@1GodOnlyOne I'll defeat Craig for you here and now. First, Atkins phrases his position very poorly. He says that science is omnipotent? He shouldn't say that. We don't know everything. We can say that everything about our world and the universe that we know SO FAR is natural, with natural explanations for natural phenomena.
"We can say that everything about our world and the universe that we know SO FAR is natural, with natural explanations for natural phenomena."
That very much depends on your definition of natural. If by natural you mean the empirical, you're dead wrong. Abstract objects, the laws of nature, ideas like truth, etc are all non-physical. If by natural you mean we only observe what is in our universe... well that's kind of redundant and doesn't exclude the supernatural from existing.
@Kiithknight 'The laws of nature' are what we use to explain natural phenomena - which ARE natural. What abstract objects are you referring to? I'm talking about natural phenomena here. We can explain how planets orbit stars due to the natural force of gravity, atoms come together to form molecules due to the natural occurance of covalent bonds, etc etc etc. All of the laws, forces, and mechanisms occur naturally and not supernaturally. We can remove god from the equation.
I never said the laws of nature are not natural. I said they're not empirical, that is they cannot be measured with the five senses. The effects of the laws can be observed, but the laws themselves are inaccessible to our senses. You're not seeming to understand the difference between the empirical, natural, abstract, and supernatural.
@Kiithknight Have I not given you several examples in which they are observable? Atoms, the relationships between planets and the stars through the force of gravity? This concept that these laws are inaccessible seems to be a type of creationist argument that is not founded on fact. Maybe we're misunderstanding each other but it seems that you're trying to insert a 'middle man' (the supernatural or the abstract) into equations in which we already know they don't belong.
There is a misunderstanding here. I'm saying the laws are natural, but they're also abstract (non-physical). The laws themselves are abstract, though their effects are physical.
Another example of an abstract object is a number. Though it's different because numbers are necessary, unlike laws. Still the number itself is an abstract object.
We understand through our senses, but how do we know our senses give us true information? We need to appeal to logic, not science.
No they don't. Science uses logic as its basis (fleshed out in mathematics). Science presupposes logic. Logic is based on three axioms - law of identity, law of non-contradiction, and law of excluded middle.
@Kiithknight We observe and understand gravity. We observe and understand the gradation of species. We understand natural phenomena through empirical means. We do understand them using our senses. I'm failing to see where or why you're getting the supernatural from. Or why you think we can't observe natural laws when we clearly can.
But let me ask how you think that the universe came into existence through natural phenomena. If your answer is anything but "that question is illogical", it would behoove you to do some study in philosophy.
@Kiithknight I don't know. Relatively very little is known about the origins of time, space, and matter, as well as how the first life arose. But instead of simply accepting that we do not have all the facts to make a truly informed conclusion about these subjects, monotheists choose to default to the same old supernatural explanations of the unknown. 'God did it'. Like when we did not know what lightning was, we made up Thor the lightning god.
That tells me you've never actually studied any theist arguments. We can never know about the origins of the universe through science because science can't measure anything before the natural world. No one is saying "God did it" because we don't know, we're saying "God did it because..." and then proceed to give many philosophical arguments. We REASONED our way there.
Also check this out for one of the most solid out there: watch?v=vGVYXog8NUg
@Kiithknight "We can never know about the origins of the universe through science because science can't measure anything before the natural world" - that is profoundly ignorant of the scientific method. It is like saying a detective cannot solve a crime if the crime took place before his investigation began. Detectives and scientists both use deduction. The big bang theory is backed up with observable evidence, such as the expansion of the universe, cosmic background radiation, etc.
@Kiithknight It doesn't matter that the big bang took place billions of years before our existence. A theory is a scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.
@Kiithknight When you say 'We can never know about the origins of the universe through science because science can't measure anything before the natural world' you are making a number of assumptions. You are assuming there was a time in which the universe was not natural. You are assuming that there are limits to the progression of our knowledge in regards to the origin of the universe. You have no reasonable reason to assume either of these is true.
@Kiithknight I paused the video you linked to to say one thing - I am very mistrustful of videos that disable comments. It is my experience that people who upload such videos have little interest in their view being challenged.
I understand, but he had to disable comments because of so many people being extremely rude. There are other videos on that argument allowing comments; I just linked you to that one because he gives a good, basic introduction to it.
@Kiithknight You realize that this ontological argument is complete nonsense, right? The conclusion assumed the premise is true. There are several leaps in logic. I have it paused at 4:12. I do not accept premise 1. Premise 2 fails - just because something is possible doesn't mean it exists. I understand that this is a 'metaphysical' argument, but it is refuted by many philosophers and it is just a simple question of logic. Premise 3 makes a giant assumption.
The conclusion doesn't assume the premises are true. The nature of a deductive argument is that the conclusion is implicit in the premises. The conclusion just states it explicitly. Everything after premise 1 follows S5 modal logic, so you can only disagree with premise 1. Remember MG involves being necessary. If a necessary being is possible, it follows it exists.
The problem is that it is logically impossible for premise 1 to be false.
You can go back through his entire argument and reconcstruct whatever definitions you want into the argument in order to make the argument that anything you can imagine exists.
If you don't understand that the argument is playing with definitions, you don't understand the argument as well as you think you do. Why should I accept that a 'maximally great being' exists?
Then what you're defining as "unicorn" is God. It's a maximally-great being which is therefore necessary. You can call a MG being whatever you want, but it's just going to be a relabeling of God. You're doing what Wolpert is doing here: watch?v=IAAHHP06iuY
@Kiithknight But the argument does not prove 'maximally great properties', it does not prove a being, it does not prove that these things are necessary. The argument is ENTIRELY about the wording.
@Kiithknight I've seen that clip before too. Craig says, "whatever begins to exist must have a cause", and this is again playing with words. It's a way of saying "god exists because god did not begin to exist". There is no reason to accept the "whatever begins" argument. Craig demonstrated that he takes all the conditions and "wraps" his version of god around it. In an other words, Craig asserts his god.
@Kiithknight There's nothing that logically follows about the idea of the Universe being timeless therefore God. The other man's point, is that with Craig's type of reasoning you could put ANYTHING in place of God as an explanation and it wouldn't make a bit of difference. Craig then attributes the mythical computer to his god, by default admitting that's mythical too. Craig is compelled to twist into "god", because thats the conclusion he wants to reach.
@Kiithknight Not that its a conclusion the argument points to. Craig was destroyed in that clip through sarcasm. And if you read between the lines you'd see the other guy is making fun of Craig's nonsensical definitions and assumptions in the first place.
You can't destroy anything through sarcasm, it's a red herring (which is a fallacy). The other guy can ad hominem all he wants, but that doesn't take away from the fact that if you strip the meaning of a word, you can use it for anything.
By placing "unicorn" in the OA, you're stripping the horned, horse-like, physical nature of the idea of a unicorn and defining it as a necessary, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, personal being. That's fine, you're just renaming God.
@Kiithknight If you think all it was was an ad hominem then you missed the point.
You're still missing the point - Craig places the attributes that he wants that fits his vision of his mythical being. Omnipotent, omniscient, necessary, etc. He can't prove any of it, he can't argue any of it logically. But he claims it exists.
@Kiithknight A person can claim that there is a unicorn (not god, but something either physical or mythical or both, containing all or none or different properties from what Craig describes) and both Craig and this person would have the exact same proof.
@Kiithknight So that isn't renaming god. It's simply putting out an argument that accepts that god is mythical and there is just as much proof of his existence as there is Thor, unicorns, and Spider-Man.
In order to put Thor, unicorns, and Spider-Man in the place of God, you have to rip out all the attributes that make them what they are and replace them will all maximally-great greater-making properties. I don't understand how you're not seeing this. You're hollowing out the word and filling it with other attributes, thus renaming it as God.
It has not been refuted since it was put forth in the 1970s. Not once. People have misunderstood it, but no one has disproved it.
@Kiithknight "ou have to rip out all the attributes that make them what they are and replace them will all maximally-great greater-making properties"
Why? If you can't demonstrate how you know these properties (such as immortality) exist, or why they exist, why they are necessary, how you know these things, then why? Why should I change the attributes of one mythical being for another?
"This has not been refuted" - you are wrong. It is easily refuted. You are seriously beyond delusional.
These are all just the highest degrees of things you agree exist, life, love, power, wisdom, etc. You admit they exist, and it's evident they exist.
Name one person who has written a scholarly refutation of the argument who doesn't completely misunderstand it. I haven't seen it. Most people who try and refute it don't understand modal logic.
@Kiithknight The ontological argument has been destroyed for years by serious scholars and philosophers and the user's argument that you sent me is just a different version of an old argument. Something more recent, Arguments from Perfection (2011) by Ryan Stringer, talks about it. A more in-dept history of the argument is covered in Ontological Arguments by Graham Oppy in which you can see the argument has had many critiques, pointing out flaws I have also pointed out.
Anselm's version of the argument was defeated, sure. Anselm made a mistake in assuming existence was a property. I'll have to go read Stringer's new work as I haven't yet. I'll get back to you on that.
Oppy has never refuted Plantiga's version of the OA, only previous attempts (like Anselm). You haven't shown any problems with the argument, so far you've misunderstood it and baselessly stated it's nonsense. Sorry but that doesn't fly.
I read through Stringer's paper, and it has nothing to do with the Ontological Argument. He attacked some arguments from perfection, but that's not what the OA is. The OA is an argument from necessity using modal logic. He touches cosmology in another paper, but as far as I can see never touches ontology. :/
@kainedamo Graham Oppy also wrote Modal Theistic Arguments (1993) which directly addresses the argument that God is a being that exists on every possible world.
You really don't seem to understand the difference between necessary, contingent, and possible. You also really don't seem to understand the basics of modal logic. Please go do some study on the matter.
As I said it is impossible for a non-maximally great being to exist because that would mean there are no great-making properties. This isn't an argument most people get at first, so study it. Also no one has been able to refute Plantinga's version (the one in the video I gave you).
@Kiithknight No, man, seriously - I completely understand this argument. It is not the first time I have encountered it. YOU do not understand what I am saying. This term 'great-making properties' is just a made up definition. He is defining whatever he wants it to be, and then he is saying that it exists through circular reasoning. You are displaying some serious cognitive dissonance. How and why are there 'great making properties', whatever those are supposed to be? It's not explained.
Great-making properties are defined as those properties it is better to have than to lack. That's a very clear and precise definition. If you deny premise 1, you are implicitly denying that there are no properties it is better to have than to lack. Examples of GMP are love, power, intelligence, wisdom, etc.
It is much more plausible that MGPs exist than the negation. Putting a unicorn in shows you don't understand it. Again please study it. No one has refuted it.
@Kiithknight Yes, that's how the video explained it too. Why call it 'great making properties'? Why not just call it 'basic positive ethics', that each and every human being has? The wording makes it sound better when attributed to god. The argument also conveniently throws in other attributes such as immortality, omniscient, etc. When does the mythical being who has these properties come into the equation? By denying the first premise, all I am denying is that this being exists.
Because power, wisdom, etc, are not ethical in nature? And no human has great-making properties to their fullest degree.
You're not just denying the being exists, you're deny all great-making properties are better to have than not. Properties are not put in out of convenience, they're put it because they are greater-making properties, and a greatest possible being must have all of them to their fullest degree by definition.
@Kiithknight Nothing I'm saying is getting through at all, is it? Why is it necessary for these properties to exist to the "fullest degree"? Does that mean that things like hate, anger, stupidity, exist to the fullest degree? Does that mean then, that there is an 'anti-God?'
Hate, anger, and stupidity are not greater-making properties.
If properties such as life, love, power, wisdom, etc, exist then their fullest degrees would be immortality, omnibenevolence, omnipotence, omniscience, etc. Omnipotence is not a separate property from power, just the fullest degree of it.
X-ray vision is weak, why not all-seeing? Super strength? All-strength is better (omnipotence). Seeing into the future? That's timelessness. All just? XCELLENT-MAN sounds like God to me.
@Kiithknight Are you being deliberately obtuse? Are you just choosing not to see what my points are?
You are defining greater-making properties. You are. You are making the rules. I'm saying, if someone comes along and says, "no, you are wrong - there are not greater-making properties, but lesser-making properties". Or, ANY properties. Properties that are different from what you describe. Then you and he have the same evidence. What are you not understanding about that?
Great-making properties are not arbitrary. For example it is greater to have agency than non-agency in a being because agency allows for things like power, love, wisdom, goodness, etc. They are better to have than to lack. It sounds like you're getting flustered and not thinking clearly here.
@Kiithknight No, I'm thinking clearly, you're just basing your entire argument on the incredibly faulty 'logic' of Plantinga. Simply saying 'it is greater to have agency than non-agency in a being because agency allows for things like power, love, wisdom, goodness, etc' is the equivalent of saying, 'it is convenient to me for it to be true, therefore it is true'. You're just making descriptive statements rather than a logical argument.
@Kiithknight I mean, I'm watching a clip of him, and he literally says "if its really true that its possible that I exist when b (the body) doesn't, from that it just follows I would say as the night and day that b and I are not the same thing".
It's gibberish. Absolute gibberish. The key word at the beginning of his statement is IF, but he just goes ahead and assumes that it is true. It's nonsense. It's the very definition of circular reasoning.
@Kiithknight I'm not denying that properties like wisdom are better to have than not. I am denying that properties like immortality and omniscience exist. I can accept one, and not the other. You're saying "these properties must exist, therefore they must exist in a being" its circular reasoning. You insist on clinging to ridiculous language like "great making properties". WHY must these properties exist?
@Kiithknight You're just making statements now. "they're put because they are greater-making properties" - HOW DO YOU KNOW! For crying out loud. By definition?! YOU are defining it. You are not showing how you know or why its necessary that this thing exists.
I define excellent-making properties as x-ray vision, super strength, the ability to see into the future, a sense of justice and the american way. These must exist, therefore XCELLENT-MAN exists. BY DEFINITION HE MUST EXIST!
@Kiithknight It is not demonstratable that it is possible for immortality or omniscience exists or is necessary.
Honestly, if you do not see how full of holes this argument is, and if you honestly believe "no one has refuted it", then you are living in a bubble.
All of these arguments are a desperate attempt to escape from the fact that ultimately, you have no good reasons to believe this being exists. It's only faith.
@Kiithknight Also, its extremely naive of you not to realize that the very reason the argument is so EASY to refute is also the reason why the user disabled comments.
@Kiithknight Don't you realize the whole argument is based on a game of definitions and circular reasoning? He asserts that if god is possible, therefore god is possible, therefore god exists. Each and every step assumes itself to be true. The premise assumes the conclusion is true. The conclusion assumes the premise is true.
Again it's not circular. Premise 1 is given and all premises flow from that using modal logic. The only way to defeat the argument is to show that maximal greatness is logically impossible, which again is itself an impossible thing to do.
Is this also circular?
1. All men are mortal
2. Socrates is a man
3. Socrates is mortal
The conclusion is built into the premises. This is the definition of a deductive argument.
@Kiithknight If all unicorns are not possible, all properties entail ~unicorns.
Therefore unicorns would entail ~unicorns.
"if MG is not possible, there are no great-making properties (no properties better to have than to lack)" explain every part of this. Where does great, where does making, where does properties come into this. And then where does the being part come in. I have no reason to accept ANY of this.
Begging the question is when the premises assume the conclusion and the premises are only valid if the conclusion is true. The conclusion flowing from the premises naturally is called a deductive argument.
Example: "Everything can be understood by science because science is the only way of knowing."
A->B and A is only valid because of B.
On your definition, all deductive logic would be invalid.
...Well yeah, ALL arguments do. The problem is not if a conclusion assumed the premises, but if the premises assume the conclusion, which this does not.
@Kiithknight He asserts that the universe was once a singularity and that nothing physical could exist there, therefore only god could have existed. He's defining god with whatever properties are convenient to the argument.
He's defining God as a maximally-great being. That is that God possess all qualities it is better to have than to lack to the greatest possible extent. One of those qualities is necessity.
@1GodOnlyOne Craig says that science can't prove mathematics and logic when actually mathematics and logic use very similar methods to science. One plus two equals three. ‘One plus two’ is the method and ‘three’ is the answer derived from that method. The answer ‘three’ does not require your belief. It is a fact whether you believe in it or not. This factual approach is the best and the most reliable method for achieving accuracy. This will always produce the same results.
@1GodOnlyOne As for metaphysical truths. We actually don't know a great deal about the mind and consciousness. We can say that what we know of the mind ends after death and we can say that with a lot of certainty. Craig is assuming that science will not make further discoveries about what exactly is the mind. I am aware of my own mind. I think therefore I am. I am aware of the reality around me. Craig might as well say we cannot trust what we observe which would be unreasonable.
@1GodOnlyOne And even if we go as far as to accept Craig's position that we cannot rely on what we observe in reality, then everything in science should be thrown out the window. And not only that, but the argument does not make one single step towards proving the existence of god. Craig might as well argue that we live in a virtual reality machine and he'd have the exact same proof as he would for arguing the existence of god. Logic and reasonable standards of evidence do not favour Craig.
@1GodOnlyOne Morality and ethics is somewhat subjective. But we can measure it. Absolutely. I have human empathy. I can recognize when other human beings are in pain or when they are suffering. I can recognize suffering as easily as I can recognize that 2 + 2 = 4. In order to recognize happiness and suffering I am making observations just as I would in science.
@1GodOnlyOne Of course aesthetic judgments can be assessed with the scientific method (or at least methods that are similar). Just as music has mathematic qualities, aesthetics have qualities that can be measured, such as symmetry, geometry, etc. It's subjective but it doesn't mean there isn't a science to it.
@KeithTruth Okay I just noticed that you have a link to the full debate. I think Atkins phrases his position very poorly. He says that science is omnipotent? He shouldn't say that. We don't know everything. We can say that everything about our world and the universe that we know SO FAR is natural, with natural explanations for natural phenomena.
@KeithTruth Craig says that science can't prove mathematics and logic when actually mathematics and logic use very similar methods to science. One plus two equals three. ‘One plus two’ is the method and ‘three’ is the answer derived from that method. The answer ‘three’ does not require your belief. It is a fact whether you believe in it or not. This factual approach is the best and the most reliable method for achieving accuracy. This will always produce the same results.
@KeithTruth As for metaphysical truths. We actually don't know a great deal about the mind and consciousness. We can say that we know of the mind ends after death and we can say that with a lot of certainty. Craig is assuming that science will not make further discoveries about what exactly is the mind. I am aware of my own mind. I think therefore I am. I am aware of the reality around me. Craig might as well say we cannot trust what we observe which would be unreasonable.
@KeithTruth And even if we go as far as to accept Craig's position that we cannot rely on what we observe in reality, then everything in science should be thrown out the window. And not only that, but the argument does not make one single step towards proving the existence of god. Craig might as well argue that we live in a virtual reality machine and he'd have the exact same proof as he would for arguing the existence of god. Logic and reasonable standards of evidence do not favour Craig.
@KeithTruth Morality is somewhat subjective. But we can measure it. Absolutely. I have human empathy. I can recognize when other human beings are in pain or when they are suffering. I can recognize suffering as easily as I can recognize that 2 + 2 = 4. In order to recognize happiness and suffering I am making observations just as I would in science.
@KeithTruth Of course aesthetic judgments can be assessed with the scientific method (or at least methods that are similar). Just as music has mathematic qualities, aesthetics have qualities that can be measured, such as symmetry, geometry, etc. It's subjective but it doesn't mean there isn't a science to it.
@Wolfreys44 All of atheist Dogma is nothing but a shot in the dark, meaning just ignorant guesswork with no evidence and no valid arguments. Conversely, Theism is backed by solid scientific evidence.
Simple answer, the argument for a belief in God is now almsot solely reliant on faith, as many have preached, and if we determine from where the faith comes we can demonstrate that it does not come from God, leading us to have no evidence for the existance of God.
Also, Dr. Craig is incorrect, we can scientifically demonstrate that the speed of light is constant and we have done so.
I love how the Dawkins/Hitchens-heads automatically write Dr. Craig off as "just another illogical religious fanatic desperately clinging to the false belief that God exists." I mean, have you really listened to Dr. Craig? He is extremely intelligent, and organizes very grounded, logical, thought provolking arguments. He is clear-headed, believes in Science, but shows us philosophical examples of how believing in God is not as silly or stupid as Dawkins or Hitchens will lead you to believe
@tomaselvis Satoshi Kanazawa is an idiot. By incorporating this nincompoop in your arguments you are incorporating error and thus enforcing yourself as an benefactor of scientific hegemony--or in other words, guilty through association.
It's an amazing leap to go from the unprovable existence of a entity that created everything outside of our Universe to Christianity. All these debates annoy me because they sit well in favour of Craig because it comes back to 'you can't prove that this doesn't occur'. In all the vids I watched, I never see them take apart Christianity because it doesn't fit within the debate topic.
The notion of Jesus and every aspect of the OT is repulsive. It's the easiest part of debating a theist.
@Parabol0086 I feel exactly like you, when I see Christians or Muslims engaging in philosophical and existentialist debates or the existence of a creator of the universe, as if this would somehow validate tales written thousands of years ago by ignorant desert dwelling shepherds and corrupt power-hungry clergy men.
@fkaah Wow! Never heard so much crap in my life. Seriously, a religion that thinks the creator of 100 billion galaxies asks men to grow beards and women to cover their bodies with black drapes, is beyond ridiculous.
@MrAlejux " the creator of 100 billion galaxies asks men to grow beards"
6. Verily, in the alternation of the night and the day, and in all that Allah hath created, in the heavens and the earth, are signs for those who fear Him.
7. Those who rest not their hope on their meeting with Us, but are pleased and satisfied with the life of the present, and those who heed not Our Signs,-
8. Their abode is the Fire, because of the (evil) they earned.
You still don't get it and you never will because you're brainwashed. If you think this is the most impressive video Islam has to offer, don't waste my time anymore. Believe in a pedophillic charlatan if you like, but what he says is weak and stolen mostly from the OT.
Slaughter a cow and use it's blood to find a murderer and I might consider your position stronger, but I will never worship a being like Allah.
What is the purpose of you linking me to a video without you explaining why? I am then to assume that you think that the video you sent was impressive enough to convert me or open my eyes to Islam. Continuing on from that point, why send the link if your intention isn't to have me worshipping the mythical being, allah.
Do you think atheists just think every claim a scientist makes is fact? When new radical claims are made we are extremely skeptical until there is enough evidence.
@Parabol0086 "I am then to assume that you think that the video you sent was impressive enough to convert me or open my eyes to Islam" No I don't think this video will impress you and I didn't upload the video to impress anyone. if you just read the description I already said it.
I don't want to convert you and I don't want to open your eyes.
@Parabol0086 "I am then to assume that you think that the video you sent was impressive enough to convert me or open my eyes to Islam" No I don't think this video will impress you and I didn't upload the video to impress anyone. if you just read the description I already said it.
I don't want to convert you and I don't want to open your eyes.
@Parabol0086 "I am then to assume that you think that the video you sent was impressive enough to convert me or open my eyes to Islam" No I don't think this video will impress you and I didn't upload the video to impress anyone. if you just read the description I already said it.
I don't want to convert you and I don't want to open your eyes.
@Parabol0086 "I am then to assume that you think that the video you sent was impressive enough to convert me or open my eyes to Islam" No I don't think this video will impress you and I didn't upload the video to impress anyone. if you just read the description I already said it.
I don't want to convert you and I don't want to open your eyes.
To claim Scientist brainwash like the religious is absurd. We are free to look at all the information on the matter, make our own judgement whether we agree, and no one is shoving it down our throats. Religion, especially Islam with it's censorship in a lot of countries does the exact opposite. Most the women of Islam aren't even allowed to learn the alternatives.
You have one book, we have thousands. Your's hasn't (can't) been proven, our's is constantly being tested.
@Parabol0086 Incorrect. The Bible is constantly being tested. Archaeological evidence is constantly being uncovered and examined to see if Historical assertions in the Bible are accurate. Texts outside of the Bible, written by unbiased men, and even men who hated Judeo-Chrsitian culture, corroborate the Bible in its historicity. The issue is do you believe what Jesus claimed. For as sure as we are typing He claimed deity. Thats a fact. The question is, "Was He telling the truth." I believe yes.
Though, I was talking about the Qu'ran, there are many things within the bible that I are in the same position. Many failed prophecies that you can search including the city that would never again prosper and yet it stands today. You can easily interpret Jesus' acclaimed return to occur within the lifetime of his followers. Then all the OT that geology has disproven. If you are one that believes in Noah's Ark then there's a lot you don't know about Geo and Bio, and their subcat.
The point I initially made was how ridiculous the notion of Jesus and Judeo-Christian religions are. I am to believe that a PERFECT (sorry for the caps, just emphas.), all knowing god can fuck up so many times and then the only was to fix his mistakes is to send himself down to die for our imperfections (irony).
And worst of all we are to love and worship this thing we can't see while fearing him. Hitchens said it best when he called it a sadomasochistic relationship.
If you want me to elaborate on failed prophecies, why I think god is clearly imperfect and why I think the notion of Jesus is disgusting, it's probably best I do so in a PM. But I really don't want to argue for too long, it's pretty boring. My first post was: Craig has the advantage of arguing for any type of god, as the topics are usually 'evidence for/against god'. It isn't until some description is given of what god is that an atheist can even enter the debate.
The response to that incorrect logic is not shown in this video upload. Hmmmm........if I recall Craig's arguements were then destroyed one by one brilliantly by Atkins. Why don't you show the entire video?
Holy Crap, he destroyed this guy so badly!!!! That is why dawkins won't come anywhere near him any longer. He knows He will get an intellectual ass whoopin. Screw believing in God. Craig is so much higher than him on an intellectual level that dawkins won't know what happened to him. LOL
@MrSelidor7 I agree. I think the discussion was simply on the assumption that science can account for anything. WLC just gave several reasons to suggest otherwise. I think it's more to do with Epistemology, rather than the existence of God, although it can affect our views on how we approach the question of God's existence.
@MrJdom24. "If science can't answer something, where is the answer to that question?"
Patience, young one. We can't learn everything at once but thankfully we have shaken off the chains of ignorance that religion had imposed on us for thousands of years and we are getting answers all the time. We no longer believe that the world is flat for example or that the Sun orbits the Earth.
@heroslyfe. We prove things that DO or ARE. You cannot prove something that isn't.
Like Dawkins says, you can't prove there isn't an invisible spaghetti monster. You can't prove that Winnie the Pooh isn't the saviour of mankind, you can't prove that something undetectable does not exist.
There is no proof at all there is a god so why should we believe?
2. The metaphysical (Are we all real? Am I really a butterfly have a dream about being human.) Of COURSE science can't disprove that nonsense. There is nothing wrong with assuming that we are real. The opposite is unthinkable
3. I agree. Science is not ethics.
4. Yes, you can't use science to appraise beauty
5. Science is getting there, we are learning all the time and sometimes we make assumptions to get a little further until we know the absolute
@BronyEditor. Of course but the key word there is RATIONAL. I don't think that genies, magic and imaginary friends comes under the category of rational.
@bmxtra211 And let me ask you, how much do you or I actually know? Let's say you knew 5% of the knowledge of the world (very generous actually). Then you would agree that there is 95% you don't know right? Would you then, by logic agree that GOD could exist in that 95%?
Atheists just have had no direct experience of the Divine. Once you've had a few experiences of Heavenly grace or healing, the Creator of the universe is a lot easier to understand.
I really don't get the point of kronal1234. The speed of light is the same independently of the speed of the reference system. And that is not the issue. The main issue is William Lane makes false arguments in order to express his ideas. The speed of light is a constant and it is a fact not an assumption period.
First and foremost we need to rid the world of Islam. All atheist and Christians and relatively peaceful religions should unite to get rid of this radical fundementist and violent religion of islam. It troubles me how 80 percent of Muslims think evolution is false. I would rather have rational religious ppl than fundies like muslims. Unite and eradicate Islam!
The main point that William Lane is saying that science is permeated with unprovable assumptions like the speed of light is constant, that is a fallacy there is a lot of experiments that confirm that the speed of light is constant. Am I wrong? If your starting point is a false argument the conclusion should be false too.
We have not been able to test if the speed of light is constant yet, at least not in this way that i am going to explain.
The hole relatativity theory says that there is no speed that can go higher than the speed of light. If you drive in a boat that goes in 4km/h and a speed boat drives past you with the speed of 20km/h, then the speed boats speed is relative for you.
you can say that it drives 16km/h since you are standing still in the boat.
Dr Lane makes a false argument when he said that the constant speed of light is a fact that cannot be proved. Albert Michelson and Edward Morley discovered that in 1880 and this fact has been verified since then in many experiments. Albert Einstein took that fact to build the special theory of relativity. I don't understand in which way Dr Peter Atkins was humilliated.
@the7mad9cap7laughs Greetings. I need to clarify this issue. Is it true that the constant speed of light is a fact or is an assumption? Because William Lane is saying that is an assumption and it isn't a proven fact. I want to know if I am wrong or not. Thanks!
@ramitube21 It's an assumption, but it's also been shown to be wrong to say the speed of light is a constant because like I said below we've been able to speed light up past the 'maximum speed of light' and we've also been able to slow it down to extremely slow speeds.. like practically holding photons still.
So no it's not a fact, yes it's an assumption and an incorrect one.
@the7mad9cap7laughs when you say "we" what do you mean? I really don't know if you are a physicist and what is your work. But I know that the michelson and morley experiment made in 1887 has no failures. Please explain your arguments?
@ramitube21 actually from the experiment all they found was that all measurement for speed of light seemed to be constant. this in itself has yet to be proven, from a logical perspective (that is has to be so). and what einstein said was, "suppose that is necessarily so," and then went on to show implications of this, which experiments seem to support. atleast this is what i gathered from physics, they actually start out saying, "suppose it is constant".
Okay, I know most Atheist are going to be stubborn an arrogant and disagree and dislike this but he is right. I am not a stubborn Atheist. Crag is right. We can only prove things through science if we already take into account that previous think are already correct. For example, one plus one is two. We assume it, but how do we really know one is equal to one? Sorry all you stubborn Atheist but he has a point here.
@TommyTacoz but science isn't the "only way to go". The scientific method is part of a greater philosophy. To answer your question of how we know that 1=1, we must look at metaphysics. aristotle argued for 3 axioms (existence, conciousness and identity). The law of identity is that things are always equal to themselves. It's an axiom. The scientific method is just a part of epistemology, it's not ment to answer all questions.
@VanessaTexasGal I know, you basically supported what I said? We have to assume that one is already 1 when we do equations. There is no transcendent evidence that one equals one. We simply make up the number and it's value and make up other numbers and their set of values. You are agreeing with me.
@TommyTacoz Sorry, I think I misunderstood you a little. I thought you were arguing against the axiom that things are equal to themselves. Yes, we did make up the number one, as a label we put on a certain quantity. I don't really see what the problem is though. If you want to give the number one a different value you can, it's just that others will not agree with you. numbers are not things that need proof. But I guess I agree. The value of numbers is what we as people agree upon
DR. CRAIG MOLESTED ME IN PRESCHOOL :'(
believeincasperd 7 hours ago
This is Dr. Craig at his best -- he TROUNCED that silly little man, hands down.
It's like watching a hamster getting crushed by a ton of bricks.
atheist total fail
1GodOnlyOne 13 hours ago
@1GodOnlyOne I'll defeat Craig for you here and now. First, Atkins phrases his position very poorly. He says that science is omnipotent? He shouldn't say that. We don't know everything. We can say that everything about our world and the universe that we know SO FAR is natural, with natural explanations for natural phenomena.
kainedamo 10 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kainedamo
"We can say that everything about our world and the universe that we know SO FAR is natural, with natural explanations for natural phenomena."
That very much depends on your definition of natural. If by natural you mean the empirical, you're dead wrong. Abstract objects, the laws of nature, ideas like truth, etc are all non-physical. If by natural you mean we only observe what is in our universe... well that's kind of redundant and doesn't exclude the supernatural from existing.
Kiithknight 9 hours ago
@Kiithknight 'The laws of nature' are what we use to explain natural phenomena - which ARE natural. What abstract objects are you referring to? I'm talking about natural phenomena here. We can explain how planets orbit stars due to the natural force of gravity, atoms come together to form molecules due to the natural occurance of covalent bonds, etc etc etc. All of the laws, forces, and mechanisms occur naturally and not supernaturally. We can remove god from the equation.
kainedamo 9 hours ago
@kainedamo
I never said the laws of nature are not natural. I said they're not empirical, that is they cannot be measured with the five senses. The effects of the laws can be observed, but the laws themselves are inaccessible to our senses. You're not seeming to understand the difference between the empirical, natural, abstract, and supernatural.
Kiithknight 9 hours ago
@Kiithknight Have I not given you several examples in which they are observable? Atoms, the relationships between planets and the stars through the force of gravity? This concept that these laws are inaccessible seems to be a type of creationist argument that is not founded on fact. Maybe we're misunderstanding each other but it seems that you're trying to insert a 'middle man' (the supernatural or the abstract) into equations in which we already know they don't belong.
kainedamo 9 hours ago
@kainedamo
There is a misunderstanding here. I'm saying the laws are natural, but they're also abstract (non-physical). The laws themselves are abstract, though their effects are physical.
Another example of an abstract object is a number. Though it's different because numbers are necessary, unlike laws. Still the number itself is an abstract object.
We understand through our senses, but how do we know our senses give us true information? We need to appeal to logic, not science.
Kiithknight 8 hours ago
@Kiithknight As I've explained previously on this comments page, logic and science use similar methods.
kainedamo 8 hours ago
@kainedamo
No they don't. Science uses logic as its basis (fleshed out in mathematics). Science presupposes logic. Logic is based on three axioms - law of identity, law of non-contradiction, and law of excluded middle.
Kiithknight 8 hours ago
@Kiithknight We observe and understand gravity. We observe and understand the gradation of species. We understand natural phenomena through empirical means. We do understand them using our senses. I'm failing to see where or why you're getting the supernatural from. Or why you think we can't observe natural laws when we clearly can.
kainedamo 8 hours ago
@kainedamo
But let me ask how you think that the universe came into existence through natural phenomena. If your answer is anything but "that question is illogical", it would behoove you to do some study in philosophy.
Kiithknight 9 hours ago
@Kiithknight I don't know. Relatively very little is known about the origins of time, space, and matter, as well as how the first life arose. But instead of simply accepting that we do not have all the facts to make a truly informed conclusion about these subjects, monotheists choose to default to the same old supernatural explanations of the unknown. 'God did it'. Like when we did not know what lightning was, we made up Thor the lightning god.
kainedamo 9 hours ago
@kainedamo
That tells me you've never actually studied any theist arguments. We can never know about the origins of the universe through science because science can't measure anything before the natural world. No one is saying "God did it" because we don't know, we're saying "God did it because..." and then proceed to give many philosophical arguments. We REASONED our way there.
Also check this out for one of the most solid out there: watch?v=vGVYXog8NUg
Kiithknight 9 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Kiithknight "We can never know about the origins of the universe through science because science can't measure anything before the natural world" - that is profoundly ignorant of the scientific method. It is like saying a detective cannot solve a crime if the crime took place before his investigation began. Detectives and scientists both use deduction. The big bang theory is backed up with observable evidence, such as the expansion of the universe, cosmic background radiation, etc.
kainedamo 9 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Kiithknight It doesn't matter that the big bang took place billions of years before our existence. A theory is a scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.
kainedamo 9 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Kiithknight When you say 'We can never know about the origins of the universe through science because science can't measure anything before the natural world' you are making a number of assumptions. You are assuming there was a time in which the universe was not natural. You are assuming that there are limits to the progression of our knowledge in regards to the origin of the universe. You have no reasonable reason to assume either of these is true.
kainedamo 9 hours ago
@Kiithknight I paused the video you linked to to say one thing - I am very mistrustful of videos that disable comments. It is my experience that people who upload such videos have little interest in their view being challenged.
kainedamo 9 hours ago
@kainedamo
I understand, but he had to disable comments because of so many people being extremely rude. There are other videos on that argument allowing comments; I just linked you to that one because he gives a good, basic introduction to it.
Kiithknight 9 hours ago
@Kiithknight You realize that this ontological argument is complete nonsense, right? The conclusion assumed the premise is true. There are several leaps in logic. I have it paused at 4:12. I do not accept premise 1. Premise 2 fails - just because something is possible doesn't mean it exists. I understand that this is a 'metaphysical' argument, but it is refuted by many philosophers and it is just a simple question of logic. Premise 3 makes a giant assumption.
kainedamo 8 hours ago
@kainedamo
The conclusion doesn't assume the premises are true. The nature of a deductive argument is that the conclusion is implicit in the premises. The conclusion just states it explicitly. Everything after premise 1 follows S5 modal logic, so you can only disagree with premise 1. Remember MG involves being necessary. If a necessary being is possible, it follows it exists.
The problem is that it is logically impossible for premise 1 to be false.
Review 6:45 in that video.
Kiithknight 8 hours ago
@Kiithknight Premise 1. It is possible that a unicorn exists.
Premise 2. If it is possible that a unicorn exists, then a unicorn exists in some possible world.
Premise 3. If a unicorn exists in some possible world, then a unicorn exists in all possible worlds.
Premise 4. If a unicorn exists in all possible worlds, then a unicorn exists in the actual world.
Premise 5. If a unicorn exists in the actual world, then a unicorn exists.
Conclusion: A unicorn exists.
kainedamo 8 hours ago
@kainedamo
Unicorns are not maximally great beings, nor are they even necessary beings, so your parody falls flat.
Kiithknight 8 hours ago
@Kiithknight My parody does not fall flat.
You can go back through his entire argument and reconcstruct whatever definitions you want into the argument in order to make the argument that anything you can imagine exists.
If you don't understand that the argument is playing with definitions, you don't understand the argument as well as you think you do. Why should I accept that a 'maximally great being' exists?
kainedamo 8 hours ago
@kainedamo
Then what you're defining as "unicorn" is God. It's a maximally-great being which is therefore necessary. You can call a MG being whatever you want, but it's just going to be a relabeling of God. You're doing what Wolpert is doing here: watch?v=IAAHHP06iuY
Kiithknight 8 hours ago
@Kiithknight But the argument does not prove 'maximally great properties', it does not prove a being, it does not prove that these things are necessary. The argument is ENTIRELY about the wording.
kainedamo 8 hours ago
@Kiithknight I've seen that clip before too. Craig says, "whatever begins to exist must have a cause", and this is again playing with words. It's a way of saying "god exists because god did not begin to exist". There is no reason to accept the "whatever begins" argument. Craig demonstrated that he takes all the conditions and "wraps" his version of god around it. In an other words, Craig asserts his god.
kainedamo 7 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Kiithknight There's nothing that logically follows about the idea of the Universe being timeless therefore God. The other man's point, is that with Craig's type of reasoning you could put ANYTHING in place of God as an explanation and it wouldn't make a bit of difference. Craig then attributes the mythical computer to his god, by default admitting that's mythical too. Craig is compelled to twist into "god", because thats the conclusion he wants to reach.
kainedamo 7 hours ago
@Kiithknight Not that its a conclusion the argument points to. Craig was destroyed in that clip through sarcasm. And if you read between the lines you'd see the other guy is making fun of Craig's nonsensical definitions and assumptions in the first place.
kainedamo 7 hours ago
@kainedamo
You can't destroy anything through sarcasm, it's a red herring (which is a fallacy). The other guy can ad hominem all he wants, but that doesn't take away from the fact that if you strip the meaning of a word, you can use it for anything.
By placing "unicorn" in the OA, you're stripping the horned, horse-like, physical nature of the idea of a unicorn and defining it as a necessary, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, personal being. That's fine, you're just renaming God.
Kiithknight 7 hours ago
@Kiithknight If you think all it was was an ad hominem then you missed the point.
You're still missing the point - Craig places the attributes that he wants that fits his vision of his mythical being. Omnipotent, omniscient, necessary, etc. He can't prove any of it, he can't argue any of it logically. But he claims it exists.
kainedamo 7 hours ago
@Kiithknight A person can claim that there is a unicorn (not god, but something either physical or mythical or both, containing all or none or different properties from what Craig describes) and both Craig and this person would have the exact same proof.
kainedamo 7 hours ago
@Kiithknight So that isn't renaming god. It's simply putting out an argument that accepts that god is mythical and there is just as much proof of his existence as there is Thor, unicorns, and Spider-Man.
kainedamo 7 hours ago
@kainedamo
In order to put Thor, unicorns, and Spider-Man in the place of God, you have to rip out all the attributes that make them what they are and replace them will all maximally-great greater-making properties. I don't understand how you're not seeing this. You're hollowing out the word and filling it with other attributes, thus renaming it as God.
It has not been refuted since it was put forth in the 1970s. Not once. People have misunderstood it, but no one has disproved it.
Kiithknight 7 hours ago
@Kiithknight "ou have to rip out all the attributes that make them what they are and replace them will all maximally-great greater-making properties"
Why? If you can't demonstrate how you know these properties (such as immortality) exist, or why they exist, why they are necessary, how you know these things, then why? Why should I change the attributes of one mythical being for another?
"This has not been refuted" - you are wrong. It is easily refuted. You are seriously beyond delusional.
kainedamo 6 hours ago
@kainedamo
These are all just the highest degrees of things you agree exist, life, love, power, wisdom, etc. You admit they exist, and it's evident they exist.
Name one person who has written a scholarly refutation of the argument who doesn't completely misunderstand it. I haven't seen it. Most people who try and refute it don't understand modal logic.
Kiithknight 6 hours ago
@Kiithknight The ontological argument has been destroyed for years by serious scholars and philosophers and the user's argument that you sent me is just a different version of an old argument. Something more recent, Arguments from Perfection (2011) by Ryan Stringer, talks about it. A more in-dept history of the argument is covered in Ontological Arguments by Graham Oppy in which you can see the argument has had many critiques, pointing out flaws I have also pointed out.
kainedamo 6 hours ago
@kainedamo
Anselm's version of the argument was defeated, sure. Anselm made a mistake in assuming existence was a property. I'll have to go read Stringer's new work as I haven't yet. I'll get back to you on that.
Oppy has never refuted Plantiga's version of the OA, only previous attempts (like Anselm). You haven't shown any problems with the argument, so far you've misunderstood it and baselessly stated it's nonsense. Sorry but that doesn't fly.
Kiithknight 6 hours ago
@kainedamo
I should say something to help clarify. Oppy has -attempted- to refute Plantinga's argument, but has not been successful.
Kiithknight 6 hours ago
@kainedamo
I read through Stringer's paper, and it has nothing to do with the Ontological Argument. He attacked some arguments from perfection, but that's not what the OA is. The OA is an argument from necessity using modal logic. He touches cosmology in another paper, but as far as I can see never touches ontology. :/
Kiithknight 5 hours ago
@kainedamo Graham Oppy also wrote Modal Theistic Arguments (1993) which directly addresses the argument that God is a being that exists on every possible world.
kainedamo 6 hours ago
@kainedamo
You really don't seem to understand the difference between necessary, contingent, and possible. You also really don't seem to understand the basics of modal logic. Please go do some study on the matter.
As I said it is impossible for a non-maximally great being to exist because that would mean there are no great-making properties. This isn't an argument most people get at first, so study it. Also no one has been able to refute Plantinga's version (the one in the video I gave you).
Kiithknight 8 hours ago
@Kiithknight
necessary, contingent, and impossible*
Kiithknight 8 hours ago
@Kiithknight No, man, seriously - I completely understand this argument. It is not the first time I have encountered it. YOU do not understand what I am saying. This term 'great-making properties' is just a made up definition. He is defining whatever he wants it to be, and then he is saying that it exists through circular reasoning. You are displaying some serious cognitive dissonance. How and why are there 'great making properties', whatever those are supposed to be? It's not explained.
kainedamo 8 hours ago
@kainedamo
Great-making properties are defined as those properties it is better to have than to lack. That's a very clear and precise definition. If you deny premise 1, you are implicitly denying that there are no properties it is better to have than to lack. Examples of GMP are love, power, intelligence, wisdom, etc.
It is much more plausible that MGPs exist than the negation. Putting a unicorn in shows you don't understand it. Again please study it. No one has refuted it.
Kiithknight 7 hours ago
@Kiithknight Yes, that's how the video explained it too. Why call it 'great making properties'? Why not just call it 'basic positive ethics', that each and every human being has? The wording makes it sound better when attributed to god. The argument also conveniently throws in other attributes such as immortality, omniscient, etc. When does the mythical being who has these properties come into the equation? By denying the first premise, all I am denying is that this being exists.
kainedamo 7 hours ago
@kainedamo
Because power, wisdom, etc, are not ethical in nature? And no human has great-making properties to their fullest degree.
You're not just denying the being exists, you're deny all great-making properties are better to have than not. Properties are not put in out of convenience, they're put it because they are greater-making properties, and a greatest possible being must have all of them to their fullest degree by definition.
Kiithknight 7 hours ago
@Kiithknight Nothing I'm saying is getting through at all, is it? Why is it necessary for these properties to exist to the "fullest degree"? Does that mean that things like hate, anger, stupidity, exist to the fullest degree? Does that mean then, that there is an 'anti-God?'
kainedamo 7 hours ago
@kainedamo
Hate, anger, and stupidity are not greater-making properties.
If properties such as life, love, power, wisdom, etc, exist then their fullest degrees would be immortality, omnibenevolence, omnipotence, omniscience, etc. Omnipotence is not a separate property from power, just the fullest degree of it.
X-ray vision is weak, why not all-seeing? Super strength? All-strength is better (omnipotence). Seeing into the future? That's timelessness. All just? XCELLENT-MAN sounds like God to me.
Kiithknight 6 hours ago
@Kiithknight Are you being deliberately obtuse? Are you just choosing not to see what my points are?
You are defining greater-making properties. You are. You are making the rules. I'm saying, if someone comes along and says, "no, you are wrong - there are not greater-making properties, but lesser-making properties". Or, ANY properties. Properties that are different from what you describe. Then you and he have the same evidence. What are you not understanding about that?
kainedamo 6 hours ago
@kainedamo
Great-making properties are not arbitrary. For example it is greater to have agency than non-agency in a being because agency allows for things like power, love, wisdom, goodness, etc. They are better to have than to lack. It sounds like you're getting flustered and not thinking clearly here.
Kiithknight 6 hours ago
@Kiithknight No, I'm thinking clearly, you're just basing your entire argument on the incredibly faulty 'logic' of Plantinga. Simply saying 'it is greater to have agency than non-agency in a being because agency allows for things like power, love, wisdom, goodness, etc' is the equivalent of saying, 'it is convenient to me for it to be true, therefore it is true'. You're just making descriptive statements rather than a logical argument.
kainedamo 4 hours ago
@Kiithknight I mean, I'm watching a clip of him, and he literally says "if its really true that its possible that I exist when b (the body) doesn't, from that it just follows I would say as the night and day that b and I are not the same thing".
It's gibberish. Absolute gibberish. The key word at the beginning of his statement is IF, but he just goes ahead and assumes that it is true. It's nonsense. It's the very definition of circular reasoning.
kainedamo 4 hours ago
@Kiithknight I'm not denying that properties like wisdom are better to have than not. I am denying that properties like immortality and omniscience exist. I can accept one, and not the other. You're saying "these properties must exist, therefore they must exist in a being" its circular reasoning. You insist on clinging to ridiculous language like "great making properties". WHY must these properties exist?
kainedamo 7 hours ago
@Kiithknight You're just making statements now. "they're put because they are greater-making properties" - HOW DO YOU KNOW! For crying out loud. By definition?! YOU are defining it. You are not showing how you know or why its necessary that this thing exists.
I define excellent-making properties as x-ray vision, super strength, the ability to see into the future, a sense of justice and the american way. These must exist, therefore XCELLENT-MAN exists. BY DEFINITION HE MUST EXIST!
kainedamo 7 hours ago
@Kiithknight It is not demonstratable that it is possible for immortality or omniscience exists or is necessary.
Honestly, if you do not see how full of holes this argument is, and if you honestly believe "no one has refuted it", then you are living in a bubble.
All of these arguments are a desperate attempt to escape from the fact that ultimately, you have no good reasons to believe this being exists. It's only faith.
kainedamo 7 hours ago
@Kiithknight Also, its extremely naive of you not to realize that the very reason the argument is so EASY to refute is also the reason why the user disabled comments.
kainedamo 7 hours ago
@Kiithknight Don't you realize the whole argument is based on a game of definitions and circular reasoning? He asserts that if god is possible, therefore god is possible, therefore god exists. Each and every step assumes itself to be true. The premise assumes the conclusion is true. The conclusion assumes the premise is true.
kainedamo 8 hours ago
@kainedamo
Again it's not circular. Premise 1 is given and all premises flow from that using modal logic. The only way to defeat the argument is to show that maximal greatness is logically impossible, which again is itself an impossible thing to do.
Is this also circular?
1. All men are mortal
2. Socrates is a man
3. Socrates is mortal
The conclusion is built into the premises. This is the definition of a deductive argument.
Kiithknight 8 hours ago
@Kiithknight There isn't any reason to even accept the first premise of his argument. Your example fails, because we can show that men are mortal.
kainedamo 8 hours ago
@kainedamo
The first premise must be accepted.
If MG is not possible, all properties entail ~MG
Therefore MG would entail ~MG
In other words, if MG is not possible, there are no great-making properties (no properties better to have than to lack). That's absurd.
Kiithknight 8 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Kiithknight If all unicorns are not possible, all properties entail ~unicorns.
Therefore unicorns would entail ~unicorns.
"if MG is not possible, there are no great-making properties (no properties better to have than to lack)" explain every part of this. Where does great, where does making, where does properties come into this. And then where does the being part come in. I have no reason to accept ANY of this.
kainedamo 8 hours ago
@Kiithknight "The conclusion is built into the premises. This is the definition of a deductive argument."
Actually, that’s (literally) the definition of “begging the question” (petitio principii) – a logical fallacy.
kainedamo 2 hours ago
@kainedamo
Begging the question is when the premises assume the conclusion and the premises are only valid if the conclusion is true. The conclusion flowing from the premises naturally is called a deductive argument.
Example: "Everything can be understood by science because science is the only way of knowing."
A->B and A is only valid because of B.
On your definition, all deductive logic would be invalid.
Kiithknight 1 hour ago
@kainedamo
"The conclusion assumes the premise is true."
...Well yeah, ALL arguments do. The problem is not if a conclusion assumed the premises, but if the premises assume the conclusion, which this does not.
Kiithknight 8 hours ago
@Kiithknight It does. It's entirely circular.
kainedamo 8 hours ago
@Kiithknight He asserts that the universe was once a singularity and that nothing physical could exist there, therefore only god could have existed. He's defining god with whatever properties are convenient to the argument.
kainedamo 8 hours ago
@kainedamo
He's defining God as a maximally-great being. That is that God possess all qualities it is better to have than to lack to the greatest possible extent. One of those qualities is necessity.
Kiithknight 8 hours ago
@Kiithknight Watch the video 'Newton, Einstein, Naturalism, and Walking Fish'.
kainedamo 9 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1GodOnlyOne Craig says that science can't prove mathematics and logic when actually mathematics and logic use very similar methods to science. One plus two equals three. ‘One plus two’ is the method and ‘three’ is the answer derived from that method. The answer ‘three’ does not require your belief. It is a fact whether you believe in it or not. This factual approach is the best and the most reliable method for achieving accuracy. This will always produce the same results.
kainedamo 10 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1GodOnlyOne As for metaphysical truths. We actually don't know a great deal about the mind and consciousness. We can say that what we know of the mind ends after death and we can say that with a lot of certainty. Craig is assuming that science will not make further discoveries about what exactly is the mind. I am aware of my own mind. I think therefore I am. I am aware of the reality around me. Craig might as well say we cannot trust what we observe which would be unreasonable.
kainedamo 10 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1GodOnlyOne And even if we go as far as to accept Craig's position that we cannot rely on what we observe in reality, then everything in science should be thrown out the window. And not only that, but the argument does not make one single step towards proving the existence of god. Craig might as well argue that we live in a virtual reality machine and he'd have the exact same proof as he would for arguing the existence of god. Logic and reasonable standards of evidence do not favour Craig.
kainedamo 10 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1GodOnlyOne We can prove that the world is older than 5 minutes through radiometric dating tests.
kainedamo 10 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1GodOnlyOne Morality and ethics is somewhat subjective. But we can measure it. Absolutely. I have human empathy. I can recognize when other human beings are in pain or when they are suffering. I can recognize suffering as easily as I can recognize that 2 + 2 = 4. In order to recognize happiness and suffering I am making observations just as I would in science.
kainedamo 10 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1GodOnlyOne Of course aesthetic judgments can be assessed with the scientific method (or at least methods that are similar). Just as music has mathematic qualities, aesthetics have qualities that can be measured, such as symmetry, geometry, etc. It's subjective but it doesn't mean there isn't a science to it.
kainedamo 10 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1GodOnlyOne Scientists HAVE proven that the speed of light is a constant. Craig is ignorant on that point.
kainedamo 10 hours ago
He used the classic Escher painting as an example. Love it.
"There must be gods for we are despised." - Diogenes of Sinope
wasuretta 18 hours ago
pretty arrogant choice of a title there. i'm gonna take a shot in the dark and guess you're a christian?
Wolfreys44 21 hours ago
@Wolfreys44 It is a factual title.Look at all the comments saying "I am an atheist and I agree atkins got destroyed"
KeithTruth 19 hours ago
@KeithTruth But the response is edited out.
kainedamo 11 hours ago
@KeithTruth Okay I just noticed that you have a link to the full debate. I think Atkins phrases his position very poorly. He says that science is omnipotent? He shouldn't say that. We don't know everything. We can say that everything about our world and the universe that we know SO FAR is natural, with natural explanations for natural phenomena.
kainedamo 10 hours ago
@KeithTruth Craig says that science can't prove mathematics and logic when actually mathematics and logic use very similar methods to science. One plus two equals three. ‘One plus two’ is the method and ‘three’ is the answer derived from that method. The answer ‘three’ does not require your belief. It is a fact whether you believe in it or not. This factual approach is the best and the most reliable method for achieving accuracy. This will always produce the same results.
kainedamo 10 hours ago
@KeithTruth As for metaphysical truths. We actually don't know a great deal about the mind and consciousness. We can say that we know of the mind ends after death and we can say that with a lot of certainty. Craig is assuming that science will not make further discoveries about what exactly is the mind. I am aware of my own mind. I think therefore I am. I am aware of the reality around me. Craig might as well say we cannot trust what we observe which would be unreasonable.
kainedamo 10 hours ago
@KeithTruth And even if we go as far as to accept Craig's position that we cannot rely on what we observe in reality, then everything in science should be thrown out the window. And not only that, but the argument does not make one single step towards proving the existence of god. Craig might as well argue that we live in a virtual reality machine and he'd have the exact same proof as he would for arguing the existence of god. Logic and reasonable standards of evidence do not favour Craig.
kainedamo 10 hours ago
@KeithTruth We can prove that the world is older than 5 minutes through radiometric dating tests.
kainedamo 10 hours ago
@KeithTruth Morality is somewhat subjective. But we can measure it. Absolutely. I have human empathy. I can recognize when other human beings are in pain or when they are suffering. I can recognize suffering as easily as I can recognize that 2 + 2 = 4. In order to recognize happiness and suffering I am making observations just as I would in science.
kainedamo 10 hours ago
@KeithTruth Of course aesthetic judgments can be assessed with the scientific method (or at least methods that are similar). Just as music has mathematic qualities, aesthetics have qualities that can be measured, such as symmetry, geometry, etc. It's subjective but it doesn't mean there isn't a science to it.
kainedamo 10 hours ago
@KeithTruth Scientists HAVE proven that the speed of light is a constant. Craig is ignorant on that point.
kainedamo 10 hours ago
@KeithTruth to determine whether or not he got "destroyed", you would need to have the whole debate up. nice try though
Wolfreys44 9 hours ago
@Wolfreys44 All of atheist Dogma is nothing but a shot in the dark, meaning just ignorant guesswork with no evidence and no valid arguments. Conversely, Theism is backed by solid scientific evidence.
1GodOnlyOne 13 hours ago
Simple answer, the argument for a belief in God is now almsot solely reliant on faith, as many have preached, and if we determine from where the faith comes we can demonstrate that it does not come from God, leading us to have no evidence for the existance of God.
Also, Dr. Craig is incorrect, we can scientifically demonstrate that the speed of light is constant and we have done so.
TheAtheologian 23 hours ago
"I want that Beeeaaarrrddd!" Charleston Heston
jswfilm 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I love how the Dawkins/Hitchens-heads automatically write Dr. Craig off as "just another illogical religious fanatic desperately clinging to the false belief that God exists." I mean, have you really listened to Dr. Craig? He is extremely intelligent, and organizes very grounded, logical, thought provolking arguments. He is clear-headed, believes in Science, but shows us philosophical examples of how believing in God is not as silly or stupid as Dawkins or Hitchens will lead you to believe
983215ljhlkadbspig6y 2 days ago
@983215ljhlkadbspig6y
And then he points to the christian god.
Surprise surprise!
tomaselvis 1 day ago
Comment removed
983215ljhlkadbspig6y 2 days ago
Science can't "prove" anything by definition. So Graig fails utterly.
But anything can be examined by the scientific method.
Or as Satoshi Kanazawa said:
"Anyone who uses the words “proof,” “prove” and “proven” in their discussion of science is not a real scientist."
tomaselvis 2 days ago
@tomaselvis Satoshi Kanazawa is an idiot. By incorporating this nincompoop in your arguments you are incorporating error and thus enforcing yourself as an benefactor of scientific hegemony--or in other words, guilty through association.
JMorde999 1 day ago
@JMorde999
So if Stalin said 1+1=2 then it's wrong?
The statement is true regardless of who said it.
tomaselvis 1 day ago
@tomaselvis But there is no denying the power of association...
JMorde999 1 day ago
The up loader wouldn't be bias eh? And context incomplete. About the only humiliation is the up loader.
stevjen1 2 days ago
It's an amazing leap to go from the unprovable existence of a entity that created everything outside of our Universe to Christianity. All these debates annoy me because they sit well in favour of Craig because it comes back to 'you can't prove that this doesn't occur'. In all the vids I watched, I never see them take apart Christianity because it doesn't fit within the debate topic.
The notion of Jesus and every aspect of the OT is repulsive. It's the easiest part of debating a theist.
Parabol0086 3 days ago
@Parabol0086 I feel exactly like you, when I see Christians or Muslims engaging in philosophical and existentialist debates or the existence of a creator of the universe, as if this would somehow validate tales written thousands of years ago by ignorant desert dwelling shepherds and corrupt power-hungry clergy men.
MrAlejux 2 days ago
@MrAlejux
/watch?v=Be_7m7aoAZc
fkaah 2 days ago
@Parabol0086
/watch?v=Be_7m7aoAZc
fkaah 2 days ago
@fkaah Wow! Never heard so much crap in my life. Seriously, a religion that thinks the creator of 100 billion galaxies asks men to grow beards and women to cover their bodies with black drapes, is beyond ridiculous.
You can keep you God, thanks very much.
MrAlejux 2 days ago
@MrAlejux " the creator of 100 billion galaxies asks men to grow beards"
6. Verily, in the alternation of the night and the day, and in all that Allah hath created, in the heavens and the earth, are signs for those who fear Him.
7. Those who rest not their hope on their meeting with Us, but are pleased and satisfied with the life of the present, and those who heed not Our Signs,-
8. Their abode is the Fire, because of the (evil) they earned.
fkaah 2 days ago
@fkaah
You still don't get it and you never will because you're brainwashed. If you think this is the most impressive video Islam has to offer, don't waste my time anymore. Believe in a pedophillic charlatan if you like, but what he says is weak and stolen mostly from the OT.
Slaughter a cow and use it's blood to find a murderer and I might consider your position stronger, but I will never worship a being like Allah.
Parabol0086 2 days ago
@Parabol0086 Why atheists think I want 2 impress them!!
"but I will never worship a being like Allah"
Ok don't I didn't ask you 2.
It's programmed not brainwashed this is what scientist use so why don't you use this term like them or do you follow your desire.
fkaah 2 days ago
@fkaah
What is the purpose of you linking me to a video without you explaining why? I am then to assume that you think that the video you sent was impressive enough to convert me or open my eyes to Islam. Continuing on from that point, why send the link if your intention isn't to have me worshipping the mythical being, allah.
Do you think atheists just think every claim a scientist makes is fact? When new radical claims are made we are extremely skeptical until there is enough evidence.
Parabol0086 1 day ago
@Parabol0086 "I am then to assume that you think that the video you sent was impressive enough to convert me or open my eyes to Islam" No I don't think this video will impress you and I didn't upload the video to impress anyone. if you just read the description I already said it.
I don't want to convert you and I don't want to open your eyes.
fkaah 17 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Parabol0086 "I am then to assume that you think that the video you sent was impressive enough to convert me or open my eyes to Islam" No I don't think this video will impress you and I didn't upload the video to impress anyone. if you just read the description I already said it.
I don't want to convert you and I don't want to open your eyes.
fkaah 17 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Parabol0086 "I am then to assume that you think that the video you sent was impressive enough to convert me or open my eyes to Islam" No I don't think this video will impress you and I didn't upload the video to impress anyone. if you just read the description I already said it.
I don't want to convert you and I don't want to open your eyes.
fkaah 17 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Parabol0086 "I am then to assume that you think that the video you sent was impressive enough to convert me or open my eyes to Islam" No I don't think this video will impress you and I didn't upload the video to impress anyone. if you just read the description I already said it.
I don't want to convert you and I don't want to open your eyes.
fkaah 17 hours ago
@fkaah Cont.
To claim Scientist brainwash like the religious is absurd. We are free to look at all the information on the matter, make our own judgement whether we agree, and no one is shoving it down our throats. Religion, especially Islam with it's censorship in a lot of countries does the exact opposite. Most the women of Islam aren't even allowed to learn the alternatives.
You have one book, we have thousands. Your's hasn't (can't) been proven, our's is constantly being tested.
Parabol0086 1 day ago
@Parabol0086 Incorrect. The Bible is constantly being tested. Archaeological evidence is constantly being uncovered and examined to see if Historical assertions in the Bible are accurate. Texts outside of the Bible, written by unbiased men, and even men who hated Judeo-Chrsitian culture, corroborate the Bible in its historicity. The issue is do you believe what Jesus claimed. For as sure as we are typing He claimed deity. Thats a fact. The question is, "Was He telling the truth." I believe yes.
BoldRevelation 1 day ago
@BoldRevelation
Though, I was talking about the Qu'ran, there are many things within the bible that I are in the same position. Many failed prophecies that you can search including the city that would never again prosper and yet it stands today. You can easily interpret Jesus' acclaimed return to occur within the lifetime of his followers. Then all the OT that geology has disproven. If you are one that believes in Noah's Ark then there's a lot you don't know about Geo and Bio, and their subcat.
Parabol0086 1 day ago
@BoldRevelation (Cont)
The point I initially made was how ridiculous the notion of Jesus and Judeo-Christian religions are. I am to believe that a PERFECT (sorry for the caps, just emphas.), all knowing god can fuck up so many times and then the only was to fix his mistakes is to send himself down to die for our imperfections (irony).
And worst of all we are to love and worship this thing we can't see while fearing him. Hitchens said it best when he called it a sadomasochistic relationship.
Parabol0086 1 day ago
@BoldRevelation (Cont. 3)
If you want me to elaborate on failed prophecies, why I think god is clearly imperfect and why I think the notion of Jesus is disgusting, it's probably best I do so in a PM. But I really don't want to argue for too long, it's pretty boring. My first post was: Craig has the advantage of arguing for any type of god, as the topics are usually 'evidence for/against god'. It isn't until some description is given of what god is that an atheist can even enter the debate.
Parabol0086 1 day ago
The response to that incorrect logic is not shown in this video upload. Hmmmm........if I recall Craig's arguements were then destroyed one by one brilliantly by Atkins. Why don't you show the entire video?
peraspira 4 days ago
@peraspira Interesting, I would love to see that.
jwforlife2 4 days ago
Holy Crap, he destroyed this guy so badly!!!! That is why dawkins won't come anywhere near him any longer. He knows He will get an intellectual ass whoopin. Screw believing in God. Craig is so much higher than him on an intellectual level that dawkins won't know what happened to him. LOL
jwforlife2 4 days ago
@jwforlife2 You didn't see the response. It was purposely left out.
peraspira 4 days ago
@peraspira Watch the whole debate. Atkins relies on simple attacks on religion rather than rational arguments.
assasincomedy 3 days ago in playlist Favorite videos
Comment removed
peraspira 3 days ago
@assasincomedy Sorry, but if that were the case, then the uploader would have uploaded the rest of the debate.
peraspira 3 days ago
@peraspira This was the climax of it. Watch the whole thing.
assasincomedy 2 days ago
@assasincomedy I have. You must have seen a different video, or you are bluffing,
peraspira 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IN YOUR FACE!
GraveshotEntertainme 4 days ago
IN YOUR FACE!
GraveshotEntertainme 4 days ago
LOL OWNED
AeonFlexMusic 5 days ago
Btw..both christian and atheist....how does arguing on the internet benefit anyone..
KoBred1 1 week ago
@KoBred1 The exchange of ideas and intercourse is very exciting.
peraspira 3 days ago
Just because science can't answer something yet doesn't mean god exists
MrSelidor7 1 week ago
@MrSelidor7 I agree. I think the discussion was simply on the assumption that science can account for anything. WLC just gave several reasons to suggest otherwise. I think it's more to do with Epistemology, rather than the existence of God, although it can affect our views on how we approach the question of God's existence.
eclipsesonic 1 week ago
@MrSelidor7 If science can't answer something, where is the answer to that question?
MrJdom24 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrJdom24. "If science can't answer something, where is the answer to that question?"
Patience, young one. We can't learn everything at once but thankfully we have shaken off the chains of ignorance that religion had imposed on us for thousands of years and we are getting answers all the time. We no longer believe that the world is flat for example or that the Sun orbits the Earth.
MrSelidor7 6 days ago
@MrSelidor7 well it's not proving he doesn't either.
heroslyfe 6 days ago
@heroslyfe. We prove things that DO or ARE. You cannot prove something that isn't.
Like Dawkins says, you can't prove there isn't an invisible spaghetti monster. You can't prove that Winnie the Pooh isn't the saviour of mankind, you can't prove that something undetectable does not exist.
There is no proof at all there is a god so why should we believe?
MrSelidor7 6 days ago
1. Maths IS Science.
2. The metaphysical (Are we all real? Am I really a butterfly have a dream about being human.) Of COURSE science can't disprove that nonsense. There is nothing wrong with assuming that we are real. The opposite is unthinkable
3. I agree. Science is not ethics.
4. Yes, you can't use science to appraise beauty
5. Science is getting there, we are learning all the time and sometimes we make assumptions to get a little further until we know the absolute
MrSelidor7 1 week ago
@MrSelidor7 // I agree. Science is not ethics.//
Then you agree with Dr.Craig's claim that there are beliefs which cannot be scientifically proven, but that we are rational to accept. :-)
BronyEditor 6 days ago
@BronyEditor. Of course but the key word there is RATIONAL. I don't think that genies, magic and imaginary friends comes under the category of rational.
MrSelidor7 6 days ago
@MrSelidor7 Math is all over the bible. Math is wrapped in God than you know.
heroslyfe 6 days ago
Comment removed
bmxtra211 5 days ago
@heroslyfe Examples? Book, chapter, verse?
bmxtra211 5 days ago
@bmxtra211 And let me ask you, how much do you or I actually know? Let's say you knew 5% of the knowledge of the world (very generous actually). Then you would agree that there is 95% you don't know right? Would you then, by logic agree that GOD could exist in that 95%?
heroslyfe 5 days ago
@bmxtra211 "And God said "2 plus 2 equals 4. And it was true, and it was good." Genesis 10:13
werebee 5 days ago
bible nuts are funny dont know why people try to talk sense to them just let them go there a laugh
mcdinkity 1 week ago
"Two fallacious arguments put together don't make a sound argument"
TijdTekort 1 week ago 2
Atheists just have had no direct experience of the Divine. Once you've had a few experiences of Heavenly grace or healing, the Creator of the universe is a lot easier to understand.
SunsetSix 1 week ago
@SunsetSix :DDDDDDDDDDD cool story bro
Mindaugas7100 1 week ago
I really don't get the point of kronal1234. The speed of light is the same independently of the speed of the reference system. And that is not the issue. The main issue is William Lane makes false arguments in order to express his ideas. The speed of light is a constant and it is a fact not an assumption period.
ramitube21 1 week ago
First and foremost we need to rid the world of Islam. All atheist and Christians and relatively peaceful religions should unite to get rid of this radical fundementist and violent religion of islam. It troubles me how 80 percent of Muslims think evolution is false. I would rather have rational religious ppl than fundies like muslims. Unite and eradicate Islam!
GetOutsideMr 1 week ago
The main point that William Lane is saying that science is permeated with unprovable assumptions like the speed of light is constant, that is a fallacy there is a lot of experiments that confirm that the speed of light is constant. Am I wrong? If your starting point is a false argument the conclusion should be false too.
ramitube21 1 week ago
@ramitube21
Hello :)
We have not been able to test if the speed of light is constant yet, at least not in this way that i am going to explain.
The hole relatativity theory says that there is no speed that can go higher than the speed of light. If you drive in a boat that goes in 4km/h and a speed boat drives past you with the speed of 20km/h, then the speed boats speed is relative for you.
you can say that it drives 16km/h since you are standing still in the boat.
kronal1234 1 week ago
@kronal1234 Here is the rest:
But if a light beam goes past the boat, the speed of the light beam is constant, its not relative as opposed to every other speed we can measure.
But this is an assumption that cant be tested. (i dont know if it can be in the future)
kronal1234 1 week ago
Dr Lane makes a false argument when he said that the constant speed of light is a fact that cannot be proved. Albert Michelson and Edward Morley discovered that in 1880 and this fact has been verified since then in many experiments. Albert Einstein took that fact to build the special theory of relativity. I don't understand in which way Dr Peter Atkins was humilliated.
ramitube21 1 week ago
@ramitube21 We've actually slowed the speed of light down and done experiments that sped it up. Look it up yourself.
the7mad9cap7laughs 1 week ago
@the7mad9cap7laughs Greetings. I need to clarify this issue. Is it true that the constant speed of light is a fact or is an assumption? Because William Lane is saying that is an assumption and it isn't a proven fact. I want to know if I am wrong or not. Thanks!
ramitube21 1 week ago
@ramitube21 It's an assumption, but it's also been shown to be wrong to say the speed of light is a constant because like I said below we've been able to speed light up past the 'maximum speed of light' and we've also been able to slow it down to extremely slow speeds.. like practically holding photons still.
So no it's not a fact, yes it's an assumption and an incorrect one.
the7mad9cap7laughs 1 week ago
@the7mad9cap7laughs when you say "we" what do you mean? I really don't know if you are a physicist and what is your work. But I know that the michelson and morley experiment made in 1887 has no failures. Please explain your arguments?
ramitube21 1 week ago
@ramitube21 actually from the experiment all they found was that all measurement for speed of light seemed to be constant. this in itself has yet to be proven, from a logical perspective (that is has to be so). and what einstein said was, "suppose that is necessarily so," and then went on to show implications of this, which experiments seem to support. atleast this is what i gathered from physics, they actually start out saying, "suppose it is constant".
burhanmohamed11 1 week ago
@ramitbe21 now this doesn't mean its not right or anything, its just an assumption that happens to work and consistent with many observation.
burhanmohamed11 1 week ago
Okay, I know most Atheist are going to be stubborn an arrogant and disagree and dislike this but he is right. I am not a stubborn Atheist. Crag is right. We can only prove things through science if we already take into account that previous think are already correct. For example, one plus one is two. We assume it, but how do we really know one is equal to one? Sorry all you stubborn Atheist but he has a point here.
TommyTacoz 1 week ago
@TommyTacoz but science isn't the "only way to go". The scientific method is part of a greater philosophy. To answer your question of how we know that 1=1, we must look at metaphysics. aristotle argued for 3 axioms (existence, conciousness and identity). The law of identity is that things are always equal to themselves. It's an axiom. The scientific method is just a part of epistemology, it's not ment to answer all questions.
VanessaTexasGal 1 week ago
@VanessaTexasGal I know, you basically supported what I said? We have to assume that one is already 1 when we do equations. There is no transcendent evidence that one equals one. We simply make up the number and it's value and make up other numbers and their set of values. You are agreeing with me.
TommyTacoz 1 week ago
@TommyTacoz Sorry, I think I misunderstood you a little. I thought you were arguing against the axiom that things are equal to themselves. Yes, we did make up the number one, as a label we put on a certain quantity. I don't really see what the problem is though. If you want to give the number one a different value you can, it's just that others will not agree with you. numbers are not things that need proof. But I guess I agree. The value of numbers is what we as people agree upon
VanessaTexasGal 1 week ago
@TommyTacoz
How do we know that one is equal to one? Is that your question?Sorry for be arrogant about that kind of silliness...
What's the alternativ anyways?Science can't prove everything...so?!That's no argument for anything.
kremitt2004 1 week ago