palm of His hand and operates according to fixed scientific and mathematical laws. It's really not that hard to grasp and that's why we who have eyes to see, certainly would see it as confirmation. There's no reason why we shouldn't. Science IS God.
@kidwithoutgun Yeah keep asserting your faith without providing supporting evidence or justification...ASSERT away my friend! Declare all that you wish! Glorify that which you worship! See what you want to see! "Seek and ye shall find"?!... and the rest of us rational and critical persons will keep ignoring you.
@kidwithoutgun I really can't understand why some people can say that the Bible is flawless. OK so let me get this right, you believe God created the earth in six days and rested on the seventh, because apparently this all powerful God was pretty worn out by day six. Not to mention talking snakes, a world wide flood, a talking donkey, Jonah surviving in the belly of a whale. Seriously? These stories don't strike you in anyway as fictitious.
@GoogleVideoMan Before I became a believer, these were all things that I struggled to understand. But after digging into the BIble and studying the history, the cultures, the languages, the characters etc, I and no one really has any reason to doubt. I honestly couldn't tell you if the donkey opened his mouth and spoke perfect hebrew - I wasn't there. But having grown up on a farm, I can assure you that there are many ways animals can communicate with you. Read up on these things man. Study.
@GoogleVideoMan God did not 'rest' because He was tired. He rested because He was showing how the 7th-day Sabbath was to be treated spiritually by humans: that is, humans are to rest in Christ for their salvation.
But you can only understand this if you compare Scripture with Scripture, and read the whole Bible carefully, not read one verse superficially.
If there is a supernatural God, which the Bible affirms, than the 'stories' you have listed are not a problem for Him.
@kidwithoutgun This would be somewhat humorous if I thought you were being sarcastic. Like I said... KEEP your theism and creationism and your faith. You need it! Pretend that it is logical reasoning too if it will make you feel better!!
@Mthooz Of course, you believe that atheism is true. IF YOU BELIEVED THAT ATHEISM WAS FALSE, THEN YOU WOULD NECESSARILY BELIEVE IN EITHER THE CHRISTIAN GOD, OR SOME OTHER DIVINE BEING.
Your words are that of an agnostic, not an atheist. You wrote, "For all we know God may indeed exist..."
An atheist would say, "God does not exist."
Agnostics say, "God may exist, but He may not."
The very fact that there is a Law of Biogenesis shows that life could not have formed naturally.
@terminat1 You seem to think that just because the alternative theory to creation hasn't been scientifically proven, that somehow it supports your theism? You people don't even have a testable hypothesis!! LMAO!! You just declare a priori that there exists a god who loves you, who cares what you do, who you sleep with and in what position, who impregnated a virgin, who some how died for our sins?... WTF?
I couldn't care less about abiogenesis! Show me a shred of evidence for your theism?!!
@Mthooz God can't be proven scientifically. In that you are correct, of course.
But tell me, what are the implications when you come to the scientific TRUTH that life only comes from life?
This automatically disproves the atheist lie that life came from dead chemicals. No amount of wishful thinking will change this.
So, if life DID NOT come from dead chemicals, and it MUST HAVE come from pre-existing life, what does this imply? It implies that there was a pre-existing Creator God.
@terminat1 First of all! Where is your evidence for your major premise that life cannot come from non life?
The naturalist frame work holds that it is perfectly logical and scientifically plausible that life can come form basic chemical building blocks. Of course this hasn't been experimentally proven yet but so what? Does this mean its impossible?
But before you get anywhere you have to define life? Plants? Animals? Bacteria? Are we talking cellular life or mental life, i.e. consciousness?
@Mthooz So, do you always believe things which cannot be scientifically proven?
You get on theists for believing in a God which cannot be scientifically verified, but then you say that it's 'perfectly...plausible that life can come from basic chemical (non-living) building blocks).'
So, you're basically affirming that you believe in something that has never been proven true, and in fact IT'S BEEN PROVEN IMPOSSIBLE REPEATEDLY.
@terminat1 How can you prove that it is impossible to create "life from non life" as you put it?... all you can show is that it is not possible yet. Do we have complete knowledge? Do we have the technology? And remember you have still YET to give me a definition of what we mean by life?
Are we talking cellular life? Have you done any cell biology? Multi-cellular life? Human consciousness?
You have no idea what you are talking about do you?
@terminat1 life can't come from no-life in the current world, cause we have lots of oxigen and microorganisms who would destroy any organic matter spontanously formed. but in the early earth, some billions of years ago, there were no oxigen or microorganisms...
@stagesix6 Sorry, but that's not the only reason scientists KNOW that life could not have originated from non-life. They know this because even the simplest cell is FAR more complex than the Space Shuttle. True scientists and mathematicians know that life is far too complex to have arisen by chance.
Even Richard Dawkins sees this. That's why he has spoken in favor of ID---he believes that aliens may have seeded the early Earth---which ultimately led to all of the diverse lifeforms.
@terminat1 the most simple cell today has been evolving for billions of years, it's clear the why of their complexity... dawkins do not asserts that, he claims alien intervention is a possibility, but any way, the aliens come from an evolutionary process...
Even the chance formation of a single protein is so astronomically unlikely as to be deemed impossible. One scientist stated that if the entire universe were a primordial sea, there still wouldn't be enough time for chance processes alone to create life.
This all stems from a complete bias against the supernatural. It's not logical to believe in such extremely unlikely happenings, but atheists must, because the alternative is not acceptable.
@terminat1 How many universes have we seen where there has been billions of years for something to happen? How can you or anyone make any probabilistic statements about how protein formation is soooo unlikely?!
Its ridiculous! Hume figured this out in the 18th century, but scientists now days are just as ignorant as theists. Probability theory and probabilistic reasoning cannot support any claim as to the unlikelihood if this or that happening. We dont have the reference for this.
Does God exist, YES or NO?...
enyskept 1 day ago
Is god physical or conceptual?
enyskept 1 month ago
Comment removed
JahElJah 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@enyskept The moment you compare God to anything It/He is not God.
Basically Human definitions of God are a matter of perception...
Which is why we give God the Greatest of Definitions and describe It/Him in the Highest possible way, with our own limited understanding.
God is not one thing or the other...in my mind God is the starting point and end point of all things and all things exist in Him or his "Kingdom"(Universe)
JahElJah 1 month ago
@enyskept All three are concepts.
boazmoss 1 day ago
Remember, with philosophy you can prove and disprove the same thing...It is evidence that has to come into play and that brings forth the empirical evidence based theories...
enyskept 1 month ago
Comment removed
lightbrownpoop 1 month ago
the level of sophistication i see by atheists in these comments is....well its about as high up there as richard dawkins who defends his ideas like his mindless followers through behind a computer screen calling people names.
Falcondick69 1 month ago
craig-exposed.webs.com
Metal1998 2 months ago
@Metal1998 Metal1998-Exposed.Webs.Com
EnlightenedReader 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The fundamental problem of argumentation which atheists have is the assumption that all forms of knowledge, truth and reality can be reduced to the scientific method of material observation - this is grossly mistaken. Knowledge such as metaphysics, ethics and morality (even the presumptions of the scientific method itself) are beyond the limits of sound scientific inquiry. When atheists have the ability to explicate every aspect of the universe, galaxies & alternate dimensions they can argue
shieldsff 2 months ago
What blather. Objective moral duties and responsibilities? One could "GROUND" these things in Yahweh the shrub burning Iron Age god of violent, ignorant peasants, or on scientific reasoning. Questioning the OBJECTIVITY of it all is a fool's errand.
mouthyweasel 2 months ago
@mouthyweasel - riigghhhttt! why is it do you think, anonymous internet atheist that none of the other atheist, far more prominent than you, hitchens, harris, dennett agree with your postion, not one has yet taken that position in writing or in the debates that Craig easily thrashed the three of them in? Could it be that you are brighter than these atheists?
Please be sensible in your response or don't respond at all, thanks
mollkatless 2 months ago
@mollkatless Please be intelligible in your initial comment, or make none at all. Thanks.
mouthyweasel 2 months ago
Gut feelings about things and gaps in evidence for moral value between natural selection does not equal god. Especially one that cares sooo much about who you have sex with, who fancies an Earth created in October 4004 b.c.e.
inconsp1cuous1515 3 months ago
There goes WLC blathering on again about objective moral values. He doesn't seem to understand there's no such thing. The closest thing to objective morality is a "rule" which like his God, is followed without question. Morality, on the other hand, must be actively considered. Moral behavior always improves over time. It's why we no longer condone slavery and why we allow women to vote and be schooled and hold significant positions in society.
ChipArgyle 4 months ago
@ChipArgyle Very nicely put.
Schnigtheatheist 4 months ago
@Schnigtheatheist Why thank you! It's pretty rare to receive a compliment in an Internet forum.
ChipArgyle 4 months ago
@ChipArgyle No problem. Craig just doesn't stop even when his claims are debunked. it's nice to see that people aren't blindly accepting what he's saying. Objective Moral Values don't exist and the statement is in fact an oxymoron that he won't stop spurting. All of his arguments have been refuted and yet people still look to him as the foremost leader in the argument for theism.
Schnigtheatheist 3 months ago
@Schnigtheatheist I agree. If you watch and listen closely, the first thing he does with nearly every one of his arguments is structure them incorrectly by saying something like, "Under the assumption that (insert assertion here) is true, then..." which is complete hokum. He will also go so far as to approach the debate moderator to change the structure of the debate if he thinks he's going up against a savvy opponent. And he's an obfuscating nitwit, which is what impresses the theists.
ChipArgyle 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK (DONATED) FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
If our sense of morality is a social byproduct then there is no altruism Mr. Craig. Our behavior, like that of baboons, all "altruistic behavior" is truly self serving.
opptynox 6 months ago
@opptynox That was his point. It's simply self-serving. There is no objective reason why it should be moraly good to be altruistic.
1r34kh4v0k 5 months ago
this guy is not really a christian,he just says he is because he want's to fit in with the guys,,,,that makes me sick!
edichkaa 6 months ago
@edichkaa uhh... why do you say that? It seems like a large assumption to say he doesn't believe in the Christian God and he rejects Jesus Christ as his Lord and Saviour, especially when his career - and I can only assume his life passion - is defending that belief system.
JordanRossMackenzie 6 months ago
@JordanRossMackenzie how can he claim to be a christian and a scholar and not understand that in the eyes of the monotheist,worshiping a false god is probably the worst sin you can commit?
edichkaa 6 months ago
@edichkaa well,i didn't know one way or the other about this guy until in the debate hitchens asks him:what do you prefer i child born in iran to be,a muslim or an atheist?and craig says:i don't have a preference!/well,if you round up 100 christians and ask them what is better between the two,muslim or atheist?oll the real christians will say that an atheist is the lesser of the two evils.
edichkaa 6 months ago
@edichkaa ..... that sounds a bit mixed up. I think theologically speaking you are wrong and it is a massive assumption that 100/100 christians will prefer an athiest over a muslim.
For starters, there is no lesser of two evils. James 2:11. An athiest has sinned against God as much as a muslim has sinned against God (as much as a Christian has sinned against God). The only difference being that we have asked for forgiveness from the Son of God and Saviour.
JordanRossMackenzie 6 months ago
@JordanRossMackenzie look,it's not really a wise thing to go in to higher knowledge when you talk about practical things.because if we both begin to talk on that level than there will be no reason for discussion at all,because all things are equal and god is in everything so everything and everyone is god and there is no evil cause everything is from god and god is love and on and on.it wasn't an assumption what i said,it's just the way things are.
edichkaa 6 months ago
@edichkaa .......... what? "all things are equal and god is in everything so everything and everyone is god and there is no evil cause everything is from god and god is love and on and on"
I'm not sure if I misunderstood you, but if this is what you believe, then you aren't a Christian. I'm not making a judgement, I'm just saying that this theology doesn't exist in the Bible, and in fact the contrary exists.
What point were you trying to make?
JordanRossMackenzie 6 months ago
@edichkaa It isn't our responsibility to put people into some form of heirarchy of their tresspasses against God. Revenge belongs to the Lord and He will judge righteously.
Secondly, Muslims believe in the same monothiestic God as Christians do. The God of Isaac, Jacob, and Abraham. Unfortunately they don't believe that Jesus was the Son of God who came to save believers from the judgement of their sins. Athiests dispute God's existence. You don't know which is a greater sin, only God does.
JordanRossMackenzie 6 months ago
@JordanRossMackenzie ...a person teaches anything but the true word of god is on the side of the antichrist,,,,an unbeliever is just a lost child who did not yet see the light,,,,i wont give you passages,,,you need to see things in context,,,,giving isolated passages does not give you the whole picture.I'm Jewish,don't tell me that an atheist and a muslim is the same,and don't tell me Jews and Christians don't see eye to eye on that.that's just not the case buddy boy.
edichkaa 6 months ago
@edichkaa What difference does it make if you are Jewish? The fact is, both muslims and athiests are unbelievers. The muslims may have faith in a monothiestic God who they call Allah, but their are gods and idols all over the place. You think that athiests don't have gods?. How about money, fame, self indulgence - or more biblically speaking the god of this world (Satan). It doesn't matter what false god they believe in, their is no hierarchy of unbelievers. Your theology is bad.
JordanRossMackenzie 6 months ago
@JordanRossMackenzie so i understand that you are a christian,,alright then,,what would you prefer for your children,the muslim faith or atheism?....it's all the same right?
edichkaa 6 months ago
@edichkaa yes it is all the same. I would prefer them to be athiest only because it may be easier to preach the gospel to them. Often Muslim's are very dogmatic and unreasonable about their beliefs. If my children turned out one athiest and the other muslim, I would believe that one is more damned than the other, nor do I think there is a theological standing for that viewpoint. Both need to accept Jesus Christ's work for their salvation. There is no greater spiritual condemnation that i can see
JordanRossMackenzie 6 months ago
@edichkaa *** I woulddN'T believe on is more damned than the other
JordanRossMackenzie 6 months ago
@JordanRossMackenzie You couldnt be more wrong, Atheism has no inherent morality, no inherent alleigiance, nor any personal traits. It is quite simply the rejection of unfounded viewpoints such as yours. If living for your own purposes is an act of worship then I am my own god. If its ok for you to make such assertions then its ok for an atheist to mock your ideas.
mehico33 6 months ago
@JordanRossMackenzie - many might say Christians worship hate.
SpearofDestiny0 4 months ago
Comment removed
qualitymasterone 3 months ago
@qualitymasterone - Hating "evil" becomes dangerous depending on what you define as evil. Some of the Christian definitions I agree with: ex: murder. The others are contradictions. I don't see how God can be okay with slavery or abuse of your spouse. I don't see how a loving moral God can command the deaths of homosexuals or women who don't wear veils in Church or people who wear polyester. Very "outdated" and ignorant morals. Think your for yourself please, don't be an ignorant "sheep".
SpearofDestiny0 3 months ago
@SpearofDestiny0 for clarification, nowhere in the Law does God command death for people who eat unkosher, don't wear one-fabric clothing, don't wear tzitzit on their garments, etc. And veiled women is not mentioned even at all in the Law except a woman being shamed by having her head uncovered. The rules which have to do with wickedness and righteousness are those that are punishable by death.
krononomikon 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@edichkaa "...a person teaches anything but the true word of god is on the side of the antichrist,,,,"
and what do you think athiests teach? Is it the word of God? No, I'm sorry, you are wrong. They are both just unbelievers and unredeemed. They are no greater or worse than each other.
JordanRossMackenzie 6 months ago
@edichkaa I agree with William Lane Craig, I have no preference between a Muslim, an athiest, or for that matter a Hindu, an agnostic, or a Buddhist. Some are easier to preach to than others, but they are all in the same boat.
There are the redeemed and the unredeemed, and it is because of nothing we have done ourselves, but the work of Christ that has saved us. I won't categorise the unredeemed into bad and really bad, I'll just preach to whoever God puts on my path.
JordanRossMackenzie 6 months ago
Individuals who would stand to argue that Moral Values don't exist-in a world of Natural Selection-without a concept of god-has clearly not accepted the other species that exist on the planet as family in our place in the infinite universe. They would argue that an Amoral world would appear and Police will stop arresting people for Wrongful Appropriation (of Property-((Rape))Flesh-Ideas-To Take A Life) makes Sense. Laws would have never begun to develop among intelligent apes. This is an insult.
RyuhiMitshama 7 months ago
Again with the 'byproduct of evolution' argument to say naturalist morality is not objective. I'd like to know if craig actually thinks the laws of physics are not the byproducts of our universe initial conditions, and say they're not objective.
sirdelrio 8 months ago
@sirdelrio "I'd like to know if craig actually thinks the laws of physics are not the byproducts of our universe initial conditions, and say they're not objective."
Interesting analogy............. I'm actually surprised that even Craig would use such a bad argument, as to suggest the "Biblical God" as the author of an objectve morality. He must be very confident in his powers of sophistry and equivocation! - Especially as he is against Hitchens!!
Tobytrim 7 months ago
@Tobytrim Whether or not Craig's argument is weak, which I don't think it is, his description of Hitchens's response to the argument is spot on in al the debates I've seen him in; and I'm a huge fan of Hitchens (I'm a Christian). But Hitchens cannot answer that kind of question in a naturalist worldview.
StephenMcCleskey 7 months ago
@StephenMcCleskey I don't tend to appraise peoples' performance in a debate, like it was a sports event, as much as how much real truth it reveals to me of the subject discussed.
To that end, I myself have seem Hitchens glance over subjects which I know he could respond to, because I know I could!
I can only assume it's simply his way to sticking to the subject matter, which Craigs dishonest debating style tries to degress. Craig is ALL technique, no substance.
Tobytrim 7 months ago
@StephenMcCleskey "Whether or not Craig's argument is weak, which I don't think it is"
That said, a simple demonstration of how weak Craig's assertion (that an object morality exists, and can only be explained by the biblical god as the author), would be to point out that a God is also subject to the moral judgement of those who would believe his morality.
Another example would be the non universality of morality (killing being virtuous in war, God endorsing slavery etc) Craig misses those!
Tobytrim 7 months ago
Religion is herd morality. Religion has no objectivity for making moral judgements as it is based upon archaic rules instead of human values. Humans evolved the propensity for religion as a tribalistic behavior. The religious bond is embedded in ones personal belief system such that a religious person can't separate it from oneself to have an "objective" discussion about it. Religious people take all discussion about their god personally.
humansaretheworld 8 months ago
i would go with Mr. Craig. Hitchens has blinded his entire debate with personal ignorance towards christians
MrMeineNamen 8 months ago
@MrMeineNamen you are ignorant
KEEETARO 8 months ago
@KEEETARO wow good one how long did that take to come up with?
MrMeineNamen 8 months ago
@MrMeineNamen
cause I was a Christian and I now know better than you because I learned so many things from rational and applied proofs of the natural world. By default, you are ignorant.
KEEETARO 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KEEETARO what you didnt learn was how to make your replys make sense or have any relevance to the above statements...
MrMeineNamen 7 months ago
I like how he says - in reality! Is he for real. Prove one miricle in reality to be true. One, please......I beg you!!!!!!
benaberry 8 months ago
@benaberry please prove it not to be... one please i beg you
leave your hypocritical ignorance out of the comments
MrMeineNamen 8 months ago
@MrMeineNamen
In order to disprove something there needs firstly to be evidence. If I give you the resurrection just for shits and giggles, there has never been anyone since then who has performed a miracle. No one has ever walked on water, no one has ever suspended the laws of nature. Based on probability and the occurrences of miracles it is reasonable to say miracles are not logical and therefore false.
benaberry 8 months ago
@benaberry "Based on probability and the occurrences of miracles it is reasonable to say miracles are not logical and therefore false."
Their hasn't been a begining of the universe since the begining of the universe, therfore based on probability and the occurences of the begining of the universe it is not logical and therefore false.
Yes, very reasonable.
There are reasonable theological explanations why miracles stopped. Their inaccurence doesn't disprove them or Jesus' resurection
JordanRossMackenzie 6 months ago
@benaberry Assuming there is a God - the creation of the universe is the greatest of the miralces. Resurection is small in comparison, I don't know why you find it so hard to comprehend.
You talked about reason before. I think it is reasonable and logical to believe the first hand testimonies of witnesses to Jesus' life, minstry, death, and yes his resurection. Almost all being martyred for their belief.
Unreasonable and illogical would be to dismiss their testimonies.
JordanRossMackenzie 6 months ago
@MrMeineNamen
PA-POW!!
benaberry 8 months ago
How can one believe Jesus was resurrected. How can this be proved true. I dont believe it can. Therefore the basis for arguing the christian god to be true is hopeless and asinine.
benaberry 8 months ago
Hitchens lost this debate. I'm an absolute Hitchens fanatic, but I have to be objective in my judgement.
bahdahdoop 8 months ago
@bahdahdoop You are completely wrong! The stupid creationist failed, he lost! Hitchens won because he's not a creationist and doesn't believe in fairies! Hitchens Wins! Be quiet!
Coffeeisnecessary 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this was informative & helpful discussion;.I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more strident claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" .The article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is given to general atheistic social perspectives
shieldsff 8 months ago
how can someone like craig, who is surely an intelligent man, have such a dumb cause...
zonkov88 8 months ago
Christopher Hitchens is the ULTIMATE SHOCK JOCK!!!!!! I love him. More crass than Howard Stern, more British than Noam, more convincing than Rush Limbaugh, more obnoxious than Bill O'Reilly, more captivating than any televangelist & less of a flamer than Anderson Cooper!
Everyone gets BULLIED, all of his opponents go down! Even if he gets cornered he can command his superior articulation to ALTER scientific evidence & come roaring back! In the end it doesn't matter - Long live the HITCHSLAP!
Idahoprospector 9 months ago
Atheists like to ask questions like "Why would a loving God" do this or that. But that is actually not the most urgent question. God desires to fix your problems first; then, after you can string together two straight days of living right, you may be able to comprehend some of His answers to your questions. In other words, let's fix the leak in YOUR boat first. Once you see how incompetent you are at being really good and loving, you will begin to appreciate just why life seems so unfair.
OKandNOWwhat 9 months ago
@OKandNOWwhat The problems are created by god in the first place. Why should someone be punished in the case of adam and eve for wanting to seek knowlegde. This along with questioning authority are some of the most important actions a human can undertake. Its like if I broke your boat because you disobeyed me and if you don't accept my help to fix it I will touture you forever. What kind of system is this? Its not only psychopathic but completely unethicial. It does not lead to human fulfillment
jrockd36 9 months ago
Do U give God's existence the benefit of the doubt? Mere hypothesizing about myths is futile. U say, "The problems are created by God in the 1st place." Humans were created as the SOLUTION to the problem (evil), but we remain solvent ONLY IF we follow instructions. Adam/Eve weren't punished for seeking knowledge; they received the previously stated consequences of their actions. But EVEN THEN God promised reprieve. Let Jesus help U w/ YOUR life, & He'll explain. Ask Him humbly. Don't demand.
OKandNOWwhat 9 months ago
@OKandNOWwhat I guess you view hummanity as nothing but pieces on a chess board. im sorry but i have more respect and love for my fellow humans than that. I am truly amazed at the level of servility and abjection that you abide to. In order to live meaningful lives our purpose must be our own. your view is sadomasochistic and psychopathic for it states human life is meaningless without a god. most of all it ruins the human spirit and eliminates self and collective worth.
jrockd36 9 months ago
@jrockd36
No, I view humanity as combatants in a war: Either we are actively & knowingly working w/ God or we are blindly & haphazardly working for self, the seed of the serpent. Any meaning that a man may project upon his existence may be noble, but he has nothing but his fickle emotions to tell him whether it is his ideal path. The human spirit is dead w/o God, for God is the Life of man's spirit. Indeed, it is that Life that Adam/Eve lost & Messiah Jesus bought back. U gotta serve somebody.
OKandNOWwhat 9 months ago
This was big time. It even had a press conference haha
MauricXe 9 months ago
Notice how Craig pronounces evolution.
thinlizzybone 9 months ago
I think the only reason Hitchens agrees to debate religious zealots like Craig and holds back from completely annihilating them during debates is because Hitchens is a genuinely nice man. The mean spirited intellectual wannabe Craig went on to say that Hitchens "was not intellegent" in another video. Craig is a terribly crass, vulgar human being.
cupwithhandles 10 months ago
How can there NOT be inconsistency if the Bible clearly says unbelievers are "fools" and "corrupt", and do "abominable" things?
In fact this hypocrite Craig elsewhere insists the root cause of unbelief is sin and cognitive faculties not functioning properly! According this nut-job, a person comming to the end of his/her road without accepting Christ is evil! So Bertrand Russel, Einstein (and most of the greatest scientists of the recent past) were wicked and are now in tormented in Hell??
AgeOfReasonXXI 11 months ago
The experts on "morality" would be Psychologists, Sociologists and Psychiatrist and other researchers in the field human psychology. If Dr Craig is interested in aspects of human psychology it would certainly benefit him to read up on their literature and attend some of their conferences. It would also be worthwhile submitting some of his own research papers to some of the Universities for peer review by these experts.
27182818R 1 year ago
the hebrews didnt know not to steal or covet others' cattle or wives until they had wandered around for 40 years and then suddenly this character god shouted down to 600,000 simultaneously to "cut that out" ...
in genesis it says god had lunch or dinner or ate with abraham and sarah - it literally says that
how can these cults be allowed to remain - they are scientific stupifiers of the masses using brainwashing from childhood and fearmongering
abrahamic religions need to go
timewilltell7 1 year ago
@timewilltell7 Why exactly do Abraham religions need to go?
Jman3000 1 year ago
Hitchens: "I don't believe that a materialistic view doesn't have ethics"
Craig: "Naturalistic worlds don't have a FOUNDATION for moral duties".
Hitchens is trying to misconstrued the argument again as all atheists do. Naturalistic world has ethics but has no foundation for ethical duties. There's no way atheists can avoid this.
Plus subjective morality is wishful thinking: "its wrong because society says it is". So Hitchens IS guilty of wishful thinking.
nazra7 1 year ago
@nazra7 Religion has NOTHING to do with ethics. I've spent a reasonable amount of time wondering why people think so, the only conclusion I've come to is that what they've been told since youth and they believe it without question.
Some of the nicest and most "ethical" people I know are atheists. What reason do they have? No more or less than a theist. If you're doing good deeds just to please a god, that doesn't even make you a good person. You're still just doing it for yourself.
Krazed2Kraze 1 year ago
@Krazed2Kraze Your right, ethics are OBJECTIVE. There is an Objective Morality because God exists. Whether or not you believe that He exists doesn't mean that there is no God. And whether or not you believe that He exists doesn't mean that there is no Objective Morality. God has written his laws in the Hearts of Mankind (as the Bible teaches), and that's why even people who do now 'know' or 'worship' God know righteousness and wickedness.
The Bible teaches that. Read it to learn more. Romans.
6thwing 1 year ago
@Krazed2Kraze "Religion has NOTHING to do with ethics. I've spent a reasonable amount of time wondering why people think so"
Maybe because religion teaches its own ethics and teaches a higher ethical authority? Did you ever think of that?
"the only conclusion I've come to is that what they've been told since youth and they believe it without question."
Thats because you're only looking for any reason not to believe which displays ineffective offensive listening.
nazra7 1 year ago
@nazra7 'It's own ethics'? Says who? Are you suggesting that without religion we wouldn't know killing eachother is wrong?
Bumblybee256 1 year ago
@Krazed2Kraze "Some of the nicest and most "ethical" people I know are atheists."
I've met nice atheists too, but not very many. And the most nice ones don't go around telling Christians they're delusional or should become an atheist just as the most nice Christians don't do this to atheists and there's lots of Christians who don't.
"What reason do they have?"
Are you assuming I think atheists are incapable of being ethical? You're sadly mistaking.
nazra7 1 year ago
@nazra7 So it's better to say that something is wrong because God says it is? Why? I mean, you could argue then that moral duties are imposed to some degree either way, either by God's laws or by societal rules/laws/norms. However, societal laws are subject to revision, whereas God's laws are not. So the bigger question is, is the latter better and/or more "true" because it's unalterable? I truly doubt that it is. How do you know what's "good" without the contrast? I wonder sometimes...
megavolt67 1 year ago
@megavolt67 ...about what the point of morality will be when Satan is defeated and there is only the "one" way (God's way). I mean, it was apparently free thinking (of a sort) itself that allowed Satan to rebel in the first place, and it's free thinking which will allow folks to either have faith or turn away, so if there's a heaven, will everyone be like-minded? It just seems like proposing God as an answer always seems to raise more questions than anything else.
megavolt67 1 year ago
@megavolt67 @megavolt67 Futhermore, there's the question of the different Christian denominations, the different ideas on the proper way to follow (and interpret) God's objective moral law. It's just so difficult to determine exactly what a supernatural being wants, and particularly in a continuum where circumstances are indeed ever changing, and where what was practical in olden times (let's say, Old Testament times) may not be so today.
megavolt67 1 year ago
@megavolt67 "So it's better to say that something is wrong because God says it is? "
No its more complicated then that... I can't explain it fully here but please know no Christian thinks something is wrong just because God says it is, God gives reasons as to why he has laws...
nazra7 1 year ago
@nazra7 If god has reasons to give the laws then what exactly is his role in the matter? Seems to me he is just a messenger in that view, a view by which morality is judged not as being moral because god says it is but moral for other reasons which god tells us. In this view what is the point of god? He obviously is no longer giving divine revelation to the religious and we are evolving our view on ethics through examination. Seems to me we can find out what is moral and not without god.
arithine 11 months ago
@arithine The point is God is the judge, and will judge accordingly.
nazra7 10 months ago
@nazra7 All god judges now is really whether or not we believed in him/his son(who is him), why would an all powerful all knowing being need to judge? He already knows how it's all going to god down. God punishing Adam and Eve is like me punishing a child for giving him some ice cream, telling him not to eat it and then siting next to him while someone else convinces him to eat the ice cream without saying anything. Except god knew exactly what would happen, when it would happen, and why.
arithine 10 months ago
@arithine
all going to go down.*
Woops
arithine 10 months ago
why is it that I cannot understand anything WLC is talking about ? Man I must be stupid. But I do seem to be able to understand everything Hitchens says without thinking about it too much.kinda says something. Dazzle the with brilliance or baffle them with bullshit. That's a quote that immediately comes to mind every time i hear WLC speak.
SlykRyk666 1 year ago
@SlykRyk666 "Dazzle the with brilliance or baffle them with bullshit."
Appeals to simplicity is a logical fallacy.
nazra7 1 year ago
debating Craig has no point he is using the same lame old arguments for about 20 years now, and doesn't even care if they have been refuted over and over again. Craig is one of the worst christian apologetics in the whole world, just because he gets so much respect for accomplishing absolutely nothing
Quiestre 1 year ago
well, at least Hitchens debated people that were inteligent, instead of the ones that Dawkin is debating.
gulbirk 1 year ago
@gulbirk this is so true. Apparently most people haven't realized by now that Dawkins only interviews/debates idiots who don't know what they're talking about. I guess that's one method he uses to try and seem smart. I really respect Hitchens for debating the foremost Christian apologists.
ThunderingBiscuit 1 year ago
@ThunderingBiscuit
Hitchens has debated just as many illogical people as Dawkin. D'Souza consistently beings some of the worst arguments to the table, and has done so in front of either of them. Schmuley as well, and he's pretty bad. Dawkins has debated against plenty of prepared and intelligent (though misguided) theists.
McLarenF1God 1 year ago
@McLarenF1God that might be true, but Dawkins refuses to debate the leading Christian apologists such as Craig, Dembski, Behe, Swinburne, etc. He mainly "debates" priests or bishops. The most formidable opponent I've seen him interview is Alister McGrath, but even then McGrath is a more of a writer than a speaker.
ThunderingBiscuit 1 year ago
that objective morality question always gets me. I think most people do practice "wish thinking" when we pretend morals are objective. Then again if society didn't consider basic morals objective we might be in trouble
peamealbaconrules 1 year ago
"We see altruistic behavior in apes." "God gave us our morality." I don't understand how someone can hold these two statements and not see the absurdity of seeing a phenomenon being adequately explained in a natural way and attributing it to the supernatural. So what gave the apes their morality? Why would it be the case that apes morality is not god given? Pick your absurdity either a natural phenomenon is supernatural only when humans are involved or god gives apes a sense of morality.
nospacesallowed 1 year ago
Continued from previous...
5. That this "god" impregnated a Jewish virgin named "Mary" 2000 years ago & had her birth a son who happens to be also himself!
6. That he/son was tortured to death in order to exculpate us of an original sin that we were created in
etc etc etc!
You see folks, these tards who want to believe sooo much of this ridiculous nonsense have sooo much work ahead of themselves. Just because they think they can cast doubt on science etc... does NOT mean a SINGLE THING!
Mthooz 1 year ago
@Mthooz And yet you believe in the psuedo-science of life coming from non-life...
terminat1 1 year ago
@terminat1 Bacteria are made from basic building blocks. We call them atoms. Those atoms join together to form molecules, those molecules join to form macromolecules, those macromolecules form structures such as cell walls, cell membranes, organelles, DNA, etc....
Go to school and do some biology. Clearly life arises from dead molecules!
Mthooz 1 year ago
@terminat1 you believe in "i don't know, so therefore it must have been god", and YOU have the gall to call abiogenesis pseudo-science?
doaftheloaf 1 year ago
@doaftheloaf Yes. Since abiogenesis has REPEATEDLY been proven to be FALSE, not only I, but many others, can logically say that to continue to be an atheist is to believe in pseudo-science.
A Supreme Being is the best explanation for why anything exists at all, why life exists, etc. The reason you don't see this is because you don't want to see it. The probabilities for an accidental universe are so astronomically unlikely that not believing in God requires a far bigger miracle than doing so.
terminat1 1 year ago
@terminat1 when has abiogenesis ever been shown to be false?
also, one thing you should know is, the supernatural explanation is ALWAYS more unlikely than the natural one, until it is proven that the supernatural exists, which your side has NEVER done.
doaftheloaf 1 year ago
@doaftheloaf Scientists have done countless experiments in the lab, working with extremely expensive equipment. Never have they been able to create life; on the contrary, they have come to the conclusion that 'life only comes from life' (the Law of Biogenesis).
This is a genuine law of science which has serious ramifications for the atheist.
The supernatural explanation is 'always' more unlikely than the natural one: you say this only because you are completely biased against God.
terminat1 1 year ago
@terminat1 actually, i say it because the supernatural has never been proven to exist, and the natural has, so natural explanations will always have a higher likelihood than supernatural ones, until the supernatural is proven to exist.
so, as unlikely as abiogenesis is, it is still more likely than the hypothesis that a deity created us. until, at least, a deity is proven to exist. get cracking, all your work is still ahead of you.
doaftheloaf 1 year ago
@terminat1 That is simply not true. We have already been able to create the basic building blocks of life from non-life. The earth had a lot longer time to work with then we have had so far. Given enough time a self replicating molecule is bound to form, and once it does evolution takes over and life explodes.
Also there is a possibility that there are a seemingly infinite amount of universes out there, being created and destroyed frequently. These mass numbers mean life is inevitable.
arithine 11 months ago
Remember folks! They still cannot give us good reasons or evidence why they think there is:
1. A supernatural dimension
2. An intelligent creator
Even if they did that (which they have yet to do), they still have ALL their work ahead of them to show us that:
3. This supernatural dimension houses their Creator
4. That this creator is a "God", i.e. all knowing, all powerful, all loving and still lives!
continued...
Mthooz 1 year ago
@Mthooz yeah, there are so many unsupported presupositions...
stagesix6 1 year ago
The irony is that these theist tards who try to somehow undermine the rigor and skepticism inherent in the methods of science by claiming that science relies on faith, end up implying that somehow faith is a bad thing!
It's like they accept that our claim that faith is not a good basis for belief, and then try to say that we're guilty of having faith too! It's like theistic tards are saying that we're just as bad as them! LMAO! I don't think so!
Mthooz 1 year ago
Comment removed
kidwithoutgun 1 year ago
It's actually spelled "genius."
Hornadayfan 1 year ago
@Hornadayfan What you lack in common sense you make up for in spelling. That's awesome. You gotta be good at something. Any other brilliant points you wanna make?
kidwithoutgun 1 year ago
@Hornadayfan LMFAO!! Haha!
Actually speaking, of which, I think there should be a new genus and species classification for the likes of Craig, and "kidwithoutgun"... called "Homo religious ignoramus"
Mthooz 1 year ago
@Mthooz You got a lot to say on videos like these and to people like me for someone who plans to "keep ignoring" me. Blah blah blah, loud mouth.
kidwithoutgun 1 year ago
@kidwithoutgun Dude! It's a dirty job but someone's gotta do it! Been taking out the theistic trash for years!
Later!
Mthooz 1 year ago
@Mthooz Totally man, and you're doing a damn good job. Everyone's faith has been shaken because of you. Go get 'em Dirty Harry/garbage man.
kidwithoutgun 1 year ago
Isn't it funny that everyone who makes fun of believers are people who don't have the one extra brain cell it takes to realize the truth? Perhaps atheists aren't quite as "evolved" as those who have ears to hear and eyes to see. But the Lord still loves them - that's the good news!
kidwithoutgun 1 year ago
It's funny how these pseudo-analytic theists like to try on their "logic" and "reason" whilst still believing that there is a good reason to think that humans are oh so divinely special because some divine dude (whose existence hasn't even been proven), made it that way!
When they put on their "thinking cap" they just end up parading their ignorance and stupidity! Worst of all is that they manage to seduce the credulous sheep out there who think they have reason on their side. It's pathetic!!
Mthooz 1 year ago
@Mthooz Hmmm, I guess that's why thousands of Christian philosophers and scientists are respected around the world for their knowledge and insight. It's because they're just parading their ignorance, right?
The circumstantial evidence points to a Creator. If you don't think this way, it's because you're biased. And it's not a surprise at all that many people are biased when it comes to this question.
terminat1 1 year ago
@terminat1 Circumstantial evidence? Like design? Fine tuning? First causes? The only thing we are sure of is the presence of a natural world. But it does not follow at all that therefore there is a super-natural realm from which some freaking puppet master hails!
Oh I totally agree that thousands of Christian philosophers and scientists are respected around the world for their knowledge and insight. But when it comes to philosophy and critical thinking they are intellectual bottom feeders.
Mthooz 1 year ago
@Mthooz That's because you've been deluded into believing that naturalism and atheism are true, and so everything these Christian scientists and philosophers say is necessarily wrong.
You believe that God cannot exist, does not exist, therefore any argument Dr. Craig makes is foolishness. You're biased from the beginning. You can't possibly look at his arguments objectively.
Likewise, you will support the atheists' arguments, even if they aren't sound at all.
terminat1 1 year ago
@terminat1 It's funny how theistic 'tards like your good self see us as believing atheism to be true! As though atheism stands for something out there! It stands for NOTHING you fool! It merely claims that you people have YET to come anywhere NEAR close to providing us with a good reason to think that some sky-daddy exists, let alone created you, cares for you, cares what you eat and who you sleep with.
For all we know god may indeed exist but you sheep refuse to provide proper evidence.
Mthooz 1 year ago
Comment removed
terminat1 1 year ago
@terminat1 no, it's because craig's arguments are actually not that good, and can be easily refuted. that's why his arguments are foolishness.
how objectively are you looking at craig's arguments?
if an atheistic argument is crappy, i'm as willing to discard it as with any crappy theistic argument.
i'll give this to craig; he is a skilled orator and debater, and that is why he sometimes wins debates. but his arguments themselves are not all that good.
doaftheloaf 1 year ago
@doaftheloaf They can be easily refuted because you start with the pre-conceived idea that nature is all there is, and there is no God. So, of course, what he argues can easily be shown to be foolishness.
terminat1 1 year ago
@terminat1 By the way the term "Christian philosopher" I regard as an oxymoron. Don't you mean Christian theologian? And only other theologians and sheep are capable of respecting their views!
Philosophy begins when theology ends.
Mthooz 1 year ago
@Mthooz I don't see any reason why a Christian can't also be a philosopher.
Scientists make assumptions that haven't been proven, some of which can't be proven. So don't think that scientists only deal with brute facts, because this is not true.
terminat1 1 year ago
@terminat1 Yeah, the difference is that philsophers seek as best they can to find the flaws in the scientific method. They question the epistemological basis of scientific reasoning and observations. In fact philosophers are the most vehement critics of the scientific method, and likewise they are the most vehement critics of theism. All you theistic ignoramuses can do is produce half baked attacks at science saying that it requires faith! As though to say that scientists are just as bad as you!
Mthooz 1 year ago
@Mthooz Oh, and insulting theists by calling them 'tards is very immature. I'm sorry, but that makes your position look even less tenable when you have to resort to insulting those with whom you're conversing.
It's not a half-baked attack when it can be shown that the Law of Biogenesis is repeatedly ignored by atheists. You believe life came from non-life, and this conclusion is 100% opposed to true science.
At the outset, your beliefs can be shown to be faith-based, not science-based.
terminat1 1 year ago
@terminat1 What the HELL? How does you doubt over biogenesis favor your position? You still have yet to provide anything even close to resembling credible evidence for your theism. And you (like most other theists) don't really understand the concept of atheism and confuse it with agnosticism.
You peopel always seem to think that by conflating atheism with agnosticism, you can somehow soften or weaken the atheist position?
Yes it does make me wonder? Do you people lack certain faculties?
Mthooz 1 year ago
@Mthooz It's not difficult: Atheists believe there is no God, agnostics are not certain. There may be a God, and there may not be a God.
Your comments in your previous post were that of an agnostic, I'm sorry to say.
As stated before, the FACT that life only comes from life (a scientific law) shows that the atheist story of life coming from dead chemicals is a lie. This implies a God.
The only reason atheists reject this is because of their feelings, not because of scientific reasons.
terminat1 1 year ago
@terminat1 This is obviously going over your head! - Atheists DO NOT believe that there is a god. That is not the same as saying "Atheists believe there is no God". Atheists are aware that they cannot prove 100% that there is NO GOD, or a tooth fairy or a flying spag monster etc!
Agnostics are in the EXACT same position in that: 1. They refuse to take the theistic stance. 2. They are aware that by extreme epistemic standards they cannot prove that god does not exist. They are really atheists!
Mthooz 1 year ago
@Mthooz The difference is that every human being, every teenager, knows that the tooth fairy and the FSM don't exist.
And as much as atheists would like to say that God is in the same category as the others, He's not, and you atheists know it.
terminat1 1 year ago
@terminat1 Yeah but you cant prove that the tooth fairy and FSM dont exist can you?
He is in fact more unlikely to exist than those things because its so outragous all the claims that are made about him. You know about him impregnating a virgin, about him being born again as a human and then turning water into wine and then sacrificing himlsef by being tortured and nailed to a cross... etc... etc.. you know the story!!
Mthooz 1 year ago
@terminat1 until you can show that god exists, sure he is.
the difference is that we don't accept the existence of these things based on blind faith. in god's case you do, but in the case of the FSM and tooth fairy you don't. what gives?
doaftheloaf 1 year ago
@terminat1 Atheists are just not theists. Theists believe in a creator who you can personally get to know. Atheists do not believe that. Atheism is not a proposition (there is no god) but a rejection of a belief (I don't believe that). Agnosticism is, 1 that we do not have enough evidence to claim whether a god does or does not exist, or 2 we can never know whether there is a god. It isn't simply the act of not knowing (most atheists do not claim to know that there is no god period.)
arithine 11 months ago
@terminat1 Yeah and also bear in mind what science has taught us about he universe, plants, animals, bugs, humans, volcanos, solar systems and the mind, just to name a few!
And what has theology taught us about the universe? SFA! (SWEET FUCK ALL). It has only served to RETARD the progress of science and understanding how the world and how humans work. How many false claims and false assumptions has religion made compared to science?
Science begins with religion ends.
Mthooz 1 year ago
@Mthooz When scientists and biologists can explain the origin of the universe or anything about evolution without contradicting themselves and without breaking their own principles and laws of mathematics, physics/quantum physics, laws of biogenesis, chemistry, planetary motion, universal constants and simple laws of nature - then I'll pack it up and call it quits as a Christian. Good luck! The Bible is flawless and confirms creation, likewise creation confirms the Bible. God is science.
kidwithoutgun 1 year ago
@kidwithoutgun Yeah nice circularity there god of the gaps creationist boy! Funny how you people demand of science those high standards, yet you are so content to accept such a pathetic paucity of evidence and reason for your theism!
IF scientists explain the origin of the universe or evolution etc etc etc, you ignoramuses will still find a way to believe in your god!
We know your kind! You can't be reasoned with. Keep your christianity. You obviously need it more than you need truth.
Mthooz 1 year ago
@Mthooz I don't believe in the gap theory. But you're right about my faith not being threatened by so-called scientists/evolutionists, because every time they think they've found the next big break through, creationists find that it just confirms God and the Bible and violates other scientific principles, laws and claims. The truth is stated clearly. You should really check it out for yourself before you argue against it. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
kidwithoutgun 1 year ago
@kidwithoutgun NO! The reason why you think your faith wont be threatened is because you have an unfalsifiable theory! Your god concept is so loose and broad and vague that no matter what observations and evidence people bring to bear on the question, it will never undermine the theory!! And as just as you said, theistic tards will see it as affirming their belief! And if you people think that this merits belief in that theory then you are delusional.
Truth begins when religion ends.
Mthooz 1 year ago
@Mthooz Don't mistake loose and vague for vast and immense. Perhaps even eternal and everlasting. There is an unmoved mover of this Universe and we call Him God. God spans the universe in the palm of His hand and operates according to fixed scientific and mathematical laws. It's really not that hard to grasp and that's why we who have eyes to see, certainly would see it as confirmation. There's no reason why we shouldn't. Science IS God.
kidwithoutgun 1 year ago
@kidwithoutgun Yeah keep asserting your faith without providing supporting evidence or justification...ASSERT away my friend! Declare all that you wish! Glorify that which you worship! See what you want to see! "Seek and ye shall find"?!... and the rest of us rational and critical persons will keep ignoring you.
Peace out
Mthooz 1 year ago
@kidwithoutgun I really can't understand why some people can say that the Bible is flawless. OK so let me get this right, you believe God created the earth in six days and rested on the seventh, because apparently this all powerful God was pretty worn out by day six. Not to mention talking snakes, a world wide flood, a talking donkey, Jonah surviving in the belly of a whale. Seriously? These stories don't strike you in anyway as fictitious.
GoogleVideoMan 1 year ago
@GoogleVideoMan Before I became a believer, these were all things that I struggled to understand. But after digging into the BIble and studying the history, the cultures, the languages, the characters etc, I and no one really has any reason to doubt. I honestly couldn't tell you if the donkey opened his mouth and spoke perfect hebrew - I wasn't there. But having grown up on a farm, I can assure you that there are many ways animals can communicate with you. Read up on these things man. Study.
kidwithoutgun 1 year ago
@kidwithoutgun Damn dude, you must have a really cool farm. Do the animals speak English or are are they bilingual?
Hornadayfan 1 year ago
@Hornadayfan Wow man, brilliant. Yeah my dog speaks English and that's how I know when he's hungry or wants outside. You're a genus.
kidwithoutgun 1 year ago
@GoogleVideoMan God did not 'rest' because He was tired. He rested because He was showing how the 7th-day Sabbath was to be treated spiritually by humans: that is, humans are to rest in Christ for their salvation.
But you can only understand this if you compare Scripture with Scripture, and read the whole Bible carefully, not read one verse superficially.
If there is a supernatural God, which the Bible affirms, than the 'stories' you have listed are not a problem for Him.
terminat1 1 year ago
@Mthooz Laws of logical reasoning too I might add to that list.
kidwithoutgun 1 year ago
@kidwithoutgun This would be somewhat humorous if I thought you were being sarcastic. Like I said... KEEP your theism and creationism and your faith. You need it! Pretend that it is logical reasoning too if it will make you feel better!!
Mthooz 1 year ago
@Mthooz Of course, you believe that atheism is true. IF YOU BELIEVED THAT ATHEISM WAS FALSE, THEN YOU WOULD NECESSARILY BELIEVE IN EITHER THE CHRISTIAN GOD, OR SOME OTHER DIVINE BEING.
Your words are that of an agnostic, not an atheist. You wrote, "For all we know God may indeed exist..."
An atheist would say, "God does not exist."
Agnostics say, "God may exist, but He may not."
The very fact that there is a Law of Biogenesis shows that life could not have formed naturally.
terminat1 1 year ago
@terminat1 You seem to think that just because the alternative theory to creation hasn't been scientifically proven, that somehow it supports your theism? You people don't even have a testable hypothesis!! LMAO!! You just declare a priori that there exists a god who loves you, who cares what you do, who you sleep with and in what position, who impregnated a virgin, who some how died for our sins?... WTF?
I couldn't care less about abiogenesis! Show me a shred of evidence for your theism?!!
Mthooz 1 year ago
Comment removed
terminat1 1 year ago
@Mthooz God can't be proven scientifically. In that you are correct, of course.
But tell me, what are the implications when you come to the scientific TRUTH that life only comes from life?
This automatically disproves the atheist lie that life came from dead chemicals. No amount of wishful thinking will change this.
So, if life DID NOT come from dead chemicals, and it MUST HAVE come from pre-existing life, what does this imply? It implies that there was a pre-existing Creator God.
terminat1 1 year ago
@terminat1 First of all! Where is your evidence for your major premise that life cannot come from non life?
The naturalist frame work holds that it is perfectly logical and scientifically plausible that life can come form basic chemical building blocks. Of course this hasn't been experimentally proven yet but so what? Does this mean its impossible?
But before you get anywhere you have to define life? Plants? Animals? Bacteria? Are we talking cellular life or mental life, i.e. consciousness?
Mthooz 1 year ago
@Mthooz So, do you always believe things which cannot be scientifically proven?
You get on theists for believing in a God which cannot be scientifically verified, but then you say that it's 'perfectly...plausible that life can come from basic chemical (non-living) building blocks).'
So, you're basically affirming that you believe in something that has never been proven true, and in fact IT'S BEEN PROVEN IMPOSSIBLE REPEATEDLY.
terminat1 1 year ago
@terminat1 How can you prove that it is impossible to create "life from non life" as you put it?... all you can show is that it is not possible yet. Do we have complete knowledge? Do we have the technology? And remember you have still YET to give me a definition of what we mean by life?
Are we talking cellular life? Have you done any cell biology? Multi-cellular life? Human consciousness?
You have no idea what you are talking about do you?
Mthooz 1 year ago
@terminat1 life can't come from no-life in the current world, cause we have lots of oxigen and microorganisms who would destroy any organic matter spontanously formed. but in the early earth, some billions of years ago, there were no oxigen or microorganisms...
stagesix6 1 year ago
@stagesix6 Sorry, but that's not the only reason scientists KNOW that life could not have originated from non-life. They know this because even the simplest cell is FAR more complex than the Space Shuttle. True scientists and mathematicians know that life is far too complex to have arisen by chance.
Even Richard Dawkins sees this. That's why he has spoken in favor of ID---he believes that aliens may have seeded the early Earth---which ultimately led to all of the diverse lifeforms.
terminat1 1 year ago
@terminat1 the most simple cell today has been evolving for billions of years, it's clear the why of their complexity... dawkins do not asserts that, he claims alien intervention is a possibility, but any way, the aliens come from an evolutionary process...
stagesix6 1 year ago
Even the chance formation of a single protein is so astronomically unlikely as to be deemed impossible. One scientist stated that if the entire universe were a primordial sea, there still wouldn't be enough time for chance processes alone to create life.
This all stems from a complete bias against the supernatural. It's not logical to believe in such extremely unlikely happenings, but atheists must, because the alternative is not acceptable.
terminat1 1 year ago
@terminat1 How many universes have we seen where there has been billions of years for something to happen? How can you or anyone make any probabilistic statements about how protein formation is soooo unlikely?!
Its ridiculous! Hume figured this out in the 18th century, but scientists now days are just as ignorant as theists. Probability theory and probabilistic reasoning cannot support any claim as to the unlikelihood if this or that happening. We dont have the reference for this.
Mthooz 1 year ago