I am an agnostic, but raised atheist. I am an agnostic because of many of the arguments which William Lane Craig, and others, make with the teleological and cosmological arguments; which say to me that the wide possibility is there, but they haven't offered substantial enough proof.
I live a life opposed to greed and violence based on my own decisions; God is not necessary for this, for me. On the other hand, I love debates between atheists, agnostics, and liberal or conservative theists.
@JamesAuseten : Well, read the literature on the arguments. Being pedantically, I think that the existence of god is a too much serious issue to be unexplored and to be left aside.
Agnosticism is pretty applicable to many other philosophical views, having an existentialist view gives a more expansive view of the world without being weighed down by permanent beliefs because knowledge could change on the existence of god. To say you have to have some god to give you meaning just makes you sound nihilistic. Agnosticism is at the very least honest, because who can truly know if god exists or not? who knows god's emotions and thoughts?
There's a distinction between belief (A/theism in this case) and knowledge (A/gnosticism)
It's possible for the egg to wobble to one side more than the other and still result in agnosticism. In order not to be agnostic you'd need the egg to move all the way to one side.
Craig should be ashamed of himself for this. The argument that no one can be agnostic for the duration of their lifetime, because of them tipping to either side, carries zero signifcance. We all know individuals knowledge evolves. Heck, its well know that temporal daily mood/emotional states impact decision making. However, its true that aethists and Christians also have moving beliefs. Consider Job, we went through doubt and loss of faith at times. Craig-go back to the drawing board!
Craigs' typology for agnostics is far too narrow and carricatured, clearly he is playing the strawman card. He states there are two versions of agnosticism, ordinary and ornary. Ordinary, he classifies as those who are ignorant to the issue. Ornary, he claims is the view that for sure one can't know whether God exists or not, and according to Craig is an obsurb position. Craig is leaving out a substantial cohort of agnostics who have considered the evidence, and find neither view convincing.
@BeLogicalWillU I am glad to see that you agree, indeed, I never did have anything to respond to a nothing, that is your comments, a nothing. You do understand that yes?
I'm one of the strong dogmatic agnostics who don't think that any human can reach beyond the limits of the natural world and have any certain knowledge of the supernatural.
@sooperfukker Here's the problem I see with that. You believe humans are incapable of reaching the supernatural, but in order to maintain "dogmatic agnosticism" it seems you would of necessity need to believe that if there were a supernatural that it too is incapable of reaching us, but that would be a baseless position if indeed knowledge of the supernatural is beyond our access. Hence Craig's position that you should be atheist.
I'm seeing it from a human perspective. We're made of flesh and blood, have limited means of perception and understanding, we are in every single way bound to the laws of this universe. We cannot think, feel, experience anything that is beyond the borders of our limitations.
From my perspective, the supernatural starts where the natural world ends. But that alone doesn't tell you anything about the supernatural itself.
Your approach (besides probably any deistic approach) is different.
You're as well seeing our own incapabilities of experience, understanding and potential and imagine the supernatural as the overcoming of this limitations. Your supernatural is the opposite of our natural world.
Call it what you like, yet noone has proved it even exists outside of any human idea.
And even if it existed, noone has even the slightest clue of what it looks like.
Science can't and doesn't want to go there and you'd be well advised to consider if and how far you want to buy into metaphysics.
I put my bets on Kant, see cognition as a result of observation and thought and have to simply state, that we have no observation of the supernatural and therefor cannot cognize it.
Everything supernatural remains pure speculation, no rational decision on the matter is possible. It's a big blahblah.
That's one of the reasons why I find craigs ontologic approach so audacious. In order for his "logics" to work, he needs to presume, that our ideas of cause, reason, change, matter etc. can be applied to the "outer-natural" without further ado... he acts as if just that wasn't the whole problem after all.
And as soon as he managed to plant that idea of applicability on you, THEN he can use our limited vocabular and grammar to create absurd sounding sentences like "created everything out of nothing for no reason" and equally deceptive claims.
And you people buy this, because you don't realise how he twitted you. So much for "untrained audiences" ...pffff....
If you actually understood what I said, you should understand a bit better, why I hold all claims of the supernatural to be invalid.
does Craig never gets tired of his pathetic whining about life without God being meaningless, etc? it kind of gives you an idea of how objective and impartial he is in his case for theism... it seems he'd probably commit suicide in desrpair if it turns out there's no one up there who loves and cares about him after all. so maybe that's why he's made up his mind (and stated repeatedly) that no evidence or argument could possibly convince him to abandone his Iron Age faith. what a spineless loser
Well it is very difficult to argue the second part where he states that later on in life, anyone will have decided to take a greater part in one side than the other. But i completely disagree about the last part where he states that the rational agnostic demands arguments and by extension, they can't be proven. Just about any agnostic will ask for proof, not arguments. More so, how can he acertain that the past can't be proven ?
This guy so misses the point of being agnostic , its not about having a point or view on the subject or being undecided due to lack of evidence one way or the other to the individuals satisfaction .
Its simply having no attachment to any preconceived ideas about the evidence ether way
I agreed with his critique of the belief that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists, but his critiques of the other beliefs were rather shallow and wrought with poo (although the 4th point might be okay if it were further justified).
He's so ignorant. Atheism is not belief there is no god, but simply the lack of a belief.
If Craig wants to deal in probabilities of god existing, and that he as a Christian merely sees he's god as "probable", then he's not refuting agnosticism. He's merely claiming to be a closet agnostic.
And no, the arguments for theism bear no weight at all. Agnostics are not "bewildered". Many agnostics say: "I don't know. There is NO evidence."
"Atheism is not belief there is no god, but simply the lack of a belief."
A tired and false cliche, stemming from the etymological fallacy that 'atheism' derives from 'without belief'.
All except the most devout theists lack, in some way, belief. To posit 'atheism' as 'lacking belief' extends the scope of atheism beyond all reasonable and non-trivial enquiry.
You're referring to anti-theism, which Christopher Hitchens posits. When people use the correct definition of words to describe to you their position, and you shout: "Liar! That's not your position! You believe with certainty there is no god!"
If you guys are going to keep acting with the same level of integrity as Kent Hovind and VenomFangX, Christianity will continue to decline in North America.
No, I'm not referring to any position, since I did not positively reference any position.
I am not a North American Christian, and I am certainly not on the same wavelength as Hovind et al.
I am, however, well aware of the history and development of the term 'atheism', and I can assure you that equating all atheism with a 'lack of belief' is entirely simplistic. It makes no more sense to say that an atheist 'lacks belief' than it does to say that a theist believes in Yahweh.
Mere "lack of belief" is a purely neutral position:
Gnostic Theists, the non-theist, and the agnostic also lack all beliefs regarding God, both positive and negative, but none of them is an atheist.
Mere lack of belief obviously does not cut it as an accurate definition of atheism -- in reality, atheism stubbornly holds the position, without any evidence at all, that God somehow doesn't exist.
Holding such a position without any evidence is entirely unscientific and illogical of the atheist.
@Purushadasa well you fanatically hold on to the position that your god exists with zero evidence. and you still haven't learned what atheism is, have you?
btw, your videos are some of the most patheitic fanatical propaganda that's on youtube. clear sign of clinical derangement. and pathology.
as I told you before: keep up the mad work, we need more atheists
Everyone seems to be missing the point. Of course there are many sides besides Supernaturalistic Theism and Atheism BUT what is called into question is the logical coherence of those positions. I believe any forms of agnosticism just like Skepticism are a transition not a real position.
Craigs thinking is very narrow. He pretends as if there are two possible positions, supernaturalistic theism, naturalistic atheism, between which the agnostic must decide. But where do, say, Soto Zen Buddhists fit according to his scheme? A true agnostic need not be someone who is equally convinced by theistic and atheistic arguments. It could be someone for whom the conclusions of those arguments are simply irrelavant.
I think he was talking about the practical impossibility of being truly 100% 50/50 agnostic. In one sense I think he's right since it's hard to be perfectly equal between any side on the evidence. Chances are, you'll favor a side over the other at different times. On the other hand, you're right that you don't need to be equally convinced. You just have to not really agree with the conclusion of each. I wouldn't put it as you did though (ie. the conclusion is irrelevant). That isn't agnosticism.
1) The 50/50 talk is misleading. There are a number of possibilities besides theism and atheism. There is open theism, pantheism, panentheism, polytheism, etc.
2) Some people (e.g. many Buddhists) when confronted with this great number of possibilities regarding the question of the divine would not bother trying to choose between them and focus their energies on less speculative matters. These are the folks for whom the conclusion is (subjectively) irrelavant. Aren't these "agnostics"?
For most people in the west, the position is between theism and atheism, and given the context of this debate, I would assume both debaters are discussing it under those pretenses.
As for point 2, in the sense that you put it, I would agree that those people are agnostics since they would appear to think that such conclusions based in knowledge are beyond reasonable attainment (which is a form of agnosticism).
this guy mostly talks out of his ass ... there is more to Agnosticism than this ... there Theistic Agnosticism, Atheistic Agnosticism, Deism, Ignosticism... you don't need to choose a side... you've already done it by being Agnostic ... you accept that human's capacity of understanding are limited thus many things can be considered beyond understanding which they are (i.e. time, space, absence of time and space, infinity, creation etc ) beyond this matter, faith intervenes, and you may belive
Yes, agnostics are ignorant. But like Socrates they know that they are ignorant. Atheists and theists are even more ignorant because they think their beliefs are justified when they are not.
one more point Mr craig has denied himself the simply fact that agnostics claim no knowledge of god - primarily what theists claim to believe through faith
Faith - which means belief without knowledge - claiming to have knowledge of god negates faith.
Agnostics may have the only true faith as we recognize the possibility of god though claim no knowledge of
Mr Craigs argument while extremely interesting is based on an improper understanding of agnosticism through a theistic bias
You need to check your definition of faith, 'belief without knowledge ', agnostics make NO CLAIM therefore there is NO FAITH(concerning God). It does not follow that agnostics have the 'only true faith'.
Agnosticism simply means I don't know which, if nothing else is honesty.
I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow but have no knowledge.
And read my statement again "agnostics may have, not DO have..
At the very least there is dignity in being truthful - 'I don't know' is the truth because I don't. if you say you know show some evidence, if you don't know then it is a matter of faith and you should look the definition of faith up in the dictionary because that's exactly what it means - hope
Faith is a trait shared by both atheists and theists alike. Branding it irrational or being inherent only in ignorant theistic thinking is simplistic and downright moronic.
Your description is also wrongheaded. Faith is not a belief without knowlege but a belief without proof, and if we were to follow that path consistently you'll see that atheists engage in faith just as much as we do.
"Faith - which means belief without knowledge - claiming to have knowledge of god negates faith." - Appeal to semantics. You're going to first need to provide evidence that religions, especially the Christian religion even claim that this is what faith is.
@BassP86 you imply that I've missused the term faith I'd like to hear how if I'm wrong I'm happy to be shown so
Are you aware what an anti-Semite, male chauvinist pig St Paul was
For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God but woman is the glory of man. (1 Cor. 11:7)
(Jews) killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and drove us out, the Jews who are heedless of God's will and enemies of their fellow men (I Thessalonians 2:15-16)
First you imply that I've somehow misused the term faith but you can't or won't explain how.
Then demand that I should prove what christians believe - like it's not written everywhere - which implies that christians have an alternate explanation of faith for which you can give no example.
then you quote a bigot, anti-semite from the bible and when I point out that I would not take advice from such a person you accuse me of quote mining
"First you imply that I've somehow misused the term faith but you can't or won't explain how." - Incorrect. Remember when I quoted 1 Corin. 15, which does NOT say that faith is not a belief without evidence, but is a loyalty BASED on evidence of performance. Scripture CLEARLY defines faith this way ALL throughout the Bible.
"which implies that christians have an alternate explanation of faith" - That's not what I'm arguing at all. I'm arguing about the CORRECT definition of faith, according to scripture. What it seems you're doing however, is trying to refute that definition by cherrypicking passages that allegedly (but really do not) contradict the TRUE definition or are physically/logically impossible, so that the term "faith" conveniently fits into the definition of a "belief without evidence".
"then you quote a bigot, anti-semite from the bible and when I point out that I would not take advice from such a person you accuse me of quote mining" - 5 problems here:
1) Paul is actually taking the same definition of faith from the rest of scripture as a way of clarifying what faith REALLY means, as opposed to what nonbelievers think it is. He is not the authority of the term's definition, but a translator.
2) Disavowing what someone says because you believe they are morally inadequate is a form of an ad hominem known as an appeal to emotion. In other words, you are disavowing Paul's words because you believe he is an immoral person.
3) If the Christian is true, then who are YOU to say that what Paul says in immoral? You logical would have absolutely NO basis for saying it is immoral, because Paul was influenced by God, who is the primary authority of what is right and what is wrong.
I'm a Christian. I believe is God can be known and has made Himself known through the Person of Jesus Christ, who is God incarnate. In other words, I believe in the Trinitarian God, who is the One True God. I am also an environmental biology major and an apologist, which means I apologize for being a Christian. Only joking. ;)
@BassP86 I know we'll agree on just about nothin but anyway:
you use the words 'know god' though this would seem to contradict faith!
e.g. I have faith my son will not grow up to be a serial killer - I have no knowledge therefore I have faith - if I had knowledge I wouldn't need faith.
one can have faith that there is a god but you claim you know there's a god - no hiding in scripture - in your own words
I'm not asking if you have faith "in" god but faith that there "is" a god
"you use the words 'know god' though this would seem to contradict faith!" - Not at all. Faith, according to the Bible, is a loyalty based on evidence of performance. Take your example that you have faith your son will not be a serial killer. You claim that you would have no knowledge, but reality you do have knowledge of your son, based on the way you raised him and how he made decisions in given situations.
The knowledge is not fully absolute, but there is enough knowledge to make your faith in him reasonable. Even if your son WERE to end up a serial killer, your faith in him was reasonable enough to an extent. Just because a dictionary says that faith is a "belief without evidence", it doesn't mean that therefore Christianity is forced to accept that definition. Remember Christianity defined 'faith' long BEFORE official dictionaries were around.
"christians have their own definitions" - No, I'm saying that
1) the Bible's definition of faith came first, so therefore if 'faith' is to be refuted, then logically you must refute that context ONLY. Otherwise, one is attacking strawmen.
2) Dictionary definition is not "belief without evidence", at least not anymore. If you enter in "define: faith" on google, you will get the exact same definition as in the Bible, from the majority of the websites mentioned.
Remember I said that I believe that God CAN be known and has MADE Himself known through the Person of Jesus Christ. What I mean is, that I was not present during that time. If the disciples truly BELIEVED Jesus was God incarnate and was crucified/resurrected, and those beliefs consistently coincide with the evidence, then the Christian faith is based on what is true.
@BassP86 "If the disciples truly BELIEVED Jesus was God incarnate and was crucified/resurrected, and those beliefs consistently coincide with the evidence, then the Christian faith is based on what is true"
you prove my argument in one word - "IF" you can't KNOW with "if" non-sense "if" those beliefs consistently coincide with the evidence" "if"
In short, faith doesn't make anything true. Faith is what follows from what you already accept to be true. Therefore to say that "I have faith that there is a God", is not actually the correct application of faith.
4) Even if we grant that Paul is immoral, what does that have to do with the VALIDITY and TRUTH of what he is saying, especially if he is referring to scripture that was written before his time? Nothing, hence why it is a red herring.
5) You are quote mining him because you ignore what he also says, "Men love and honor your wives as Christ loved the Church." There is no claim of superiority of one sex over another. Women during that time, in that culture, were to cover their head as a way of symbolizing their love and obedience to their husbands, yet husbands were to respect, love, and honor their wives also. In the Bible, no sex is superior to the other. Only a mutual level of obedience is declared. Quote-mining.
@BassP86 CartervonRiedel is correct. Faith is belief without knowledge. Webster's dictionary defines faith as:
2. B(1) "firm belief in something for which there is NO [my emphasis] proof"
Secondly, it is well known that the Christian religion sees faith in precisely this way. Hebrews 11:1 says: "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."
Even Jesus sees faith in this way in John 20:29 : "Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed".
"Webster's dictionary defines faith as:" - Actually, you're leaving out the rest of Webster's definition for the term. Also, you'll have to watch this: watch?v=YvcLmmWatwY
I'm glad you brought up those two verses, rather than just simply appeal to semantics like Reidel was. If faith were truly blind, then logically Hebrews would not include the word ASSURANCE.
@BassP86 I left out the other definitions of faith because they aren't relevant to the discussion, and don't confirm your idea of faith. Show me what part of the Webster's dictionary (and I am referring to the online version so we both are looking at the same source) substantiates your perspective of faith. When I tried to watch the video you referred me to, it told me page not found. Assurance could be included in Hebrews because people of faith confuse belief with justification.
"it told me page not found." - Try youtube searching "Is faith, by definition, irrational?" The user's name is grammastola. That will probably work better.
He sums up the definitions in various sources very nicely.
What is assurance? It is simply a "lack of doubt" or "satisfaction as to the reliability of information provided", as generally defined. Therefore if Hebrews calls faith an "assurance OF things hoped for", then it is saying that what we hope for is based on prior information that is reliable. This implies two things: 1) We do not need to see the outcome of future events to know that they will work for good, because of the reliable prior information we already have about God.
@BassP86 You claim that this assurance is based on reliable information from God. What reliable information is this? How is it reliable? How do you know that the Apostles are reliable?
Whereas I understand what you're asking, there must be a clear recognition as to what you are implying. Are you assuming that unless God and Christianity are verified, then faith, at the end of the day, is still belief without evidence?
2) If Christianity is true, then placing faith in God based on what you have not seen is still logically reasonable. A blind acceptance, to which you're referring, assumes that whatever you place faith in has a likelihood to be false. But this is not the case if Christianity is true because if God exists, then logically you are STILL placing faith in the REALITY and TRUTH of who He is, regardless if you've seen the evidence or not.
@BassP86 God must be proven first in order for Christianity to follow from that. And even if God is proven to exist, you must show that it is the Christian type of God which exists. You have not done that.
Please bear in mind that that's precisely why Paul says in 1 Peter 3:15, "always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give a reason for the hope that is within you." The verses you've referenced are talking about that very same reliability, not an unreliability.
No "belief without evidence" to be found ANYWHERE in scripture.
@BassP86 The problem is that Christians have not given sufficient reason to believe, as 1 Peter 3:15 has mandated. It is only sufficient to them, because they wish it were true.
It is a matter of faith that I state it cannot be known - this I believe because it's like fighting over what's in a closed box, could be anything, could be nothing.
But yes, I can say with a larger amount of certainty - close to 100% that
All I know is that I don't know! - this is true agnosticism, not this undecided, no opinion, don't care rubbish that so many so-called agnostics claim.
Then isn't it true that you don't know that it cannot be known. As you just said, you take it on faith that it cannot be known, but you don't KNOW that it cannot be known. You need to give a very good argument for thinking the knowledge of God is impossible, as Dr. Craig pointed out.
"YES, of course I don't in the same sense that you believe in god - it's a matter of faith."
No, you're confusing the subject. You originally said that it cannot be known. This is much different than saying you just don't know. In the former, you're saying you have knowledge that it cannot be known, the latter you're just confessing personal ignorance of the matter. It's not the same as a Christian who just has simple faith.
(BTW, I believe there is good evidence for my position).
Alright, fair enough, I understand your position. I don't think, however, that I've contradicted my faith. Faith is a tricky word, because it can mean a few different things. It could just refer to some religion in general or belief without evidence. I don't interpret faith to mean belief without knowledge or evidence. I accept the former, but also take faith to mean more of a trust thing. I have reason to believe, and then I place my faith or trust in God.
"I don't interpret faith to mean belief without knowledge or evidence."
But that is part of faith to have no evidence for something you believe. For instance you have no evidence God is three persons. You just think you have evidence that the bible is reliable but you don't have evidence that all that it says is true and that if you life it something will happen.
It's not the strict definition of faith to believe something without evidence. There are many interpretations and understandings of the word faith. Mine is what I stated previously already. Now granted we don't have evidence that everything in the Bible is reliable, but for those instances I make an induction that if the main and most important parts of it are true, the rest follows, pending further evidence to the contrary. For the trinity, the reliable portions of the Bible contain the trinity
Give me one instance of faith where the thing being believed is backed up by mountains of evidence and is considered fact? If it was fact it wouldn't be faith. That's why I said that faith includes the absence of evidence.
"For the trinity, the reliable portions of the Bible contain the trinity"
There's no way to prove the content of Jesus's teaching is reliable even if you have honest and articulate writers who give there eyewitness accounts of Christ.
"There's no way to prove the content of Jesus's teaching is reliable even if you have honest and articulate writers who give there eyewitness accounts of Christ."
We have words of Jesus which are agreed upon by most NT scholars as belonging to the historical Jesus. We can believe those words are true because of Jesus' Resurrection, which I think we also have good evidence for.
And while I think there is good reason to believe there was an empty tomb and that the disciples were not incessant liars; it doesn't follow that the best explanation is that all of it is true.
True, that's why you have to look at all the available evidence and different parts on an individual basis. I'm just saying that I make an induction that if the major parts are true, then it's reasonable to believe other less attested portions are true. Like if the Resurrection is true, then I don't see it as terribly irrational to believe in his virgin birth to which there is hardly any historical evidence for. Strictly academically, you can't prove it, but the leap I think is reasonable.
"Strictly academically, you can't prove it, but the leap I think is reasonable."
Ok, well I can agree, however, I disagree with the apologist that works backwards and may say Genesis should be considered fact because the resurrection is true. While Jesus supported the OT, it doesn't follow that proving Jesus's resurrection is sufficient proof to disregard science unless you can show an interpretation of it that is feasible with science.
"...I disagree with the apologist that works backwards and may say Genesis should be considered fact because the resurrection is true."
I think we have common ground here. I agree that we shouldn't go backwards too far. If we are to go backwards then it should be on parts that are relevant. Like Jesus' Resurrection to his virgin birth I think is fine since it involves the figure Jesus. But his Resurrection to say, a 6 day Earth is far off, and of course not supported by science as you said.
"But his Resurrection to say, a 6 day Earth is far off, and of course not supported by science as you said."
Agreed. But it is hard for me to justify a disconnect between the two claims since Jesus and the apostles tied there message with a literal Adam, Moses and creation story. That is one of the reasons I have more suspicion about the resurrection claims. This isn't evidence against a claim, I take a claim on it's own merit, but it makes me more suspicious.
"Agreed. But it is hard for me to justify a disconnect between the two claims since Jesus and the apostles tied there message with a literal Adam..."
You have a good point here. I suppose one could argue that it's all connected in some way and that one could claim based on Jesus' Resurrection that all of it should be believed. I try to do it based on relevancy I guess. The more relevant the more one can believe in it. A LITERAL Adam is not so relevant and important as others I would say.
"The more relevant the more one can believe in it."
It's not just relevancy but logical connectivity. If Jesus is God then if he says something about the OT is has to be true or else you have a writing about Jesus where you don't even know what parts are true and what are false.
Besides being a skeptic of miracles my biggest reason for denying the resurrection isn't the resurrection itself, but what nonsense is being claimed from it. Jesus's teachings is directly tied to the truth value of the OT. Further, there are tons of unjustified absurdities in the gospels where there should have been evidence that these things occurred. Such as the dead coming to life or 1 million babies being ordered to die.
"Further, there are tons of unjustified absurdities in the gospels where there should have been evidence that these things occurred."
I mentioned previously that if you have evidence to the contrary that things or events in the gospel didn't occur then it shouldn't be believed, such as the slaughter of the innocents or the Resurrection of the Saints etc.
But that's the problem. The Bible more or less stands or falls if there are parts not reliable. Of course I could believe in Christ but If the Bible isn't the word of God then how do I know what parts are true and which to follow?
Most doctrine is written after Jesus supposedly ascended to heaven. The apostles never claimed in the New Testament books that the Holy Spirit was telling them what to write in that book. The parts where the apostles say stuff Jesus never talked about is a matter of trust on your part to believe. This is assuming you can prove Jesus rose from the dead. You might as well be Catholic if you think voting on what is correct or believing in tradition is solid evidence to hold as factual doctrine.
We have the gospels, which are essentially records of what Jesus said and did. In the reliable portions of the gospels it can be shown with probability that Jesus claimed divinity and that the Holy Spirit that he spoke of was also divine. This is where the trinity concept can be deduced from. And it's not a matter of voting or guessing which is correct or reliable. When I say reliable, I mean that which has been accepted by the majority of New Testament scholars today.
"In the reliable portions of the gospels it can be shown with probability that Jesus claimed divinity and that the Holy Spirit that he spoke of was also divine."
No, it can't be shown. I don't consider hearsay anecdotal testimonies written decades after the supposed event as conclusive evidence. The gospels of mark and luke are most likely not first hand eyewitness accounts and John is written much later. Further, matthew and luke has a lot copied from mark.
I don't care honestly what you, as a non-historian, count as evidence. The fact remains that the majority of professional historians who have studied the subject agree on certain portions of the gospel which reflect well on the trinity concept. I'm content enough to stick within the mainstream of NT scholarship. Insofar as you deny these portions then you go against the mainstream historical view.
Sounds like an argument from authority, but my point was not specifically the trinity cannot be deduced from the gospels. I was merely pointing out that much of Christian doctrine comes from books that are merely agreed upon as truth based on the person who wrote it and what seems to fit with Jesus's teachings.
Yes, it is. The authority in question is relevant at least. I used authority here because I don't want to engage in conversation with someone who goes against the mainstream based on his non-expert standard of evidence and criteria. Those conversations I have found go absolutely nowhere (sort of like the conversations between Young Earth Creationists and evolutionists).
"I don't want to engage in conversation with someone who goes against the mainstream based on his non-expert standard of evidence and criteria."
So, are you saying the mainstream says Jesus's resurrection is proven? I honestly don't know where I am way off your "mainstream" anyways.
"Those conversations I have found go absolutely nowhere"
Yes,I wonder why you don't follow the scientific consensus of 99.86% of biologists who accept evolution. But I'm not using the OT to disprove the New.
"So, are you saying the mainstream says Jesus's resurrection is proven?.."
No, historians strictly don't deal with miracles or make historical judgments about them. They may believe in the Resurrection (as many do) but they nonetheless refrain from saying such things professionally speaking. What I'm saying here is that the relevant portions to the Resurrection (empty tomb, appearances) or his trinity (his radical claims to divinity) are agreed upon by most scholars. Cont.
"What I'm saying here is that the relevant portions to the Resurrection (empty tomb, appearances) or his trinity (his radical claims to divinity) are agreed upon by most scholars. Cont."
I usually accept that as I'm not a scholar and there are good reasons for most of that. However, things like the empty tomb is made out to be a big deal when it is simply a necessary condition in my opinion. I don't know what your objecting to. I already told you I'm not arguing about the trinity.
"I don't know what your objecting to. I already told you I'm not arguing about the trinity."
Well, you did say that those claims couldn't be proven. That's what I objected to, because it is precisely those radical claims (not all of them though) that many and indeed most NT scholars accept. So I was just responding to your point there about how it couldn't be proven.
"Well, you did say that those claims couldn't be proven. That's what I objected to, because it is precisely those radical claims (not all of them though) that many and indeed most NT scholars accept."
And that's why I was asking you if you were saying the "mainstream scholars" believed the resurrection is proven. I don't care what they personally believe. I didn't even say you should or shouldn't believe it. But I have a sneak suspicion that most think it cannot be proven. Does it matter though?
the Bible DOESNT claim a 6,000 yr old earth, MAN does, in the implications the Bible gives there are three main terms "day" that can be used as one day (24 hr), back in the "day"(along time ago), and even "day" (as in 12 hr. or when the sun is out) by no means is Christianity disproved by evolution, if evolution is true, it must be the hand of God, it would have been a miracle
I'm not an evolutionist, yet im not a LITERAL 6 day creationist, BUT I am a Christian, and there are very probable arguments that many Theistic evolutionists hold that genesis 1 is more of a poetic form of writing, such as C.S. Lewis who was a Christian evolutionist
Furthermore, we have any records of contemporaneous scholars telling us about these momentous events or anybody else for that matter. I'm not saying that biased people are not valid as testimonial evidence. What I'm saying is that you can't say that the gospels are as reliable as something like the events of Alexander the Great just because you have tons of copies of people who claim to witness an event.
"What I'm saying is that you can't say that the gospels are as reliable as something like the events of Alexander the Great"
Tell me, what is our earliest copy of Alexander's biography? It dates 400 YEARS AFTER HIM. The NT documents fare much better. It is an indisputable fact that the NT documents are the best attested documents from antiquity. We have fare more information about Jesus then we do of most major figures.
So? There is also writing by him and other evidences that fit his life in the timeline of history, which the gospel doesn't have. But in fact all the short date proves is the disciples really existed and really believe in Jesus. Which I think there is no reason to deny the existence of a man named Jesus, but it doesn't logically follow that Jesus existed and did all the gospels say he did because of good copies of people saying he did.
For those who don't understand this, he basically said nothing. Believe whatever you want to believe in, this guy is an idiot to even say you can't live a certain way.
Thats interesting because I understand what he is talking about, and it makes a lot of sense to me. Also he has given us a very detailed proposal for his position, and you have given us "this guy is an idiot". I hope that you can do better than that .
He's clearly insulting agnostics own personal faith. From what I'm understanding, he's defending why god can still exist, which means that he's an idiot. People criticizing another persons religious views need to be tied to a rocket seriously. So go ahead and defend this random guy, maybe he'll invite you to his house for dinner. All this dude did was say Agnosticism is unlivable. I know agnostics and they are comfortable with their life.
Please note according to your own philosophy you need to be tied to a rocket. Your arguments are just logical fallacies. You claim that he is insulting your own personal faith. Not so. He is giving a critique of it. The only thing that you have done is provided insults of your own to come back with. By the way he is not a random guy. He is one of the foremost scholars in giving evidence for the existence of God. So if you would like to debunk what he claims then start with his claims.
Right, make an exaggeration a logical fallacy. It's clear you need to stop trying to make yourself sound smarter than you really are. I think he's an idiot, because the whole god thing. Many religions are based on faith, your own personal beliefs. Just that alone, means that every religious person should shut the @#$% up. Believe in whatever they want to, and move on with their lives. "Personally unlivable" he said that. How the fuck would he know, and no I'm not agnostic. I'm athiest.
As for the trying to come off smart comment you really haven't challenged me enough to try to pretend to be smarter than, and Im. If that is the only thing that is important to you in this argument then it is pretty much a lost cause. Sorry I can't help it if your arguments are blatant contradictions. I don't think Dr. Craig ever claims to know anything 100%. His opinion based on the information is that agnosticism is unlivable, and he gave a really good argument.
According to your own logic I don't see why religious people can't, or shouldn't speak up. It takes faith to believe in atheism so according to your own philosophy you need to shut the @#$% up. Correct?
That doesn't even make sense. Atheism is a group of people, who carry no faith base. According to you and this man however, we only try to not carry a faith when in fact we do? This is a debate that shouldn't be debated. It's absolutely retarded to assume it. To any who read this. Worship the sun. At least you can see it.
Aha. Citing George Carlin is less stupid than appealing to a professional philosopher. If this is the best atheists can muster, methinks we will sleep well tonight.
Up until a few decades back we couldn't see Quarks and muons, would you also say that because we couldn't see them that they therefore didn't exist? What baout dark matter? Can you see it? Has anyone seen it for that matter? No. Would you also assume it doesn't exist because you can't see it?
To say that something can't be fully proven one way or the other is one thing. But is it rational to have a belief in either direction. I have no way of proving that my mother loves me, but I believe that she does. See the problem here is that nothing really can be proven 100% to an individual. Cause an individual could always reject the evidence. So why stop at God?
No you really can't prove it. The problem here is that I think you really didn't pay attention to the video. Nobody is telling you that you have to be 100% certain. You simply said in your response that no one can prove it, or disprove, and must be unknowable. The problem here is that their are things that a rational mind does accept such as the earth wasn't created 5 min ago. That cannot be proven via any method. Nor can it be understood in its fullness. Yet the evidence points in a direction
"You don't know wether you are going to live or die today. It is unknowable. That doesn't mean that you can't make a decision to try, and live, and be happy does it? I am not claiming to know God in his fullest, or even to know that the atheists are completely wrong. I still believe that the evidence is going to lean one way, or the other, and either decision I choose is going to be a matter of faith.
realize that when you insult either atheist, or theist for their beliefs then you are taking a stand of higher intelligence. But in agnosticism you repeatedly make the claim that no one can know the position, or that you simply don't know. If it is the first one then you are making a claim that is in need of justification with evidence, and if it is the second one I can understand, but as he said it is not practically realistic that all the evidence is balancing equal.
This has been flagged as spam show
this could make sence, but i'm not sure
raywingfield 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
raywingfield 2 weeks ago
That's a terrible argument. If I believe 60% in god does that make me a theist? is 80 enough? 51 too little?
jelliedsoup 2 weeks ago
I am an agnostic, but raised atheist. I am an agnostic because of many of the arguments which William Lane Craig, and others, make with the teleological and cosmological arguments; which say to me that the wide possibility is there, but they haven't offered substantial enough proof.
I live a life opposed to greed and violence based on my own decisions; God is not necessary for this, for me. On the other hand, I love debates between atheists, agnostics, and liberal or conservative theists.
JamesAuseten 3 months ago 4
@JamesAuseten : Well, read the literature on the arguments. Being pedantically, I think that the existence of god is a too much serious issue to be unexplored and to be left aside.
MrAquinoflavio 2 months ago
Agnosticism is pretty applicable to many other philosophical views, having an existentialist view gives a more expansive view of the world without being weighed down by permanent beliefs because knowledge could change on the existence of god. To say you have to have some god to give you meaning just makes you sound nihilistic. Agnosticism is at the very least honest, because who can truly know if god exists or not? who knows god's emotions and thoughts?
Requiemxtoxinnocence 6 months ago
There's a distinction between belief (A/theism in this case) and knowledge (A/gnosticism)
It's possible for the egg to wobble to one side more than the other and still result in agnosticism. In order not to be agnostic you'd need the egg to move all the way to one side.
RPFS2008 10 months ago
Craig should be ashamed of himself for this. The argument that no one can be agnostic for the duration of their lifetime, because of them tipping to either side, carries zero signifcance. We all know individuals knowledge evolves. Heck, its well know that temporal daily mood/emotional states impact decision making. However, its true that aethists and Christians also have moving beliefs. Consider Job, we went through doubt and loss of faith at times. Craig-go back to the drawing board!
bevillenz 11 months ago
Craigs' typology for agnostics is far too narrow and carricatured, clearly he is playing the strawman card. He states there are two versions of agnosticism, ordinary and ornary. Ordinary, he classifies as those who are ignorant to the issue. Ornary, he claims is the view that for sure one can't know whether God exists or not, and according to Craig is an obsurb position. Craig is leaving out a substantial cohort of agnostics who have considered the evidence, and find neither view convincing.
bevillenz 11 months ago
I think that Craig is one of these two:
1. A very smart guy trying to make people to believe (he may have his own reasons)
or
2. He is a man of a really low IQ.
But I cannot decide which one is true. So, I am not an agnostic regarding this matter...
kostbill 1 year ago
@kostbill I am no agnostic regarding your I.Q.
BeLogicalWillU 1 year ago
@BeLogicalWillU Oh but indeed you are. The reason is that you have not actually count my IQ, so you can only make speculations.
You see that is the difference between smart and stupid people. The stupid are sure without evidence. The smart are not sure, even with evidence.
kostbill 1 year ago
@kostbill no....the stupid make comments like you just made ;D.
BeLogicalWillU 1 year ago
@BeLogicalWillU oh well... Don't have much to say here.
kostbill 1 year ago
@kostbill nope...you never did.
BeLogicalWillU 1 year ago
@BeLogicalWillU I am glad to see that you agree, indeed, I never did have anything to respond to a nothing, that is your comments, a nothing. You do understand that yes?
kostbill 1 year ago
@kostbill silly commenter trying to appear intelligent!!..silly silly silly!
BeLogicalWillU 1 year ago
@BeLogicalWillU again, you are not saying anything. Are you able to write down something that is more than nothing?
kostbill 1 year ago
@kostbill silly commenter trying to appear intelligent!!..silly silly silly!
BeLogicalWillU 1 year ago
@BeLogicalWillU lol
kostbill 1 year ago
@kostbill hee hee
BeLogicalWillU 1 year ago
Who's William Craig?
masmantour 1 year ago
I usually don't care for Craig, but he kind of looks cool with a beard.
LockardKevin 1 year ago 6
@LockardKevin I couldn't agree with you anymore on the beard part but I do kinda care about Craig's arguments...
supersmash43 1 year ago
@LockardKevin lol
converter 10 months ago
I'm one of the strong dogmatic agnostics who don't think that any human can reach beyond the limits of the natural world and have any certain knowledge of the supernatural.
sooperfukker 1 year ago
@sooperfukker Here's the problem I see with that. You believe humans are incapable of reaching the supernatural, but in order to maintain "dogmatic agnosticism" it seems you would of necessity need to believe that if there were a supernatural that it too is incapable of reaching us, but that would be a baseless position if indeed knowledge of the supernatural is beyond our access. Hence Craig's position that you should be atheist.
yostevodotcom 1 year ago
@yostevodotcom
We got different approaches to the supernatural.
I'm seeing it from a human perspective. We're made of flesh and blood, have limited means of perception and understanding, we are in every single way bound to the laws of this universe. We cannot think, feel, experience anything that is beyond the borders of our limitations.
From my perspective, the supernatural starts where the natural world ends. But that alone doesn't tell you anything about the supernatural itself.
sooperfukker 1 year ago
Your approach (besides probably any deistic approach) is different.
You're as well seeing our own incapabilities of experience, understanding and potential and imagine the supernatural as the overcoming of this limitations. Your supernatural is the opposite of our natural world.
sooperfukker 1 year ago
@sooperfukker So are you saying that the overcoming of natural limitations cannot be legitimately called "supernatural".
yostevodotcom 1 year ago
@yostevodotcom
Call it what you like, yet noone has proved it even exists outside of any human idea.
And even if it existed, noone has even the slightest clue of what it looks like.
Science can't and doesn't want to go there and you'd be well advised to consider if and how far you want to buy into metaphysics.
I put my bets on Kant, see cognition as a result of observation and thought and have to simply state, that we have no observation of the supernatural and therefor cannot cognize it.
sooperfukker 1 year ago
Everything supernatural remains pure speculation, no rational decision on the matter is possible. It's a big blahblah.
That's one of the reasons why I find craigs ontologic approach so audacious. In order for his "logics" to work, he needs to presume, that our ideas of cause, reason, change, matter etc. can be applied to the "outer-natural" without further ado... he acts as if just that wasn't the whole problem after all.
sooperfukker 1 year ago
And as soon as he managed to plant that idea of applicability on you, THEN he can use our limited vocabular and grammar to create absurd sounding sentences like "created everything out of nothing for no reason" and equally deceptive claims.
And you people buy this, because you don't realise how he twitted you. So much for "untrained audiences" ...pffff....
If you actually understood what I said, you should understand a bit better, why I hold all claims of the supernatural to be invalid.
sooperfukker 1 year ago
Oh this great stuff, from the man who describes himself as an
" evolutionary agnostic "
Brilliant
Roper122 1 year ago
craig is the only person ive ever heard who can spew out 10 minutes of complete bullshit, with no content and really think he has said something.
oneadamtwelve86 1 year ago
does Craig never gets tired of his pathetic whining about life without God being meaningless, etc? it kind of gives you an idea of how objective and impartial he is in his case for theism... it seems he'd probably commit suicide in desrpair if it turns out there's no one up there who loves and cares about him after all. so maybe that's why he's made up his mind (and stated repeatedly) that no evidence or argument could possibly convince him to abandone his Iron Age faith. what a spineless loser
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
Well it is very difficult to argue the second part where he states that later on in life, anyone will have decided to take a greater part in one side than the other. But i completely disagree about the last part where he states that the rational agnostic demands arguments and by extension, they can't be proven. Just about any agnostic will ask for proof, not arguments. More so, how can he acertain that the past can't be proven ?
unthinkative 1 year ago
This guy so misses the point of being agnostic , its not about having a point or view on the subject or being undecided due to lack of evidence one way or the other to the individuals satisfaction .
Its simply having no attachment to any preconceived ideas about the evidence ether way
before or even if it ever arrives .
wayamat 1 year ago
I agreed with his critique of the belief that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists, but his critiques of the other beliefs were rather shallow and wrought with poo (although the 4th point might be okay if it were further justified).
TheAmazingImbecile 1 year ago
How does WLC KNOW God exists then? Did he meet him in person by chance?
nogogma 2 years ago
Better question: How is it that you do not know?
Purushadasa 1 year ago
I'm 3:26 in. I can't go on.
He's so ignorant. Atheism is not belief there is no god, but simply the lack of a belief.
If Craig wants to deal in probabilities of god existing, and that he as a Christian merely sees he's god as "probable", then he's not refuting agnosticism. He's merely claiming to be a closet agnostic.
And no, the arguments for theism bear no weight at all. Agnostics are not "bewildered". Many agnostics say: "I don't know. There is NO evidence."
highwind8124 2 years ago
@highwind8124
"Atheism is not belief there is no god, but simply the lack of a belief."
A tired and false cliche, stemming from the etymological fallacy that 'atheism' derives from 'without belief'.
All except the most devout theists lack, in some way, belief. To posit 'atheism' as 'lacking belief' extends the scope of atheism beyond all reasonable and non-trivial enquiry.
p3rs0nan0ngrata 2 years ago
You're referring to anti-theism, which Christopher Hitchens posits. When people use the correct definition of words to describe to you their position, and you shout: "Liar! That's not your position! You believe with certainty there is no god!"
If you guys are going to keep acting with the same level of integrity as Kent Hovind and VenomFangX, Christianity will continue to decline in North America.
highwind8124 2 years ago
No, I'm not referring to any position, since I did not positively reference any position.
I am not a North American Christian, and I am certainly not on the same wavelength as Hovind et al.
I am, however, well aware of the history and development of the term 'atheism', and I can assure you that equating all atheism with a 'lack of belief' is entirely simplistic. It makes no more sense to say that an atheist 'lacks belief' than it does to say that a theist believes in Yahweh.
p3rs0nan0ngrata 2 years ago
Mere "lack of belief" is a purely neutral position:
Gnostic Theists, the non-theist, and the agnostic also lack all beliefs regarding God, both positive and negative, but none of them is an atheist.
Mere lack of belief obviously does not cut it as an accurate definition of atheism -- in reality, atheism stubbornly holds the position, without any evidence at all, that God somehow doesn't exist.
Holding such a position without any evidence is entirely unscientific and illogical of the atheist.
Purushadasa 1 year ago
@Purushadasa well you fanatically hold on to the position that your god exists with zero evidence. and you still haven't learned what atheism is, have you?
btw, your videos are some of the most patheitic fanatical propaganda that's on youtube. clear sign of clinical derangement. and pathology.
as I told you before: keep up the mad work, we need more atheists
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
Everyone seems to be missing the point. Of course there are many sides besides Supernaturalistic Theism and Atheism BUT what is called into question is the logical coherence of those positions. I believe any forms of agnosticism just like Skepticism are a transition not a real position.
Skale777 2 years ago
Craigs thinking is very narrow. He pretends as if there are two possible positions, supernaturalistic theism, naturalistic atheism, between which the agnostic must decide. But where do, say, Soto Zen Buddhists fit according to his scheme? A true agnostic need not be someone who is equally convinced by theistic and atheistic arguments. It could be someone for whom the conclusions of those arguments are simply irrelavant.
MrHaufniensis 2 years ago
I think he was talking about the practical impossibility of being truly 100% 50/50 agnostic. In one sense I think he's right since it's hard to be perfectly equal between any side on the evidence. Chances are, you'll favor a side over the other at different times. On the other hand, you're right that you don't need to be equally convinced. You just have to not really agree with the conclusion of each. I wouldn't put it as you did though (ie. the conclusion is irrelevant). That isn't agnosticism.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
1) The 50/50 talk is misleading. There are a number of possibilities besides theism and atheism. There is open theism, pantheism, panentheism, polytheism, etc.
2) Some people (e.g. many Buddhists) when confronted with this great number of possibilities regarding the question of the divine would not bother trying to choose between them and focus their energies on less speculative matters. These are the folks for whom the conclusion is (subjectively) irrelavant. Aren't these "agnostics"?
MrHaufniensis 2 years ago
For most people in the west, the position is between theism and atheism, and given the context of this debate, I would assume both debaters are discussing it under those pretenses.
As for point 2, in the sense that you put it, I would agree that those people are agnostics since they would appear to think that such conclusions based in knowledge are beyond reasonable attainment (which is a form of agnosticism).
Christianjr4 2 years ago
this guy mostly talks out of his ass ... there is more to Agnosticism than this ... there Theistic Agnosticism, Atheistic Agnosticism, Deism, Ignosticism... you don't need to choose a side... you've already done it by being Agnostic ... you accept that human's capacity of understanding are limited thus many things can be considered beyond understanding which they are (i.e. time, space, absence of time and space, infinity, creation etc ) beyond this matter, faith intervenes, and you may belive
ScaredCrows 2 years ago
Very sly of Craig to note that one can be an agnostic theist without bothering to mention that one could also be an agnostic atheist.
Way to trick 'em over to your side, Billy!
army103 2 years ago
agnostics are ignorant
Tunderf00t 2 years ago
No, I am not.
aretz28 2 years ago
Yes, agnostics are ignorant. But like Socrates they know that they are ignorant. Atheists and theists are even more ignorant because they think their beliefs are justified when they are not.
MrHaufniensis 2 years ago
one more point Mr craig has denied himself the simply fact that agnostics claim no knowledge of god - primarily what theists claim to believe through faith
Faith - which means belief without knowledge - claiming to have knowledge of god negates faith.
Agnostics may have the only true faith as we recognize the possibility of god though claim no knowledge of
Mr Craigs argument while extremely interesting is based on an improper understanding of agnosticism through a theistic bias
CartervonRiedel 3 years ago
my comment was for cartervonriedel he has made more sense than anyone on the subject of agnosticism and Dr Craig should debate him/her.
chriswalkerbraid 3 years ago 8
You need to check your definition of faith, 'belief without knowledge ', agnostics make NO CLAIM therefore there is NO FAITH(concerning God). It does not follow that agnostics have the 'only true faith'.
DuckHunts 3 years ago
Agnosticism simply means I don't know which, if nothing else is honesty.
I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow but have no knowledge.
And read my statement again "agnostics may have, not DO have..
At the very least there is dignity in being truthful - 'I don't know' is the truth because I don't. if you say you know show some evidence, if you don't know then it is a matter of faith and you should look the definition of faith up in the dictionary because that's exactly what it means - hope
CartervonRiedel 3 years ago
Faith is a trait shared by both atheists and theists alike. Branding it irrational or being inherent only in ignorant theistic thinking is simplistic and downright moronic.
Your description is also wrongheaded. Faith is not a belief without knowlege but a belief without proof, and if we were to follow that path consistently you'll see that atheists engage in faith just as much as we do.
regelemihai 2 years ago
@regelemihai does it take faith to not believe in unicorns?
oneadamtwelve86 1 year ago
@oneadamtwelve86
No, it takes common sense.
regelemihai 1 year ago
@CartervonRiedel
"Faith - which means belief without knowledge - claiming to have knowledge of god negates faith." - Appeal to semantics. You're going to first need to provide evidence that religions, especially the Christian religion even claim that this is what faith is.
BassP86 1 year ago
@BassP86 dictionary? If you'd like to enlighten us on your new definition of what faith is... be my guest!
CartervonRiedel 1 year ago
@CartervonRiedel
You claimed that faith is a belief without evidence, didn't you? What religions claim that that is what faith is? And can you support that?
It's a simple question, bro.
BassP86 1 year ago
@BassP86 it has a simple answer - none! they all think faith means knowledge...
I'm still yet to meet the religious person who understands that there is no knowledge of god - that's the whole point of faith
you haven't given us your new definition...
CartervonRiedel 1 year ago
@CartervonRiedel
1) Who said it was a "new" definition, let alone my own?
2) Are you aware what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:14-15?
BassP86 1 year ago
@BassP86 you imply that I've missused the term faith I'd like to hear how if I'm wrong I'm happy to be shown so
Are you aware what an anti-Semite, male chauvinist pig St Paul was
For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God but woman is the glory of man. (1 Cor. 11:7)
(Jews) killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and drove us out, the Jews who are heedless of God's will and enemies of their fellow men (I Thessalonians 2:15-16)
15:14 -your faith is in vain
CartervonRiedel 1 year ago
@CartervonRiedel
Complete red herring. Please address my two questions.
Don't just throw verses around that have nothing to do with the subject. That's not honest debate.
Also quoting individual verses does not always represent the context of an entire passage.
BassP86 1 year ago
Comment removed
CartervonRiedel 1 year ago
@BassP86
First you imply that I've somehow misused the term faith but you can't or won't explain how.
Then demand that I should prove what christians believe - like it's not written everywhere - which implies that christians have an alternate explanation of faith for which you can give no example.
then you quote a bigot, anti-semite from the bible and when I point out that I would not take advice from such a person you accuse me of quote mining
your argument is that of stumbling buffoon
CartervonRiedel 1 year ago
@CartervonRiedel
"First you imply that I've somehow misused the term faith but you can't or won't explain how." - Incorrect. Remember when I quoted 1 Corin. 15, which does NOT say that faith is not a belief without evidence, but is a loyalty BASED on evidence of performance. Scripture CLEARLY defines faith this way ALL throughout the Bible.
BassP86 1 year ago
(cont.)
"which implies that christians have an alternate explanation of faith" - That's not what I'm arguing at all. I'm arguing about the CORRECT definition of faith, according to scripture. What it seems you're doing however, is trying to refute that definition by cherrypicking passages that allegedly (but really do not) contradict the TRUE definition or are physically/logically impossible, so that the term "faith" conveniently fits into the definition of a "belief without evidence".
BassP86 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
(cont.)
"then you quote a bigot, anti-semite from the bible and when I point out that I would not take advice from such a person you accuse me of quote mining" - 5 problems here:
1) Paul is actually taking the same definition of faith from the rest of scripture as a way of clarifying what faith REALLY means, as opposed to what nonbelievers think it is. He is not the authority of the term's definition, but a translator.
BassP86 1 year ago
(cont.)
2) Disavowing what someone says because you believe they are morally inadequate is a form of an ad hominem known as an appeal to emotion. In other words, you are disavowing Paul's words because you believe he is an immoral person.
3) If the Christian is true, then who are YOU to say that what Paul says in immoral? You logical would have absolutely NO basis for saying it is immoral, because Paul was influenced by God, who is the primary authority of what is right and what is wrong.
BassP86 1 year ago
@BassP86 circular reasoning - logical fallacy... etc..
the complete and utter confusion and misunderstanding for which you base your existence on is a sorry state indeed
I don't possess the patience to point out how distorted your reasoning is...
stop smoking crack
CartervonRiedel 1 year ago
@CartervonRiedel
Try me.
Btw, you don't smoke crack. ;)
BassP86 1 year ago
@BassP86 well - only when discussing philosophy - I think you have to when discussing such abstract ideas
Btw - what do you really believe - as far as the god hypothesis is concerned?
just curious
CartervonRiedel 1 year ago
@CartervonRiedel
I'm a Christian. I believe is God can be known and has made Himself known through the Person of Jesus Christ, who is God incarnate. In other words, I believe in the Trinitarian God, who is the One True God. I am also an environmental biology major and an apologist, which means I apologize for being a Christian. Only joking. ;)
BassP86 1 year ago
@BassP86 I know we'll agree on just about nothin but anyway:
you use the words 'know god' though this would seem to contradict faith!
e.g. I have faith my son will not grow up to be a serial killer - I have no knowledge therefore I have faith - if I had knowledge I wouldn't need faith.
one can have faith that there is a god but you claim you know there's a god - no hiding in scripture - in your own words
I'm not asking if you have faith "in" god but faith that there "is" a god
CartervonRiedel 1 year ago
@CartervonRiedel
"you use the words 'know god' though this would seem to contradict faith!" - Not at all. Faith, according to the Bible, is a loyalty based on evidence of performance. Take your example that you have faith your son will not be a serial killer. You claim that you would have no knowledge, but reality you do have knowledge of your son, based on the way you raised him and how he made decisions in given situations.
BassP86 1 year ago
(cont.)
The knowledge is not fully absolute, but there is enough knowledge to make your faith in him reasonable. Even if your son WERE to end up a serial killer, your faith in him was reasonable enough to an extent. Just because a dictionary says that faith is a "belief without evidence", it doesn't mean that therefore Christianity is forced to accept that definition. Remember Christianity defined 'faith' long BEFORE official dictionaries were around.
BassP86 1 year ago
@BassP86 so we both speak english but christians have their own definitions.. non-sense.
CartervonRiedel 1 year ago
@CartervonRiedel
"christians have their own definitions" - No, I'm saying that
1) the Bible's definition of faith came first, so therefore if 'faith' is to be refuted, then logically you must refute that context ONLY. Otherwise, one is attacking strawmen.
2) Dictionary definition is not "belief without evidence", at least not anymore. If you enter in "define: faith" on google, you will get the exact same definition as in the Bible, from the majority of the websites mentioned.
BassP86 1 year ago
(cont.)
Remember I said that I believe that God CAN be known and has MADE Himself known through the Person of Jesus Christ. What I mean is, that I was not present during that time. If the disciples truly BELIEVED Jesus was God incarnate and was crucified/resurrected, and those beliefs consistently coincide with the evidence, then the Christian faith is based on what is true.
BassP86 1 year ago
@BassP86 but the Christian faith is obviously based on hear-say and myth.
to try and offer this up as truth is an insult to reason not a compliment
CartervonRiedel 1 year ago
@CartervonRiedel
"but the Christian faith is obviously based on hear-say and myth." - Is the existence of Jesus any of those two things?
BassP86 1 year ago
@BassP86 I just looked it up - faith means hope and trust
where's the proof jesus was born of a virgin or was a god?
the answer is 'none at all' you believe it out of fear of death
and before you refer to the bible - it has as much proof of miracles as mary poppins has of flying nannies
I hope you get your eternity bowing and slaving to this tyrant you think is so special - I rather not exist thankyou very much!
CartervonRiedel 1 year ago
@BassP86 "If the disciples truly BELIEVED Jesus was God incarnate and was crucified/resurrected, and those beliefs consistently coincide with the evidence, then the Christian faith is based on what is true"
you prove my argument in one word - "IF" you can't KNOW with "if" non-sense "if" those beliefs consistently coincide with the evidence" "if"
CartervonRiedel 1 year ago
(cont.)
In short, faith doesn't make anything true. Faith is what follows from what you already accept to be true. Therefore to say that "I have faith that there is a God", is not actually the correct application of faith.
BassP86 1 year ago
@BassP86 most importantly
if we are to discuss what happens to the soul once we expire first you must prove there is a soul to discuss
to my mind religion has invented the soul, invented hell fire to sell us the snake oil and you have bought into it hook, line and sinker.
CartervonRiedel 1 year ago
@CartervonRiedel
What should we deal with first then: the soul or hell?
BassP86 1 year ago
@BassP86 you're gonna prove humnas have a soul and there's a hell... LMAO.. this I gotta see
CartervonRiedel 1 year ago
BassP86 IF, IF, IF, IF
You assume there’s a soul
you assume this soul can survive death
you assume there is a heavenly paradise for this assumption
you assume there’s a threat to the soul
Because you assume there’s a hell
you presume to know that the creator cares about you personally
you assume the bible is truth
and you claim knowledge??? - assumption ad infinity ad absurdum
puerile
CartervonRiedel 1 year ago
(cont.)
4) Even if we grant that Paul is immoral, what does that have to do with the VALIDITY and TRUTH of what he is saying, especially if he is referring to scripture that was written before his time? Nothing, hence why it is a red herring.
BassP86 1 year ago
(cont.)
5) You are quote mining him because you ignore what he also says, "Men love and honor your wives as Christ loved the Church." There is no claim of superiority of one sex over another. Women during that time, in that culture, were to cover their head as a way of symbolizing their love and obedience to their husbands, yet husbands were to respect, love, and honor their wives also. In the Bible, no sex is superior to the other. Only a mutual level of obedience is declared. Quote-mining.
BassP86 1 year ago
@BassP86 CartervonRiedel is correct. Faith is belief without knowledge. Webster's dictionary defines faith as:
2. B(1) "firm belief in something for which there is NO [my emphasis] proof"
Secondly, it is well known that the Christian religion sees faith in precisely this way. Hebrews 11:1 says: "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."
Even Jesus sees faith in this way in John 20:29 : "Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed".
alphacause 1 year ago
@alphacause
Thanks for your reply.
"Webster's dictionary defines faith as:" - Actually, you're leaving out the rest of Webster's definition for the term. Also, you'll have to watch this: watch?v=YvcLmmWatwY
I'm glad you brought up those two verses, rather than just simply appeal to semantics like Reidel was. If faith were truly blind, then logically Hebrews would not include the word ASSURANCE.
BassP86 1 year ago
@BassP86 I left out the other definitions of faith because they aren't relevant to the discussion, and don't confirm your idea of faith. Show me what part of the Webster's dictionary (and I am referring to the online version so we both are looking at the same source) substantiates your perspective of faith. When I tried to watch the video you referred me to, it told me page not found. Assurance could be included in Hebrews because people of faith confuse belief with justification.
alphacause 1 year ago
"it told me page not found." - Try youtube searching "Is faith, by definition, irrational?" The user's name is grammastola. That will probably work better.
He sums up the definitions in various sources very nicely.
BassP86 1 year ago
(cont.)
What is assurance? It is simply a "lack of doubt" or "satisfaction as to the reliability of information provided", as generally defined. Therefore if Hebrews calls faith an "assurance OF things hoped for", then it is saying that what we hope for is based on prior information that is reliable. This implies two things: 1) We do not need to see the outcome of future events to know that they will work for good, because of the reliable prior information we already have about God.
BassP86 1 year ago
@BassP86 You claim that this assurance is based on reliable information from God. What reliable information is this? How is it reliable? How do you know that the Apostles are reliable?
alphacause 1 year ago
@alphacause
Whereas I understand what you're asking, there must be a clear recognition as to what you are implying. Are you assuming that unless God and Christianity are verified, then faith, at the end of the day, is still belief without evidence?
BassP86 1 year ago
(cont.)
2) If Christianity is true, then placing faith in God based on what you have not seen is still logically reasonable. A blind acceptance, to which you're referring, assumes that whatever you place faith in has a likelihood to be false. But this is not the case if Christianity is true because if God exists, then logically you are STILL placing faith in the REALITY and TRUTH of who He is, regardless if you've seen the evidence or not.
BassP86 1 year ago
@BassP86 God must be proven first in order for Christianity to follow from that. And even if God is proven to exist, you must show that it is the Christian type of God which exists. You have not done that.
alphacause 1 year ago
(cont.)
Please bear in mind that that's precisely why Paul says in 1 Peter 3:15, "always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give a reason for the hope that is within you." The verses you've referenced are talking about that very same reliability, not an unreliability.
No "belief without evidence" to be found ANYWHERE in scripture.
BassP86 1 year ago
@BassP86 The problem is that Christians have not given sufficient reason to believe, as 1 Peter 3:15 has mandated. It is only sufficient to them, because they wish it were true.
alphacause 1 year ago
@alphacause
"as 1 Peter 3:15 has mandated." - Ah, so then you concede that the Bible IS claiming that faith is based on evidence?
I'm not asking about whether there IS evidence, I'm only asking if you concede that the Bible is CLAIMING that faith is based on evidence.
BassP86 1 year ago
It is a matter of faith that I state it cannot be known - this I believe because it's like fighting over what's in a closed box, could be anything, could be nothing.
But yes, I can say with a larger amount of certainty - close to 100% that
All I know is that I don't know! - this is true agnosticism, not this undecided, no opinion, don't care rubbish that so many so-called agnostics claim.
CartervonRiedel 3 years ago
"All I know is that I don't know!"
Then isn't it true that you don't know that it cannot be known. As you just said, you take it on faith that it cannot be known, but you don't KNOW that it cannot be known. You need to give a very good argument for thinking the knowledge of God is impossible, as Dr. Craig pointed out.
Christianjr4 3 years ago
This is true according to how I feel as well.
DiminishedStudios 3 years ago
"you don't know that it cannot be known"
YES, of course I don't in the same sense that you believe in god - it's a matter of faith.
'You need to give a very good argument for thinking the knowledge of God is impossible'
not impossible but extrem improbable - no witness and no stimulus received leads me to believe that it remains agnostic(unknown)
I think you feel the same things I do but you think it's spiritual, not because of evidence but because of your own ego in relation to mortality.
CartervonRiedel 3 years ago
"YES, of course I don't in the same sense that you believe in god - it's a matter of faith."
No, you're confusing the subject. You originally said that it cannot be known. This is much different than saying you just don't know. In the former, you're saying you have knowledge that it cannot be known, the latter you're just confessing personal ignorance of the matter. It's not the same as a Christian who just has simple faith.
(BTW, I believe there is good evidence for my position).
Christianjr4 3 years ago
sorry maybe I didn't make myself clear though;
I know one thing - 'I' don't know...simple.
I believe (faith) that no one knows
If you think you know you have contradicted your faith as faith is belief without knowledge.
CartervonRiedel 3 years ago
Alright, fair enough, I understand your position. I don't think, however, that I've contradicted my faith. Faith is a tricky word, because it can mean a few different things. It could just refer to some religion in general or belief without evidence. I don't interpret faith to mean belief without knowledge or evidence. I accept the former, but also take faith to mean more of a trust thing. I have reason to believe, and then I place my faith or trust in God.
Christianjr4 3 years ago
"I don't interpret faith to mean belief without knowledge or evidence."
But that is part of faith to have no evidence for something you believe. For instance you have no evidence God is three persons. You just think you have evidence that the bible is reliable but you don't have evidence that all that it says is true and that if you life it something will happen.
LotusGreenX 3 years ago
It's not the strict definition of faith to believe something without evidence. There are many interpretations and understandings of the word faith. Mine is what I stated previously already. Now granted we don't have evidence that everything in the Bible is reliable, but for those instances I make an induction that if the main and most important parts of it are true, the rest follows, pending further evidence to the contrary. For the trinity, the reliable portions of the Bible contain the trinity
Christianjr4 3 years ago
Give me one instance of faith where the thing being believed is backed up by mountains of evidence and is considered fact? If it was fact it wouldn't be faith. That's why I said that faith includes the absence of evidence.
"For the trinity, the reliable portions of the Bible contain the trinity"
There's no way to prove the content of Jesus's teaching is reliable even if you have honest and articulate writers who give there eyewitness accounts of Christ.
LotusGreenX 3 years ago
"There's no way to prove the content of Jesus's teaching is reliable even if you have honest and articulate writers who give there eyewitness accounts of Christ."
We have words of Jesus which are agreed upon by most NT scholars as belonging to the historical Jesus. We can believe those words are true because of Jesus' Resurrection, which I think we also have good evidence for.
Christianjr4 3 years ago
And while I think there is good reason to believe there was an empty tomb and that the disciples were not incessant liars; it doesn't follow that the best explanation is that all of it is true.
LotusGreenX 3 years ago
True, that's why you have to look at all the available evidence and different parts on an individual basis. I'm just saying that I make an induction that if the major parts are true, then it's reasonable to believe other less attested portions are true. Like if the Resurrection is true, then I don't see it as terribly irrational to believe in his virgin birth to which there is hardly any historical evidence for. Strictly academically, you can't prove it, but the leap I think is reasonable.
Christianjr4 3 years ago
"Strictly academically, you can't prove it, but the leap I think is reasonable."
Ok, well I can agree, however, I disagree with the apologist that works backwards and may say Genesis should be considered fact because the resurrection is true. While Jesus supported the OT, it doesn't follow that proving Jesus's resurrection is sufficient proof to disregard science unless you can show an interpretation of it that is feasible with science.
LotusGreenX 3 years ago
"...I disagree with the apologist that works backwards and may say Genesis should be considered fact because the resurrection is true."
I think we have common ground here. I agree that we shouldn't go backwards too far. If we are to go backwards then it should be on parts that are relevant. Like Jesus' Resurrection to his virgin birth I think is fine since it involves the figure Jesus. But his Resurrection to say, a 6 day Earth is far off, and of course not supported by science as you said.
Christianjr4 3 years ago
"But his Resurrection to say, a 6 day Earth is far off, and of course not supported by science as you said."
Agreed. But it is hard for me to justify a disconnect between the two claims since Jesus and the apostles tied there message with a literal Adam, Moses and creation story. That is one of the reasons I have more suspicion about the resurrection claims. This isn't evidence against a claim, I take a claim on it's own merit, but it makes me more suspicious.
LotusGreenX 3 years ago
"Agreed. But it is hard for me to justify a disconnect between the two claims since Jesus and the apostles tied there message with a literal Adam..."
You have a good point here. I suppose one could argue that it's all connected in some way and that one could claim based on Jesus' Resurrection that all of it should be believed. I try to do it based on relevancy I guess. The more relevant the more one can believe in it. A LITERAL Adam is not so relevant and important as others I would say.
Christianjr4 3 years ago
"The more relevant the more one can believe in it."
It's not just relevancy but logical connectivity. If Jesus is God then if he says something about the OT is has to be true or else you have a writing about Jesus where you don't even know what parts are true and what are false.
LotusGreenX 3 years ago
Besides being a skeptic of miracles my biggest reason for denying the resurrection isn't the resurrection itself, but what nonsense is being claimed from it. Jesus's teachings is directly tied to the truth value of the OT. Further, there are tons of unjustified absurdities in the gospels where there should have been evidence that these things occurred. Such as the dead coming to life or 1 million babies being ordered to die.
LotusGreenX 3 years ago
"Further, there are tons of unjustified absurdities in the gospels where there should have been evidence that these things occurred."
I mentioned previously that if you have evidence to the contrary that things or events in the gospel didn't occur then it shouldn't be believed, such as the slaughter of the innocents or the Resurrection of the Saints etc.
Christianjr4 3 years ago
"it shouldn't be believed,"
But that's the problem. The Bible more or less stands or falls if there are parts not reliable. Of course I could believe in Christ but If the Bible isn't the word of God then how do I know what parts are true and which to follow?
LotusGreenX 3 years ago
Most doctrine is written after Jesus supposedly ascended to heaven. The apostles never claimed in the New Testament books that the Holy Spirit was telling them what to write in that book. The parts where the apostles say stuff Jesus never talked about is a matter of trust on your part to believe. This is assuming you can prove Jesus rose from the dead. You might as well be Catholic if you think voting on what is correct or believing in tradition is solid evidence to hold as factual doctrine.
LotusGreenX 3 years ago
We have the gospels, which are essentially records of what Jesus said and did. In the reliable portions of the gospels it can be shown with probability that Jesus claimed divinity and that the Holy Spirit that he spoke of was also divine. This is where the trinity concept can be deduced from. And it's not a matter of voting or guessing which is correct or reliable. When I say reliable, I mean that which has been accepted by the majority of New Testament scholars today.
Christianjr4 3 years ago
"In the reliable portions of the gospels it can be shown with probability that Jesus claimed divinity and that the Holy Spirit that he spoke of was also divine."
No, it can't be shown. I don't consider hearsay anecdotal testimonies written decades after the supposed event as conclusive evidence. The gospels of mark and luke are most likely not first hand eyewitness accounts and John is written much later. Further, matthew and luke has a lot copied from mark.
LotusGreenX 3 years ago
I don't care honestly what you, as a non-historian, count as evidence. The fact remains that the majority of professional historians who have studied the subject agree on certain portions of the gospel which reflect well on the trinity concept. I'm content enough to stick within the mainstream of NT scholarship. Insofar as you deny these portions then you go against the mainstream historical view.
Christianjr4 3 years ago
Sounds like an argument from authority, but my point was not specifically the trinity cannot be deduced from the gospels. I was merely pointing out that much of Christian doctrine comes from books that are merely agreed upon as truth based on the person who wrote it and what seems to fit with Jesus's teachings.
LotusGreenX 3 years ago
"Sounds like an argument from authority"
Yes, it is. The authority in question is relevant at least. I used authority here because I don't want to engage in conversation with someone who goes against the mainstream based on his non-expert standard of evidence and criteria. Those conversations I have found go absolutely nowhere (sort of like the conversations between Young Earth Creationists and evolutionists).
Christianjr4 3 years ago
"I don't want to engage in conversation with someone who goes against the mainstream based on his non-expert standard of evidence and criteria."
So, are you saying the mainstream says Jesus's resurrection is proven? I honestly don't know where I am way off your "mainstream" anyways.
"Those conversations I have found go absolutely nowhere"
Yes,I wonder why you don't follow the scientific consensus of 99.86% of biologists who accept evolution. But I'm not using the OT to disprove the New.
LotusGreenX 3 years ago
"So, are you saying the mainstream says Jesus's resurrection is proven?.."
No, historians strictly don't deal with miracles or make historical judgments about them. They may believe in the Resurrection (as many do) but they nonetheless refrain from saying such things professionally speaking. What I'm saying here is that the relevant portions to the Resurrection (empty tomb, appearances) or his trinity (his radical claims to divinity) are agreed upon by most scholars. Cont.
Christianjr4 3 years ago
"What I'm saying here is that the relevant portions to the Resurrection (empty tomb, appearances) or his trinity (his radical claims to divinity) are agreed upon by most scholars. Cont."
I usually accept that as I'm not a scholar and there are good reasons for most of that. However, things like the empty tomb is made out to be a big deal when it is simply a necessary condition in my opinion. I don't know what your objecting to. I already told you I'm not arguing about the trinity.
LotusGreenX 3 years ago
"I don't know what your objecting to. I already told you I'm not arguing about the trinity."
Well, you did say that those claims couldn't be proven. That's what I objected to, because it is precisely those radical claims (not all of them though) that many and indeed most NT scholars accept. So I was just responding to your point there about how it couldn't be proven.
Christianjr4 3 years ago
"Well, you did say that those claims couldn't be proven. That's what I objected to, because it is precisely those radical claims (not all of them though) that many and indeed most NT scholars accept."
And that's why I was asking you if you were saying the "mainstream scholars" believed the resurrection is proven. I don't care what they personally believe. I didn't even say you should or shouldn't believe it. But I have a sneak suspicion that most think it cannot be proven. Does it matter though?
LotusGreenX 3 years ago
the Bible DOESNT claim a 6,000 yr old earth, MAN does, in the implications the Bible gives there are three main terms "day" that can be used as one day (24 hr), back in the "day"(along time ago), and even "day" (as in 12 hr. or when the sun is out) by no means is Christianity disproved by evolution, if evolution is true, it must be the hand of God, it would have been a miracle
SticksandStones777 2 years ago
"Yes,I wonder why you don't follow the scientific consensus of 99.86% of biologists who accept evolution."
I do accept evolution. I thought you would have figured that out from my last comment.
Christianjr4 3 years ago
"I do accept evolution. I thought you would have figured that out from my last comment."
Oh, so you are consistent with authority fallacies :P No I think it's ok to follow authorities if they provide good reasons for you to accept it.
But my biggest problem with being a Christian is picking and choosing Scripture. I think the fundamentalists are correct in what logically follows.
LotusGreenX 3 years ago
I'm not an evolutionist, yet im not a LITERAL 6 day creationist, BUT I am a Christian, and there are very probable arguments that many Theistic evolutionists hold that genesis 1 is more of a poetic form of writing, such as C.S. Lewis who was a Christian evolutionist
SticksandStones777 2 years ago
Furthermore, we have any records of contemporaneous scholars telling us about these momentous events or anybody else for that matter. I'm not saying that biased people are not valid as testimonial evidence. What I'm saying is that you can't say that the gospels are as reliable as something like the events of Alexander the Great just because you have tons of copies of people who claim to witness an event.
LotusGreenX 3 years ago
*we don't have any records of contemporaneous historians
Josephus, for example wrote many years after the fact and he was barely born during the events of Christ.
LotusGreenX 3 years ago
"What I'm saying is that you can't say that the gospels are as reliable as something like the events of Alexander the Great"
Tell me, what is our earliest copy of Alexander's biography? It dates 400 YEARS AFTER HIM. The NT documents fare much better. It is an indisputable fact that the NT documents are the best attested documents from antiquity. We have fare more information about Jesus then we do of most major figures.
Christianjr4 3 years ago
"It dates 400 YEARS AFTER HIM."
So? There is also writing by him and other evidences that fit his life in the timeline of history, which the gospel doesn't have. But in fact all the short date proves is the disciples really existed and really believe in Jesus. Which I think there is no reason to deny the existence of a man named Jesus, but it doesn't logically follow that Jesus existed and did all the gospels say he did because of good copies of people saying he did.
LotusGreenX 3 years ago
I've never heard anyone explain agnosticism so well, thankyou.
your critique of agnosticism could teach Dr Craig a lesson he obviously needs.
chriswalkerbraid 3 years ago 8
For those who don't understand this, he basically said nothing. Believe whatever you want to believe in, this guy is an idiot to even say you can't live a certain way.
Oriondaranger 3 years ago
Thats interesting because I understand what he is talking about, and it makes a lot of sense to me. Also he has given us a very detailed proposal for his position, and you have given us "this guy is an idiot". I hope that you can do better than that .
DiminishedStudios 3 years ago
He's clearly insulting agnostics own personal faith. From what I'm understanding, he's defending why god can still exist, which means that he's an idiot. People criticizing another persons religious views need to be tied to a rocket seriously. So go ahead and defend this random guy, maybe he'll invite you to his house for dinner. All this dude did was say Agnosticism is unlivable. I know agnostics and they are comfortable with their life.
Oriondaranger 3 years ago
Please note according to your own philosophy you need to be tied to a rocket. Your arguments are just logical fallacies. You claim that he is insulting your own personal faith. Not so. He is giving a critique of it. The only thing that you have done is provided insults of your own to come back with. By the way he is not a random guy. He is one of the foremost scholars in giving evidence for the existence of God. So if you would like to debunk what he claims then start with his claims.
DiminishedStudios 3 years ago
Right, make an exaggeration a logical fallacy. It's clear you need to stop trying to make yourself sound smarter than you really are. I think he's an idiot, because the whole god thing. Many religions are based on faith, your own personal beliefs. Just that alone, means that every religious person should shut the @#$% up. Believe in whatever they want to, and move on with their lives. "Personally unlivable" he said that. How the fuck would he know, and no I'm not agnostic. I'm athiest.
Oriondaranger 3 years ago
As for the trying to come off smart comment you really haven't challenged me enough to try to pretend to be smarter than, and Im. If that is the only thing that is important to you in this argument then it is pretty much a lost cause. Sorry I can't help it if your arguments are blatant contradictions. I don't think Dr. Craig ever claims to know anything 100%. His opinion based on the information is that agnosticism is unlivable, and he gave a really good argument.
DiminishedStudios 3 years ago
According to your own logic I don't see why religious people can't, or shouldn't speak up. It takes faith to believe in atheism so according to your own philosophy you need to shut the @#$% up. Correct?
DiminishedStudios 3 years ago
That doesn't even make sense. Atheism is a group of people, who carry no faith base. According to you and this man however, we only try to not carry a faith when in fact we do? This is a debate that shouldn't be debated. It's absolutely retarded to assume it. To any who read this. Worship the sun. At least you can see it.
Oriondaranger 3 years ago
Aha. Citing George Carlin is less stupid than appealing to a professional philosopher. If this is the best atheists can muster, methinks we will sleep well tonight.
Up until a few decades back we couldn't see Quarks and muons, would you also say that because we couldn't see them that they therefore didn't exist? What baout dark matter? Can you see it? Has anyone seen it for that matter? No. Would you also assume it doesn't exist because you can't see it?
What a childish view of reality.
regelemihai 2 years ago
is there a god? prove it, you can't...
Prove there is no god? you can't...
it's unknowable it's a pure agnostic!
CartervonRiedel 3 years ago
Did yesterday happen? prove it, you can't....
is today happening? prove it, you can't....
To say that something can't be fully proven one way or the other is one thing. But is it rational to have a belief in either direction. I have no way of proving that my mother loves me, but I believe that she does. See the problem here is that nothing really can be proven 100% to an individual. Cause an individual could always reject the evidence. So why stop at God?
DiminishedStudios 3 years ago
your wrong... I am certain of only one thing - and that is that I DON'T KNOW!
guess what... I CAN prove it because - "I DON'T KNOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!
everything else is faith and bullshit, atheistic, religious or otherwise
CartervonRiedel 3 years ago
No you really can't prove it. The problem here is that I think you really didn't pay attention to the video. Nobody is telling you that you have to be 100% certain. You simply said in your response that no one can prove it, or disprove, and must be unknowable. The problem here is that their are things that a rational mind does accept such as the earth wasn't created 5 min ago. That cannot be proven via any method. Nor can it be understood in its fullness. Yet the evidence points in a direction
DiminishedStudios 3 years ago
"You don't know wether you are going to live or die today. It is unknowable. That doesn't mean that you can't make a decision to try, and live, and be happy does it? I am not claiming to know God in his fullest, or even to know that the atheists are completely wrong. I still believe that the evidence is going to lean one way, or the other, and either decision I choose is going to be a matter of faith.
DiminishedStudios 3 years ago
to state that I know something I don't... or that I have to prove I don't, is beyond idiocy.
this absolute balance bullshit - is based on ignorance.
Agnostics 'ARE' decided....
and think that theism and atheism are both both not worth the paper they're written on.
agnosticism 'IS' a position
those who are undecided are simply - undecided - they are not agnostic
Agnosticism is a position of honesty - there is no questioning of what I don't know and my position's validity is self evident
CartervonRiedel 3 years ago
realize that when you insult either atheist, or theist for their beliefs then you are taking a stand of higher intelligence. But in agnosticism you repeatedly make the claim that no one can know the position, or that you simply don't know. If it is the first one then you are making a claim that is in need of justification with evidence, and if it is the second one I can understand, but as he said it is not practically realistic that all the evidence is balancing equal.
DiminishedStudios 3 years ago
I have never seen a debate between Christianity and Agnosticism before. Do you have more videos from this debate?
gigiko84 3 years ago