Beyond The Big Bang: William Lane Craig Templeton Foundation Lecture at UC (HQ) 6/6

[Purushadasa]

The Lord has already proven Himself to all of civilized humanity. All of mankind already accepts His appearance and activities as scientific facts, with the single exception of the deluded atheist, whose beliefs are in the extreme miniscule minority worldwide.

The lunatic atheist must present a viable argument in favor of his bizarre personal belief that God somehow doesn't exist before being taken seriously, which he has failed to do, sadly.

[Mathenaut]

You have my pity.

[Purushadasa]

Do you just like to talk, or do you have some sort of argument, or even a point to make?

[pobanmanu]

@Purushadasa  You are an psyco, depressed, moron.

[kperson101101]

the greatest Christian apologist of all time in my opinion.

[Telamnar]

Has it occurred to no religious person that saying 'God did it' is the same as saying 'I don't know how it happened'? Furthermore, everything we used to think god has done turned out to be natural in its origins. There's no reason to think religion has it right now.

And that 'on the order of mind' stuff is logically weak. Mind has physical existence. If you want mind without physical existence, demonstrate that possibility!

He's arbitrarily plugging what he wants into some very abstract stuff.

[regelemihai]

A mind has a physical existance??

[Telamnar]

'Mind' is what the brain does. Think of it this way: sound is made up of waves. Waves have no physical, independent existence. They are merely a condition of the matter in which they exist. That's a (crude) analogy for what this means. So yes, mind, as the action of brain, and is a condition of a part of the physical universe.

[Purushadasa]

Your personal belief that mind is somehow "what the brain does" is nor supported by any evidence. Do you have any evidence to present in support of your bizarre personal belief, or did you just make it up?

[regelemihai]

Reductive materialism that says that we are nothing but mental projections of the chemical processes in our brain is also unfounded.

I didn'y advocate dualism here. All I'm saying is that God isn't material.

[Telamnar]

Neurology?

Drugs that affect the brain chemically affect our emotions, ability to retain information, and other things. Strokes (brain damage caused by lack of oxygen due to blood vessels bursting/blocking) can impair motor skills, language, and so on.

MRI indicates that certain parts of the brain - in everyone - light up under certain stimuli. There's a vision center, a 'problem-solving' center, and so on.

There's also the left-right split - everyone knows about that.

[Telamnar]

None of my previous post was 'made up'. The argument is simple: if everything we've discovered about the brain so far indicates that it does the things we think of as happening in our mind, then it is not, as some others have suggested, an organ merely for cooling the blood.

You can, if you like, claim that as we haven't got a complete explanation for the mind/brain thing, that proves that there must be something non-material there...but that's just the argument from ignorance.

[Purushadasa]

Yes, most definitely.

[Mathenaut]

Craig makes a number of logical leaps in this.

- Timeless does not imply changeless.

- Beginning of our universe does not imply creation by agent.

- His explanation for why such an agent must be personal is outright BS.

- An agent existing before the beginning of our universe doesn't imply, in any way, that said agent is a single, all-powerful entity; much less one without cause itself.

It doesn't end there. He makes one jump after another to squeeze his god into a well-known gap.

Typical.

[Christianjr4]

You didn't exactly say much with those points.

How does timeless not imply changeless? I can't at all see how something can change without time.

If the universe began to exist, then it's plausible that it had a cause, therefore it does imply an agent. As for the personal aspect, well unless you think something like abstract numbers caused the universe, I don't see anything particularly "BS" about that either.

His points clearly stand. You haven't said anything to refute them.

[Mathenaut]

"I can't at all see how something can change without time."

This isn't saying much.

"If the universe began to exist, then it's plausible that it had a cause, therefore it does imply an agent."

Cause =/= creation. This does not affirm your agent.

"As for the personal aspect, well unless you think something like abstract numbers caused the universe, I don't see anything particularly "BS" about that either."

Argument from ignorance.

You have not properly addressed my objections.

[Christianjr4]

You still haven't said anything new. Here let me state it another way.

How does something change if there is no time to allow it to change. If it's timeless, it's static. To undergo change, you would need time to do so. Am I missing something?

As for agent, I took that to mean cause, since it seemed you were using it that manner. I see now you mean it in the standard sense of the word.

For the personal aspect, how is it an argument from ignorance? It's an argument for it based on what we know

[Mathenaut]

"If it's timeless, it's static."

You don't believe that yourself, in the case of your god. Regardless, time is a dimension that shapes our universe. Anything outside of our universe is not bound by time, regardless of what it is.

"It's an argument for it based on what we know."

No, it's not. We know nothing of what exists outside of our universe. Your objection is that it must be because you don't know how it could be otherwise - argument from ignorance.

[Purushadasa]

You know of nothing that exists outside the material universe, but your attempt at extrapolating your personal ignorance onto others has failed.

"we" (excluding you, in this case, as well as the lower animal) do indeed know.

[Mathenaut]

" "we" (excluding you, in this case, as well as the lower animal) do indeed know."

That's a cute jab piled at the end of rhetoric that says nothing, and does not address anything. It clearly proves your point.

Genius.

[Purushadasa]

The fact that you fail to understand my point says nothing of its validity, positive or negative. The pig also lacks the intelligence to grasp my point, but his ignorance indicates nothing, as does yours.

[Mathenaut]

Poor excuse to mask not having a point while shelling out more witless insults.

You are not good at this.

[Purushadasa]

If I insulted anyone, it was the pig, by associating him with an individual as ignorant as you.

atheist total fail

[Mathenaut]

You sound like an old person using jargon they are unfamiliar with in a very obvious attempt to sound 'hip' and 'intellectual'.

You're doing a great job, what with your clear, precise argument structure and fine, sharp wit. Keep it up. I'm sure that your god is proud.

[pobanmanu]

@Purushadasa I think you have insulted yourself. So you have proved that you are a pig.

[friendlydiplomat]

Am I mad?? I have always believed from as early on as I can remember that, "there must be a God" Earlier on it was more based on intuition and emotion, I suppose, and those are important qualities. But now as an adult my belief is further backed by 'reason' I seriously find more reason to believe this universe was created by God (I hate the word 'God' mainly because it's gotten such a bad rap) than that it somehow made itself into being.

[matucon312]

Yeah, the "nonsense" of critical and rational thought as opposed to ancient superstitious beliefs from books written by illiterates, bigots, and delusional epileptics. Anything that causes it's followers to burn people at the stake, condones slavery and misogyny or incites people to suicide bombing, death marks for writing a book or results in over 50 people being killed over a f#@king cartoon deserves nothing but contempt. All 3 Abrahamic religions are utterly despicable on every level.

[JusJuiceIt]

@PobjedaIstine

i no its been two years since you wrote your comment but i felt i needed to respond. I very much agree with you! and im happy to read you liked Dr. Craigs lecture.. but if i may, id like to share something with you.. these statistics are fact, please ask me to see proof if you dont believe me! ill send you 3 different links from 3 different people, 1 scholar (Dr. Craig) and two of the worlds top historians on the topic, who will say the exact same thing i am going to say!

[PobjedaIstine]

@JusJuiceIt 1. Greetings, The reason I posted my initial comment is because what Dr Craig is presenting here is in harmony with my Islamic Faith and in fact was developed by Islamic Philosophers over 1000 years ago. But from the nature of your comments I can see that this may be a little too much for you to grasp. You may be best to stick with David Wood or Sam Shamoun etc...Anyhow, I thought it was better for me to remove my comment because I don't have time to reply to this type of discourse.

[PobjedaIstine]

@JusJuiceIt 2. Furthermore, your claims about the Prophet(pbuh) are misguided and twisted. The issue of the 9 yr old wife should be understd in terms of the environment, mentality, circumstances and time period of the people. All of these factors determined the age of consensual sex and marriage. So when making a statement these factors should play a part. By the way, it was extremeley insulting the way you said "he had sex with a little girl" and it just shows your level of intellect.

[PobjedaIstine]

@JusJuiceIt 3. According to The Catholic Encyclopaedia, Mary was 12 yrs old when she gave birth to Jesus. So if we are going to make judgements based on our modern standards, she would be a little girl too. So are you ready to attribute the characteristics you mentioned of Muhammed on your god Yahweh? Because according to your doctrine he should be held responsible for this.

[PobjedaIstine]

@JusJuiceIt 4. As a Bible believing Christian you should never boast about having conventiional history as a criterion. Because even if you can disprove the Qur'an on the point of Jesus' death and resurrection (which you can't) you are still stuck with Matthew 27:51 (saints coming out of graves) which would be laughable to every historian. This is only one example I am pointing out, there are countless others including the many contradictions in the gospels etc...

[PobjedaIstine]

@JusJuiceIt 5. My last point is that the Qur'anic view is definitely more historically plausible than the Biblical, bcos it is much more historically probable that a person who was seen after his alleged death (which was not witnessed by his close companions) did not actually die in the first place, isn't it? This is actually what the Qur'an says (4:157 "...the didn't kill him, neither they crucified him BUT it appeared that way to them...") This explains why he was seen afterwards. Peace.

[JusJuiceIt]

@PobjedaIstine

75% of scholars and nearly every historian who investigates the historicity of Jesus, come to agreement with three facts:

- his death on a cross

- his empty tomb

- his appearances to the disciples (many would define that as a resurrection)

these are three facts that the majority of scholars and nearly every historian who investigates the life of Jesus come to agreement with! now i understand that the majority of a group if they agree on something, doesn't make it true..

[JusJuiceIt]

@PobjedaIstine

but certainly, you can not undermine the decision these intellectual men and women who spend there lives finding out, who exactly this Jesus was.. now im not saying, oh look see, i just gave you these statistics, now i expect you to change your mind and become a Christian, No! not at all, but i am saying, look at these statistics, for what they are, by saying no i still dont accept the fact that Jesus died on a cross for the sin of man, and then rose again in 3 days, are you

[JusJuiceIt]

@PobjedaIstine

willing to go against the majority of people who spend there lives on this, all because a man named Muhammad came 600 years after the death of Jesus and made up his own story because he thought an angel came to him? My friend, logic is logic.. and these are the facts!

But you no whats funny, i dont see how at all, a man like Jesus, who was perfect, never sinned, can be in the same category like Muhammad, who has killed! who had sex with a little girl! who had manyyyy wives!

[JusJuiceIt]

@PobjedaIstine

who was just a plain and sinful person! like you and me!.. how can he, a mere man.. be placed in the same category as Jesus..

I urge you to look into what i said my friend.. i wouldn't of wrote all that if i didn't care!

[yottaparsec]

Toig xade vaq wok plij aqip.

^Knowledge will soon give meaning to these words. They explain the mysteries of the universe!