Unfortunately Dr. Craig misleads the public with his eloquent speaking but I fail to accept his spurious arguments. Clearly it is much more probable that the early Christians were delusional people rather than believing they had revelation of the Creator of the Universe (for whom there is no evidence he/she even exist...)
You could repent. Moreover, you could ask God for eternal forgiveness through applying the death and resurrection of Jesus to your life of sin within the quietness of your bedroom tonight. As an unrepentant sinner myself, I made this decision around 15 years ago. This is the most important decision that you could ever make.
I have to disagree with WLC here. He says that the best explanation of Yeshua's resurrection is that god raised Yeshua from the dead. I contend however that there's a much simpler explanation as unintentionally proposed by Sirs Lee, Kirby, and Ditko in the early 60's. Their proposal was much more sound and required no metaphysical sky genie master manipulator. Boiling down their decades long study to it's essence it would go something akin to this: Jesus was the first X-Man!
This idea of "early independent" sources must first start with the fact that their were in the vicinty of 500 persons crucified by the Romans then . The name "Yshua" was as common as the name John is today and was the name of Moses' brother Joshua . One of those killed named Jesus was leading a pacifist movement in Galilea, another was a priest in the Temple & many more etc. Piously Craig offers up these "historical" evidences which are as flimsy as they come & the forgeries that followed.
I'll agree that he's not a professional historian, but just because he doesn't do it for a living does not make him an amateur. My step-father did sky diving for over 20 years and although he never did it professionally, he wasn't an amateur by any stretch of the imagination.
@metalguitarist03 He has a PhD but he's not employed as a professional historian, he has never even worked as a professional historian, and he is currently unemployed. That makes him an amateur. A qualified amateur sure enough, but an amateur all the same. If he ever gets himself a paying job as a historian, he'll be entitled to call himself a professional historian. Until then, he's just an educated guy with a blog.
If you're going to comment on who you think won the debate, you should pay attention to what's actually being said and use to back your opinion, no matter which side you're on.
Does anyone besides me noticed that on the vast majority of these types of debates most Christians think the Christian debater wins and most atheists think the atheist wins? Coincidence? Hardly. It's selective hearing, plain and simple.
@Drgamedood I had heard the Ray Bradley debate. It's the very one that made me add the words "pretty much" to my comment. Not sure about the Dacey debates. I found a fair bit of Dacey's responses to come across as nit-picking. I haven't heard the Kagan debate but will look for it now. Thanks for the tip off! :)
@Drgamedood He said he was holding back against Kagan because it was Kagan's turf and it was just supposed to be an exchange, not a debate (this is what Yale told him). I believe Craig.
@WowThisWasntTaken Since neither Kagan nor the veritas forum that organized the event have released a statement confirming Craig's claim, I can only assume Craig is lying.
@uknichu I referred to the debate as a whole (though the material WLC presents in this video is almost enough to bury Carrier by itself). Having said that, the debate isn't worth much since Carrier is just an amateur historian with poor rhetorical skills who never comes close to offering a real challenge. Instead of this badly-recorded sideshow, watch the debate between WLC and Ehrman, which WLC definitely lost.
@MrSporkster wlc also lost his debate with shelly kagan, especially in the q&a portion of the debate. craig sounded confused and inept when forced to engage in a back and forth. he is only persuasive when he can recite his prepared monologues and ignore his opponents' objections.
Now, if you think 15 billion years , from point A to point B. is a very long time, place that measure in proportion to some eternity past and eternity afterwards this world is finished as measurable in time, and the 15 billion years keeps looking like a instant and shrinking moment of some gesture within infinities. Thus time is our first "illusion" of "Reality" can there be a reality without time or before any marked time begins or ends ? One second or 15 billion years , passes same.
The limits of reality shall never be equal to the limits of our understanding and ability to measure. Now, from some beginning of the world 15 billion years, to the end of it, we can never, never proportionately express what ratio of time all that is, in consideration that before the world was, an eternity past is unfathomably exceeding any limits, and after the world ends, again, the time we have now, is infinitely shrinking as a ratio to ever other Eternity before or after our time.
Since the day we all were born , every atomic structure of the body has been replaced and repaired many times over. As we breath, eat and drink, matter is going into the body to rebuild it over and over. Even the Neuron Brain cells , they do not divide and grow to multiplications, but the same cell is just an appearance of itself, every part of the same cell is replaced atom by atom. So , who are we that we imagine to be the same persons we were at birth ? Is it just an illusion ?
If someone took your own body, it's DNA and cloned your body over and over, those bodies may live and grow to be people, but they would not "Naturally" be you. But the issue is, is there an Intelligence to Reality and are we simply moving through a process of opening up mysteries ,faster and faster. Perhaps , the actual Mind can be determined quantitatively and moved from body to body to body, so that clones may be the same person, indefinitely. What are you , a cell ? an atom ?
The assumption that time is decreed and written in stone as a one way street through any future reality, is not a good scientific supposition. The past ought to always be in danger of some revolutionary response from the future, because in all the world , something called "Intelligence" is actually a scientific fact, and what Intelligence can do to any Natural Scheme, is an open question. Space is curved, time is also cycling around and around, and Futures may intersect Past times.
All that physically has to be done to raise Jesus from the dead, is continue to remember Jesus as a wonderful counselor, a prince of peace, and somewhere down the line in any likely future that continues to respect Jesus, as the day comes such a thing can be done, to return through time and raise the dead, in some other universe some other people have succeeded to begin intelligently, and they will make their way back to Jesus, and honor Him, as the first born from the dead. Simple.
Say after we have landed men on the moon and probes on Mars, that the world collapses into a dark age for thousands of years, and so in some less fortunate future, the people would scoff at the idea that a man can go to the Moon and walk on it. No matter how long the world has been now, before it was, the time was infinitely immeasurable as an eternity past , and after the world is gone, there is again a eternity past our world. So the time present, is always almost nothing at all.
The fact of the Big Bang has to be taken on faith to be believed, even thought the evidence has a physical appearance. But appearances are not conclusive for fact. We would have to be able to create new universes in a laboratory setting, to say we can answer how the world begins or ends. And in all the things that happened, there is always a first time. For reasons unavailable, Jesus could have risen from the dead, because there is a chance it can be done, and all the time in the world
@CarmineFragione no we don't take big bang or anything in science on faith. In order for something to be a fact in science, it needs to be observed. Observed isn't the same as seeing. The big bang has been observed through data and mathmatics and models. You don't need to witness something to observe it because observation isn't the same as seeing.
@ahopele that a false statement you made, "we don't take anything in science on faith" Fact is not simply what has been observed, fact is what is technically duplicated in a laboratory experiment. When Science speaks of things to take on "faith" they use the term "Priori" Priori equates to the experience of faith in accepting an observed data as a fact. You believe the world is older than a millions of years, because you have seen data that suggests it, but does not prove it
@CarmineFragione how did I make a false statement? Science bases nothing on faith. Faith is believing something without evidence. Science doesn't do that. They base everything on evidence. please try again.
A Naturalist cannot explain the Universe, to his own satisfaction, and so how can an Atheist base assumptions what is possible or not, based on the position of the Naturalist. If the Naturalist was satisfied, the Atheist could make some claims about limitations. But since, the nature of the Universe is not conclusive, it may never be for us so, the Atheist is all smoke and mirrors. Either something happened or it didn't, the witnesses had to be there, or never know for sure.
@CarmineFragione What assumptions do you accuse an "Atheist" of making? As Craig demonstrates here by admitting a presupposition, it is the believer who assumes the supernatural, because naturalism does not explain everything.
@punnet2 you don't understand the principle argument about natural versus supernatural. For the Naturalist, there be yet many supernatural things, which no man will ever be in any position to quantify , but nevertheless, the hypothesis is well reasoned without needing a conclusive proof. So what is knowable is then considered naturalistic, and what is unknowable is super naturalistic, yet no good scientist rules on anything which he knows he cannot yet measure, or maybe never measure !
@4TruthMatters You and I both know I'm not, and that there is a very simple way to verify this: go back to the original comment sections and see for yourself. As always, you fail on the evidence.
djs259 is pretty by and large following your substandard model of refusing to accept the default position. Like you he'll probably duck out of the conversation once he realizes he's refuted.
It simply doesn't explain the vast design capacities Materialists attribute to it.
Natural Selection may explain why dark moths get selected for survival in a sooty environment, while light moths get eaten, but it sure as hell doesn't rationally explain how moths assembled themselves from base materials - or their component parts organized, assembled and integrated into specified complex third-purpose designs, with DNA software driving the integrated network.
@4TruthMatters Omg do some research man, your just ignorant. Evolution happens over a LONG period of time. Abiogenesis is life from non-life. Evolution is how life evolved. Do you think your the only person to ever think of this? Scientists and biologists could easily refute your claim. And Hitchen's usually doesn't bother giving his best arguments when he realizes his opponents are inferior.
Trust me, even twenty years ago, I knew much more about the scientific evidences than you know today. My family is loaded with scientists. Fortunately, we can discern the difference between the actual discoveries of science and the propaganda of Materialist speculators who wrap themselves in a veneer of science while peddling Materialism. Unfortunately, many of you are duped.
You are being led around by your nose and deceived.
@4TruthMatters No I'm not just going to "trust" you on this matter. You clearly don't understand how evolution works. You arguing from ignorance because you can't see how it can explain how moths became so complex (which has nothing to do with the Christian God). Mutations occur in evolution, which is all about starting off with basic thing that become more and more complex over years and years and years. I suppose you like Ray Comfort too?
It's not an argument from ignorance. It's an argument from logic, evidence and understanding of the limitations inherent in the proposed mechanism (mutation / selection).
Blind ignorance is believing non-intelligent purposeless matter will specifically order and assemble radically complex, highly specifically integrated intelligent Beings that far exceed the engineering in a worldwide computer network. Blind ignorance is appeal to the finite Universe as requiring no cause.
@4TruthMatters No you still don't understand it. Watch "A Universe from Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss. It will clear up some confusion. You seem to think that beings can't be intelligent without a God to have "created" us. You are arguing from ignorance because you don't understand the Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution.
And since you can't understand them, your trying to stick your personal God in to fill up the gaps.
I'm fully confident I understand it all much better than you.
Nothingness cannot produce something. That's inviolable rational LAW. Nothingness has no capacity, Being or even existence whatsoever. When a person appeals to absolute Nothingness as a causal agency, the argument is over. This is absurdity on the level of insanity. This is an appeal to logical impossibility.
@4TruthMatters Actually, you should see Hawking's latest book -- the same Hawking that Craig has dishonestly quote-mined for his worthless "fine-tuning" argument. He states that the physical laws are sufficient for the universe to emerge FROM NOTHING.
From his book: “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.”
Go see what your "nuclear physicist" dad has to say about that.
Scientists and Mathematicians have confirmed that:
a)The Universe began to exist.
b) the beginning of the Universe was an absolute beginning. This means a beginning whereby TIME, SPACE and MATTER itself began to exist from no antecedent MATERIAL causality. Time, soace and matter itself began from NO TIME, SPACE or MATTER. Yet this beginning requires an efficient (and sufficient) causal agency. This causal agent must be timeless, spaceless, immaterial with enourmous capacity.
@4TruthMatters The universe as we know it began to exist with the Big Bang. We can't say ANYTHING about what occured or what existed before the big bang because we don't know enough yet. It doesn't have to be timeless,spaceless and immaterial. You probably are a fan of Frank Turek too. But even if there was a first cause, you'd have to explain how you go from Deist to Theist to Christian.
"We can't say ANYTHING about what occured or what existed before the big bang because we don't know enough yet"
A classic appeal to ignorance. "We dont know enough yet" is rather silly.
1) How can we ever possibly KNOW something scientifically that is absolutely beyond the possible scope of science? Physical Science cannot possibly access conditions that necessarily exclude the PHYSICAL REALM. Quite frankly, pretending science can explain this is absurd.
@4TruthMatters "'We dont know enough yet' is rather silly"
No you moron, its not silly, its the honest answer right now. And just because we don't know EXACTLY what happened before the Big Bang, doesn't mean that the only other option is your magical God did it.
"How can we ever possibly KNOW something scientifically that is absolutely beyond the possible scope of science?"
We can't So how are you justified to make any claims about something that is outside the realm of science (cont)
@goldenram27 Like I said before, We don't know what happened before the Big Bang, your the one taking a leap of faith by saying that an external force(GOD) caused it. I'm not willing to take that leap of faith. And we don't know with any certainty that the cause of the universe was timeless,spaceless, and immaterial.
"Like I said before, We don't know what happened before the Big Bang"
We know there was no "before" the big bang. Time Began at the Big Bang. We do know with logical certainty it was caused and the cause was timeless, spaceless and immaterial.
"I'm not willing to take that leap of faith"
Logical necessity doesn't take much faith. A Universe without a cause or a self-caused Universe from Nothing is an absurd leap of blind credulity.
"And we don't know with any certainty that the cause of the universe was timeless,spaceless, and immaterial."
Logical necessity is as good as it's going to get.
You and your Materialist bretheren certainly haven't offered anything that refutes it.
Plus, the evidences for God are not limited to cosmology, but God fits perfectly with what we know from Cosmology - while nothing else does. A comprehensive case for God exists from multiple lines of evidence and reason.
@4TruthMatters hahaha no ive brought up many counterarguments but you just want to keep thinking that your God created everything that exists outside of time. You just make bald assertions. Go away troll.
Wow, you've come unhinged. You got castrated and your nuts handed to you on the rational merits - so now your calling me a troll?? You Atheist never don't do well with losing.
If you don't want to learn, you may do better staying in the utube Atheist echo-chamber swapping lies with each other to make yourselves feel like you have intellectual firepower. Stepping out of the echo-chamber to debate a better informed person will get you humiliated.
@4TruthMatters haha i haven't lost any debaste. You theists just like to close your eyes and ears to rational arguments so you can keep believing your fairy tale. Message me if you would like to acutally debate.
The fundamental problem is not "we need more evidence". The problem is that the evidences and reasons WE DO HAVE point to a the logical necessity of a causal agency behind the Universe. Further some of the necessary attributes of any such agency can be safely inferred.
If TIME, SPACE and MATTER began at the Big Bang boundary, then we most certainly can infer that whatever caused the existence of Material did not pre-exist the existence of itself to cause itself.
Further, we know Ontologically from Rational Law (ex nihilo nihilo fit) that something cannot come from Nothing. Therefore, the fact that something exists now, logically necessitates that Something necessarily self-exists without beginning (Timeless).
Still further, Time itself is merely an attribute of our Universe. Our Universe Began to exist. It is NOT that rationally necessary self-existent prime cause.
Same for space. Space cannot pre-exist it's own existence.
@4TruthMatters Are you paying attention, 4TM? Hawking explains in his latest book that the universe actually is ex nihilo. Is Hawking wrong? The same Hawking your hero WLC has been quote-mining all this time?
I think we also can safely infer that any causal agency must itself have a will (intent), therefore be a Mind. Why?
Because any effect that must NECESSARILY proceed from an ETERNAL cause could not be temporal (finite) itself. Any necessary effect from an eternal cause would necessarily exist in a state of eternity (the same state as the cause). A will (or intent) would be necessary for a finite effect (that is not necessary) to proceed from an Infinite cause.
@4TruthMatters No your jumping to all of the conclusions, without any evidence. nothing can accurately be said about the relationship of cause and effect before the big bang. It is much the same as saying that order and design must mean there was a designer, just because as far as you can tell this is the case with things that humans design. (continued)
@goldenram27 (from continued) Your saying you cannot fathom a natural process that would explain what you are trying to explain and so you assume that nature must abide by your narrow understanding of order and design.
"Your saying you cannot fathom a natural process that would explain what you are trying to explain and so you assume that nature must abide by your narrow understanding of order and design"
No, please stop redefining my arguments. I am following logic and reason where it naturally leads - I am not appealing to ignorance and precluding non-material causality apriori. I have no reason to exclude the common sense conclusions. I'm not committed to Materialism. I seek truth.
@4TruthMatters So logic and reason naturally leads to the Christian God? Hmmmm its odd how not many people share the same opinion as you, including the worlds most brilliant scientists. If your argument is so genius, why don't you present it to the National Academy of Sciences so you could lead more people to the "truth"
@4TruthMatters I got frustrated because I get disguisted that there are still people as dumb as you out there. Just because Christianity is the world's largest religion, doesn't make it true. The statistics show that more and more people are becoming atheist or agnostic. The percent of atheists has doubled in the last ten years.
"No your jumping to all of the conclusions, without any evidence. nothing can accurately be said about the relationship of cause and effect before the big bang."
That's merely a bald assertion offer without argument or evidence. I offered arguments derived from logic and rational law. These arguments have held up highest levels of scrutiny and never been refuted. Where is your counter-argument?
"No your jumping to all of the conclusions, without any evidence. nothing can accurately be said about the relationship of cause and effect before the big bang."
That's merely a bald assertion offered without argument or evidence. I offered arguments derived from logic and rational law. These arguments have held up highest levels of scrutiny and never been refuted. Where is your counter-argument?
"It is much the same as saying that order and design must mean there was a designer"
High levels of specified order and integrated complexity DO require a Designer. You'll never find one single example of a computer network or a Shakespear novel self-assembling in nature given finite time constraints - much less the radically more complex and integrated intelligence of a human being.
It defies mathematical plausibility. It's radically implausible.
@4TruthMatters This is a common fallacy. You asserting that we're so complex that there can only be one possible explanation and that's an implied argument from ignorance. We, in fact, already understand that evolution by natural selection is sufficient to explain our origins, beginning at simplistic living materials that change, over time, into the diverse forms of life. Its funy how Hawking, Krauss and the most brilliant scientists disagree with you.
@goldenram27 Maybe your not very smart or not sufficiently educated or knowledgeable, but whatever the case, your inability to think of another explanation does not mean that your explanation must be correct. It's like saying "There's no way that I just happened to get two Royal Flushes in a row..God must have changed the cards for me".
@4TruthMatters False. That is more quote-mining. There are several conditional sets under which life is possible. Our planet just happened to meet one of them.
You are certainly ignorant for someone coming from a "family loaded with scientists".
@4TruthMatters You seem not to realize there are trillions of planets in the known universe.
Just as it is not extraordinary to get a royal flush if you deal yourself a poker hand 650,000+ times, it is neither extraordinary that at least one planet will meet the conditions necessary for life.
Please stop with the talking points. If you have a serious argument, I'de love to hear it. I've been shredding Atheist talking points and pretenses for years. Your not going to buffalo me with BS. Bring me a real argument
@4TruthMatters How strange that the overwhelming majority of scientists (> 95%) are unable to make the same discernment as you and your family "loaded with scientists". Apparently the peer review process doesn't work...
@4TruthMatters WLC is one of the weakest apologists. If you wanted atleast a good counter-argument to atheits, you should defend someone like NT Wright. Watch WLC debate Hitchens and Bart Ehrman, he gets destroyed.
will WLC spank you if you forget to mention his doctorate? I love the academic pretensions of apologists. does dawkins ever insist on Dr Dawkins, Prof Dawkins? Emeritus Professor Dawkins? No but Professor Sir Dr Craig PhD is RESEARCH professor (is there any other kind in the real world?) at the Jesusological Institute of Advanced Christology,senior advanced titular research fellow at the Dishonesty Institute. He's a circus barker who had memorised some speeches.
@mcmanustony You could be identified under the following brackets: angry, frustrated, ignorant, powerless, arrogant, bitter and intellectually disadvantaged. I am an atheist and I'd just like to say that people like you are intellectually worthless. Whilst you're bickering pathetically in a Youtube comment, Craig has become one of the most respected debaters by atheists and theists alike. Have the decency to take him seriously.
quick question; who the fuck do you think you are? you seem to harbor the idiotic notion that I need your permission to express a negative opinion on craig. get over yourself- he's a pretentious windbag who, when he runs out of rehearsed speeches, just flounders helplessly.
"I am an atheist"- I think you're lying
let's deal with your torrent of tripe: angry? 100% wrong. frustrated? 100% wrong; life is just dandy- family and career going just fine thanks. arrogant? not in the least
arrogant? from one with the pretention to analyse eductational background, personality, lifestyle etc, from 1 YT comment? get a mirror, blabbering halfwit. bitter? why bitter? I regard craig on his own turf as vacuous and on science as embarassingly ignorant and dishonest. bitter?
intellectually disadvantaged; I studied at one of the most prestigious universities in the country, did research in another and have taught all over the world. wrong again. not very good at this are you?
@mcmanustony I find it highly unlikely that you are the world class professor/genius you claim to be because if you were you probably wouldn't troll youtube looking for arguments.
"Craig has become one of the most respected debaters by atheists and theists alike"- really? are you sure? sure you're not a disciple with a sock puppet account?
read jeff shallit's blog to soak up the "respect" he has in the real world.
@BlueTusk1 "Craig has become one of the most respected debaters by atheists and theists alike"
Who have you been listening to?
Majority of atheist I've seen and heard comment about craig think his arguements are a joke, many make a plethora of negative comments about him and some think so little of him they don't even think he deserves the attention of a serious debate
I can't take the rubbish he spews seriously but I do take seriously that fact that people follow him and believe his tripe
@Scarletpooky Yes, but most atheists discredit anyone who doesn't agree with them based on the fact that you all are super geniuses and are the only human beings who have brains apparently. I have met very few atheists who will concede any sort of infallibility on their own part. Most of you, not all, pretend you are fighting a moral war against religion instead of just admitting that you secretly envy people with the capacity to believe in something superior to themselves.
@4TruthMatters I'm afraid the comment history disagrees with you. 1) You were ignorant of the biblical endorsements of slavery and genocide (and thanked me for educating you) - yet even now you're trying to use the moral argument for your biblical god. 2) You failed in your argument for America being a christian nation -- not only with your poor reading of the Declaration, but ignorant citation of a 19th century court case - then ran from the discussion when you knew you lost.
@4TruthMatters 3) In the discussion about intelligent design with me and @kyagh you betrayed your illogical foundations when you said you'd rather believe you were created than evolved (once again: what you'd rather believe has no bearing on the actual truth).
You insist you've won "hundreds" of debate points. I challenge you to list one.
And regarding burden of proof, once again (and again, and again…): Does an agnostic believe in god? "Yes" or "No"?
I'm not going to get suckered into another time wasting debate with a crass dishonest manipulator who recognizes no accountability. Enough is enough.
Burden of proof, Intelligent design (specified complexity is not mere complexity), Failure of Darwinism to rationally Naturally select intermediates for survival - before any appreciable survival benefits are realized. Your "Something from nothing" claims (Heizenberg) - when vacuum energy is not Nothingness.
1) "biblical endorsements of slavery and genocide"
Nope, you lie. The Bible merely acknowledges it.
2) You failed in your argument for America being a christian nation.
You misrepresent the discussion that you lost. It was about whether God was in the Declaration. You siad it wasn't. I proved you wrong. The only thing I condeded was that many words other than "Creator" were capitalized.
You are a brazenly dishonest manipulator Punnet - and you know it.
@4TruthMatters 1) No, the bible endorses it, and you already know this. Here's your admission from watch?v=itad7AWwTJ0 : "It does appear you are correct (and I was in error) on the point that Lev 25:44-46 permits slavery. Correction accepted."
2) False. I said the reference to "creator" was impersonal. Your contention that it meant "god" was predicated on its capitalization, and nothing else -- the significance of which I corrected you on. Go back and look.
I've actually listed quite a few in the course of this discussion, though if you wish to persist in your intellectually dishonest quibbling so as to avoid the epistemic responsibility entailed by the [questionable] propositional assertions you've put forth on behalf of your atheistic BELIEF, then here's just one: "The sense data with which we have immediate acquaintance are an accurate representation of relations that actually obtain within a mind-independent external world." Care for another?
@punnet2 No presuppositions involved, except that little tiny epistemological proposition that "lack of belief" is unconditionally warranted by an "absence of proof". Apart from being quite ambiguous in its use of the terms "belief" and "proof", the truth of this statement is by no means self-evident, but is open to doubt on several major fronts. If Atheism wins, it is not by default.
@punnet2 You never bothered to address my other arguments and now fiercely cling to this preposterous statement that "atheism is the default position", which is not an argument at all but merely a bunch of question-begging double talk. I would point out in response that, strictly speaking, the withholding of a belief in the truth of a proposition is a type agnosticism. Agnosticism with respect to the proposition "God exists" is not the same as an affirmation of the contrary of that proposition.
@djs259 It would appear you're defining agnosticism -- lack of belief -- as the default position. Very good. Now tell us: does an agnostic believe in god or not?
@punnet2 He neither necessarily believes nor necessarily disbelieves. He says "I DON'T KNOW if the proposition [God exists] is true or not. It could be true and it could not be true. I am not able to make up my mind which conclusion is the best." This is a far cry from arguing that there is NO evidence upon which to ground the belief that the assertion "God exists" is true, much less a judgement as to what kind of reasoning and evidence could conceivably serve to justify that belief.
@djs259 So once again: Does an agnostic believe in god or not? "Yes" or "No"?
Once again: We are not yet to the point of discussing whether there is in fact evidence for god; we're still trying to get you to realize that evidence is necessary in order to make that assertion. If you can accept that the theist has the burden of proof, we can move on to whether or not the theist can actually meet his burden of proof.
@punnet2 Your contention that theism exclusively bears the burden of proof is decisively vitiated by your dubious assumption (which you have thus far not denied), that lack of belief is unconditionally warranted in cases where the truth value of a proposition cannot be demonstrated evidentially, is self-refuting, and moreover reduces to absurdity on several key epistemological fronts. You say: "now show me that God exists". Oh, you genius, you! Is that really the subject we've been debating?
@punnet2 As Letterman once quipped to O'Reilly, when asked whether he wanted the US to win in IRAQ or not: "It's just not a simple yes or no answer for me, because I'm thoughtful!"
@djs259 Excellent. If you thoughtfully see a third option to the question "Does an agnostic believe in god", please present it. Otherwise, please answer "Yes" or "No".
@punnet2 Even if an agnostic does not positively affirm that God exists, he also does not positively affirm that God does not exist, which leaves open the possibility that God does, in fact, exist. But is that really what atheism is; a position that amounts to the claim that God might very well exist? Ad hoc definitions and semantic equivocations do nothing to relieve the atheist of the obligation to advance arguments for his claim .He can't merely assume its truth until proven otherwise.
@djs259 Once again: I did not ask if an agnostic positively affirms god does not exist; please try to stay focused. I only asked if the agnostic believes in god -- "Yes" or "No". Do you need explained to you the difference between lack of belief and positive affirmation of non-existence?
@punnet2 The contrapositive of a negative claim is a positive affirmation: the proposition "I don't believe God exists" is equivalent in truth-value to the contrapositive of that proposition, namely: "I believe God does not exist" And in the absence of knowledge one way or the other (agnosticism), you must make an argument to support that proposition, rather than simply declaring that we can happily regard it to be presumptively true unless the truth of its negation be demonstrated.
@djs259 False. Lack of belief in X is not equivalent to the active assertion of ~X. Consider (again): Did Europeans believe in marsupials before Australia was discovered? And if not, does this mean they were actively asserting marsupials did not exist?
Hopefully that clarifies the difference for you, and then hopefully you can answer "Yes" or "No" to: Does an agnostic believe in god?
@punnet2 To construe atheism as simply "lack of belief in the existence of God" rather than a claim that "God does not exist" is to render the atheist position devoid of any meaningful propositional content. What does your lack of belief tell us about the state of affairs which obtains outside your own mind? What does it tell us about the question of whether God exists or not? Agnostics profess to refrain from affirming the truth of both the affirmation and its negation.
@djs259 False. Atheist simply means "not theist". Anyone who doesn't believe in god -- whether through lack of belief in god or positive affirmation of god's nonexistence -- is an atheist. The latter position has a burden of proof; the former is the default position and has no such burden.
@djs259 Perhaps you were having trouble with the semantics of the term and of the impression that atheism only applies to active disbelief and not lack of belief; but you have now been corrected. If you require different terms to distinguish between those who lack belief and those who positively assert nonexistence, say so, and we'll proceed accordingly.
@punnet2 Again, go back and read my posts. I addressed this more than once. Atheism construed as merely as "lack of belief" is a propositionally vacuous position, reducing us to the absurdity of calling dogs and chimps and babies "atheists". It tells us nothing about the question it's purporting to adopt a view of. Agnostics simply profess ignorance. The assertion, "I don't believe in the existence of God" does not logically follow from ignorance--it's a position in need of justification.
I see you've encountered the poster boy of mindless utube Atheism.
Punnet will never engage the questions. Never. Ever. Period. There is no intellectual honesty. I'm not sure a soul exists. Certainly no shame.
He will robotically repeat silly Atheist talking points - and mindlessly insist you have the burden of proof no matter how demonstrably absurd you demonstrate his talking point to be.
I'll read some of the dialog tomorrow, but it's predictable.
@4TruthMatters 4TM, you know full well you've had to admit you were in error more than once in our conversations. As far as this present topic, you desperately tried to disprove logic with logic ("I lack belief in your lack of belief"). And yet in passing you inadvertently conceded the point when you acknowledged that agnosticism ("withholding judgment") is the default position.
You are desperately dishonest. You refuse to acknowledge correction on literally hundreds of debate points you lost (any literally 100% of debates).
I am honest. I will accept correction when it is evident. This amounts to about .01 % of debate points - and only minor trivialities, while mopping the floor on the other 99.99%.
You are dead wrong on the burden. The best a lack of evidences justifies is witholding judgement (agnosticism), not disbelief / denial (atheism).
Further, Theists provide evidences in spades meeting any burden. Atheists hide from any burden to justify their position, by insisting upon a contrived definition of Atheism in terms indistinguishable from Agnosticism.
We've been through this many times Punnet. You refuse to be honest about anything.
Of course, I don't expect honesty from an Atheist. If there is no moral truth, why should you be honest when honesty doesn't serve your self-interests? Predictably, you're not.
@djs259 I already assented that dogs and babies are atheists. You're yet to articulate why this is problematic. We are all atheist (and "aleprechaunist", etc.) by default. Those who adopt a positive belief in god/leprechauns have the burden of proof to justify their adoption (as would those who adopt a positive belief in their nonexistence).
Are you still under the impression that atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive?
@djs259 So it is merely an issue of semantics for you. As I said before: If you require different terms to keep your thoughts straight (to distinguish between one who lacks belief in X and one who asserts that X does not exist), say so, and we can proceed accordingly.
And if you wouldn't mind answering: Does an agnostic believe in god?
@punnet2 If, as you have already conceded numerous times, mere "lack of belief" is sufficient to determine atheism, and that babies and chimps and dogs can therefore reasonably be referred to as atheists, then would not the truth of the following statement derive logically, on your definition: "There are atheists who lack belief in evolution, other minds, that 2+2=4, that the earth is round, that the sun is bigger than the earth, and that objects appearing within the visual field have...
@punnet2 ......permanence." But what kind of an atheist would that be? Do you know any such people calling themselves "atheists" who "lack belief" in such things?
@punnet2 Furthermore, agnostics simply suspend judgement. They tentatively reject both belief and disbelief. They don't necessarily have to, and don't universally in practice, do this on strictly evidential grounds. I could conceivably be an agnostic about God because I suffer from Altzheimer's disease and am unable to affirm belief. Would my "lack of belief" in that instance make me an "atheist", by default? Baloney. Disbelief in God is NOT agnosticism.
@punnet2 I would ask you a similar question: If one suspends judgment regarding X---does he lack belief in X? And if he lacks belief, what is he lacking belief in? He's lacking belief in X. He's saying "I don't believe in the existence of X", which is just a logically equivalent way of saying "I believe X does not exist". If you don't grant this, do you deny that any given proposition is logically equivalent to the contrapositive of that proposition? So if I say that, I'm not an agnostic!
@djs259 Wrong again. Someone who has never heard of X is not in a position to say either "I believe X exists" or "I believe X does not exist". Someone who has never heard of X says nothing in regard to X. Yet by default, he lacks belief in X. Consider (again) the example I gave: Prior to the discovery of Australia, Europeans did not believe in marsupials, yet they were not going about saying "I believe marsupials do not exist".
@punnet2 So if Europeans living prior to the discovery of Australia "lacked belief" in something, what exactly did they lack belief in? Marsupials? Well, since they didn't even know of Australia, they couldn't very well be said to "lack belief" in an animal species existing in a land they didn't know existed. So, WHAT exactly were they lacking belief ABOUT? A lack of belief must be a lack of belief ABOUT SOMETHING.
@punnet2 The other option is this: I don't know whether it is proper to believe, and I also don't know whether it is proper to disbelieve,so I will do neither. I'll plead ignorance. If and when I decide to commit either way,I'll need to advance some reasons to justify that decision. One of those reasons might be direct experience of God,which, after all, is no more absurd than citing direct experience of a mind-independent material world whose existence can also be rationally doubted and denied.
@punnet2 This is getting really tiresome. If an agnostic lacked belief, it wouldn't be a justified lack of belief, because it would be based on a [professed] lack of knowledge. Agnostics don't really "lack belief" in the sense that an atheist "disbelieves" in the existence of God. Atheists claim to have knowledge that leads them to reject the existence of God, namely that we should expect to have more or better evidence if God actually existed, than we do have, which isn't self evident at all.
@djs259 Yes, it's getting tiresome, as we've been through this several times now.
Lack of belief (agnosticism) is the default position, where no assertion is made. "god exists" and "god does not exist" are both assertions, and constitute taking a different position from the default. If one asserts that god exists (or that god does not exist), but fails to meet the burden of proof for that assertion, I do not have sufficient reason for switching from the default position.
@punnet2 . So no, they did not, strictly speaking, lack belief in marsupials; they lacked awareness of the necessary conditions in which would their potential belief in marsupials could become actual.
@punnet2 If you want to say that the same goes for the question of God's existence, then you are not an agnostic, because you are already affirming that there are certain evidential conditions under which you WOULD believe in God, but that those evidential conditions have not been met, and so you reject the truth of the statement "God exists".
@punnet2 But you have to make an argument for that position; you can't just assume it's the case that the evidence for God's existence would be greater or of a different type if he actually existed than the evidence we do in fact have. Agnostics profess a total lack of knowledge. They don't say: I would believe in the existence of X if X should be demonstrated to exist, but until then I'll hold on to my disbelief in the existence of X.
@punnet2 The very fact that you can posit some kind of standard of evidence the satisfaction of which would elicit belief ABOUT an X, demonstrates that, unlike the nescient Europeans, you do, in fact, claim to KNOW SOMETHING about X.
@djs259 Yes, because I have encountered definitions of god now, and therefore can posit standards of evidence for such definitions -- just as following the discovery of Australia, a European encountering reports of marsupials could posit a standard of evidence to convince him of their existence.
But prior to encountering a definition of god/marsupials, i.e., prior to knowing something about X or having standards to posit for X -- one lacks belief in X by default.
@punnet2 Lack of belief and justified lack of belief are two different things altogether. It's meaningless to say that Europeans would have a justified lack of belief in a species of animal existing in a land of which they were entirely unaware. It would be more accurate to say that Europeans had "potential belief" in the existence of Marsupials. And that isn't the same as saying they just didn't believe in the existence of marsupials the way atheists claim not to believe in a deity's existence
@punnet2 I've addressed this point multiple times. It's not a yes or no question and requires careful qualifications. Perhaps you can answer this: Is the contrapositive of a proposition logically equivalent to that proposition? If not, please explain why you think your dogma is so sacred as to allow you the privilege of defying logical laws. "I don't believe God exists" is just a reworded version of "I believe God doesn't exist". Please tell us why you think that doesn't need justification
Unfortunately Dr. Craig misleads the public with his eloquent speaking but I fail to accept his spurious arguments. Clearly it is much more probable that the early Christians were delusional people rather than believing they had revelation of the Creator of the Universe (for whom there is no evidence he/she even exist...)
lachezar43 1 day ago
Whats with the retarded text bubbles... trying to watch a debate here...
XenOfOrrinoco 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Let’s put an end to all religion.
Cut and paste URL into browser address bar:
endallreligions.blogspot.com
paularenas26 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You could repent. Moreover, you could ask God for eternal forgiveness through applying the death and resurrection of Jesus to your life of sin within the quietness of your bedroom tonight. As an unrepentant sinner myself, I made this decision around 15 years ago. This is the most important decision that you could ever make.
- Romans 10:9-10
paularenas26 1 week ago
I have to disagree with WLC here. He says that the best explanation of Yeshua's resurrection is that god raised Yeshua from the dead. I contend however that there's a much simpler explanation as unintentionally proposed by Sirs Lee, Kirby, and Ditko in the early 60's. Their proposal was much more sound and required no metaphysical sky genie master manipulator. Boiling down their decades long study to it's essence it would go something akin to this: Jesus was the first X-Man!
ReverendWyrm 2 months ago
This idea of "early independent" sources must first start with the fact that their were in the vicinty of 500 persons crucified by the Romans then . The name "Yshua" was as common as the name John is today and was the name of Moses' brother Joshua . One of those killed named Jesus was leading a pacifist movement in Galilea, another was a priest in the Temple & many more etc. Piously Craig offers up these "historical" evidences which are as flimsy as they come & the forgeries that followed.
treadlightlynow 3 months ago
Comment removed
treadlightlynow 3 months ago
William Lane Craig is an idiot.
out0fstepxxx 5 months ago
I'll agree that he's not a professional historian, but just because he doesn't do it for a living does not make him an amateur. My step-father did sky diving for over 20 years and although he never did it professionally, he wasn't an amateur by any stretch of the imagination.
metalguitarist03 5 months ago
He's an 'amature' historian in the same way that Richard Petty was an 'amature' race car driver
metalguitarist03 5 months ago
And for the record, Richard Carrier is NOT an 'amature' historian. He earned a Ph.D in that field.
metalguitarist03 5 months ago
@metalguitarist03 He has a PhD but he's not employed as a professional historian, he has never even worked as a professional historian, and he is currently unemployed. That makes him an amateur. A qualified amateur sure enough, but an amateur all the same. If he ever gets himself a paying job as a historian, he'll be entitled to call himself a professional historian. Until then, he's just an educated guy with a blog.
MrSporkster 5 months ago
If you're going to comment on who you think won the debate, you should pay attention to what's actually being said and use to back your opinion, no matter which side you're on.
metalguitarist03 5 months ago
Does anyone besides me noticed that on the vast majority of these types of debates most Christians think the Christian debater wins and most atheists think the atheist wins? Coincidence? Hardly. It's selective hearing, plain and simple.
metalguitarist03 5 months ago
@metalguitarist03 Atheist here. Craig has won pretty much every debate he's been in. I'm fine with that :P
TMOvids 5 months ago
@TMOvids Not all of them. He's lost against Shelly Kagan, Ray Bradley, etc. And I would say he tied with Austin Dacey.
Drgamedood 5 months ago
@Drgamedood I had heard the Ray Bradley debate. It's the very one that made me add the words "pretty much" to my comment. Not sure about the Dacey debates. I found a fair bit of Dacey's responses to come across as nit-picking. I haven't heard the Kagan debate but will look for it now. Thanks for the tip off! :)
TMOvids 5 months ago
@TMOvids No prob dude. :)
Drgamedood 5 months ago
@Drgamedood He said he was holding back against Kagan because it was Kagan's turf and it was just supposed to be an exchange, not a debate (this is what Yale told him). I believe Craig.
WowThisWasntTaken 5 months ago
@WowThisWasntTaken Since neither Kagan nor the veritas forum that organized the event have released a statement confirming Craig's claim, I can only assume Craig is lying.
Drgamedood 5 months ago
@metalguitarist03
"most Christians think the Christian debater wins and most atheists think the atheist wins"
It's because atheists have learned to see through bullshit arguments. whereas Christians are used to swallowing them wholesale.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
What an almighty beatdown! Carrier didn't stand a chance.
MrSporkster 8 months ago
@MrSporkster The whole video consists of WLC talking. How does that amount to a beatdown?
uknichu 6 months ago
@uknichu I referred to the debate as a whole (though the material WLC presents in this video is almost enough to bury Carrier by itself). Having said that, the debate isn't worth much since Carrier is just an amateur historian with poor rhetorical skills who never comes close to offering a real challenge. Instead of this badly-recorded sideshow, watch the debate between WLC and Ehrman, which WLC definitely lost.
MrSporkster 6 months ago
@MrSporkster wlc also lost his debate with shelly kagan, especially in the q&a portion of the debate. craig sounded confused and inept when forced to engage in a back and forth. he is only persuasive when he can recite his prepared monologues and ignore his opponents' objections.
mebe84 5 months ago
@MrSporkster Did you actually listen to what was being said? Doesn't seem like it
metalguitarist03 5 months ago
@metalguitarist03 Yes I listened to what was being said. Carrier was laughable.
MrSporkster 5 months ago
If you dont have anything refutting dont say anything at all please. The arguments against WLC were mild
plan4urlife 8 months ago
I could only watch 3 minutes of this video. To cover the screen with silly annotations is not only tacky, but typical as well.
DoYerBest 8 months ago
@DoYerBest you can turn off annotations by clicking the red "word balloon" icon at the bottom of the video window
XSC3 7 months ago
Will won that one hands down. No contest. Competition was none!
LiquidMetalX7 8 months ago
Now, if you think 15 billion years , from point A to point B. is a very long time, place that measure in proportion to some eternity past and eternity afterwards this world is finished as measurable in time, and the 15 billion years keeps looking like a instant and shrinking moment of some gesture within infinities. Thus time is our first "illusion" of "Reality" can there be a reality without time or before any marked time begins or ends ? One second or 15 billion years , passes same.
CarmineFragione 9 months ago
The limits of reality shall never be equal to the limits of our understanding and ability to measure. Now, from some beginning of the world 15 billion years, to the end of it, we can never, never proportionately express what ratio of time all that is, in consideration that before the world was, an eternity past is unfathomably exceeding any limits, and after the world ends, again, the time we have now, is infinitely shrinking as a ratio to ever other Eternity before or after our time.
CarmineFragione 9 months ago
Since the day we all were born , every atomic structure of the body has been replaced and repaired many times over. As we breath, eat and drink, matter is going into the body to rebuild it over and over. Even the Neuron Brain cells , they do not divide and grow to multiplications, but the same cell is just an appearance of itself, every part of the same cell is replaced atom by atom. So , who are we that we imagine to be the same persons we were at birth ? Is it just an illusion ?
CarmineFragione 10 months ago
If someone took your own body, it's DNA and cloned your body over and over, those bodies may live and grow to be people, but they would not "Naturally" be you. But the issue is, is there an Intelligence to Reality and are we simply moving through a process of opening up mysteries ,faster and faster. Perhaps , the actual Mind can be determined quantitatively and moved from body to body to body, so that clones may be the same person, indefinitely. What are you , a cell ? an atom ?
CarmineFragione 10 months ago
The assumption that time is decreed and written in stone as a one way street through any future reality, is not a good scientific supposition. The past ought to always be in danger of some revolutionary response from the future, because in all the world , something called "Intelligence" is actually a scientific fact, and what Intelligence can do to any Natural Scheme, is an open question. Space is curved, time is also cycling around and around, and Futures may intersect Past times.
CarmineFragione 10 months ago
All that physically has to be done to raise Jesus from the dead, is continue to remember Jesus as a wonderful counselor, a prince of peace, and somewhere down the line in any likely future that continues to respect Jesus, as the day comes such a thing can be done, to return through time and raise the dead, in some other universe some other people have succeeded to begin intelligently, and they will make their way back to Jesus, and honor Him, as the first born from the dead. Simple.
CarmineFragione 10 months ago
Say after we have landed men on the moon and probes on Mars, that the world collapses into a dark age for thousands of years, and so in some less fortunate future, the people would scoff at the idea that a man can go to the Moon and walk on it. No matter how long the world has been now, before it was, the time was infinitely immeasurable as an eternity past , and after the world is gone, there is again a eternity past our world. So the time present, is always almost nothing at all.
CarmineFragione 10 months ago
The fact of the Big Bang has to be taken on faith to be believed, even thought the evidence has a physical appearance. But appearances are not conclusive for fact. We would have to be able to create new universes in a laboratory setting, to say we can answer how the world begins or ends. And in all the things that happened, there is always a first time. For reasons unavailable, Jesus could have risen from the dead, because there is a chance it can be done, and all the time in the world
CarmineFragione 10 months ago
@CarmineFragione no we don't take big bang or anything in science on faith. In order for something to be a fact in science, it needs to be observed. Observed isn't the same as seeing. The big bang has been observed through data and mathmatics and models. You don't need to witness something to observe it because observation isn't the same as seeing.
ahopele 9 months ago
@ahopele that a false statement you made, "we don't take anything in science on faith" Fact is not simply what has been observed, fact is what is technically duplicated in a laboratory experiment. When Science speaks of things to take on "faith" they use the term "Priori" Priori equates to the experience of faith in accepting an observed data as a fact. You believe the world is older than a millions of years, because you have seen data that suggests it, but does not prove it
CarmineFragione 9 months ago
@CarmineFragione how did I make a false statement? Science bases nothing on faith. Faith is believing something without evidence. Science doesn't do that. They base everything on evidence. please try again.
ahopele 9 months ago
A Naturalist cannot explain the Universe, to his own satisfaction, and so how can an Atheist base assumptions what is possible or not, based on the position of the Naturalist. If the Naturalist was satisfied, the Atheist could make some claims about limitations. But since, the nature of the Universe is not conclusive, it may never be for us so, the Atheist is all smoke and mirrors. Either something happened or it didn't, the witnesses had to be there, or never know for sure.
CarmineFragione 10 months ago
@CarmineFragione What assumptions do you accuse an "Atheist" of making? As Craig demonstrates here by admitting a presupposition, it is the believer who assumes the supernatural, because naturalism does not explain everything.
punnet2 9 months ago
@punnet2 you don't understand the principle argument about natural versus supernatural. For the Naturalist, there be yet many supernatural things, which no man will ever be in any position to quantify , but nevertheless, the hypothesis is well reasoned without needing a conclusive proof. So what is knowable is then considered naturalistic, and what is unknowable is super naturalistic, yet no good scientist rules on anything which he knows he cannot yet measure, or maybe never measure !
CarmineFragione 9 months ago
@CarmineFragione So I'll ask again: What assumptions do you accuse the "Atheist" of making?
A lack of a natural explanation provides no warrant for a supernatural explanation; it simply means we don't know.
punnet2 9 months ago
Punnet,
You and I both know you are lying. You are perpetually dishonest.
DJS259 has enough experience with you to know what you're about. Who are you trying to fool? There is no one else here to deceive.
Dishonesty has a cost. You have no credibility.
4TruthMatters 10 months ago 2
@4TruthMatters You and I both know I'm not, and that there is a very simple way to verify this: go back to the original comment sections and see for yourself. As always, you fail on the evidence.
djs259 is pretty by and large following your substandard model of refusing to accept the default position. Like you he'll probably duck out of the conversation once he realizes he's refuted.
punnet2 10 months ago
@4TruthMatters Wait you don't believe in evoltion? If that is the case, then the conversation with you should end there, because you are a moron
goldenram27 10 months ago
@goldenram27,
"Wait you don't believe in evoltion? If that is the case, then the conversation with you should end there, because you are a moron"
That kind of mindless stupidity is what keeps Darwinism viable. Demonize the messenger and shut them down without considering the logic or evidences.
Further, I do believe in evolution. I just don't believe NATURALISTIC evolution explains much at all.
You fail to think critically and discern rubbish from credible reason.
Go back in your hole punk
4TruthMatters 10 months ago
@4TruthMatters what do you mean NATURALISTIC evolution doesn't explain much?
goldenram27 10 months ago
@goldenram27 ,
It simply doesn't explain the vast design capacities Materialists attribute to it.
Natural Selection may explain why dark moths get selected for survival in a sooty environment, while light moths get eaten, but it sure as hell doesn't rationally explain how moths assembled themselves from base materials - or their component parts organized, assembled and integrated into specified complex third-purpose designs, with DNA software driving the integrated network.
4TruthMatters 10 months ago
@4TruthMatters Omg do some research man, your just ignorant. Evolution happens over a LONG period of time. Abiogenesis is life from non-life. Evolution is how life evolved. Do you think your the only person to ever think of this? Scientists and biologists could easily refute your claim. And Hitchen's usually doesn't bother giving his best arguments when he realizes his opponents are inferior.
goldenram27 10 months ago
@goldenram27 ,
"Omg do some research man, your just ignorant."
Trust me, even twenty years ago, I knew much more about the scientific evidences than you know today. My family is loaded with scientists. Fortunately, we can discern the difference between the actual discoveries of science and the propaganda of Materialist speculators who wrap themselves in a veneer of science while peddling Materialism. Unfortunately, many of you are duped.
You are being led around by your nose and deceived.
4TruthMatters 10 months ago
@4TruthMatters No I'm not just going to "trust" you on this matter. You clearly don't understand how evolution works. You arguing from ignorance because you can't see how it can explain how moths became so complex (which has nothing to do with the Christian God). Mutations occur in evolution, which is all about starting off with basic thing that become more and more complex over years and years and years. I suppose you like Ray Comfort too?
goldenram27 10 months ago
@goldenram27
It's not an argument from ignorance. It's an argument from logic, evidence and understanding of the limitations inherent in the proposed mechanism (mutation / selection).
Blind ignorance is believing non-intelligent purposeless matter will specifically order and assemble radically complex, highly specifically integrated intelligent Beings that far exceed the engineering in a worldwide computer network. Blind ignorance is appeal to the finite Universe as requiring no cause.
4TruthMatters 10 months ago
@4TruthMatters No you still don't understand it. Watch "A Universe from Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss. It will clear up some confusion. You seem to think that beings can't be intelligent without a God to have "created" us. You are arguing from ignorance because you don't understand the Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution.
And since you can't understand them, your trying to stick your personal God in to fill up the gaps.
goldenram27 10 months ago
@goldenram27
I'm fully confident I understand it all much better than you.
Nothingness cannot produce something. That's inviolable rational LAW. Nothingness has no capacity, Being or even existence whatsoever. When a person appeals to absolute Nothingness as a causal agency, the argument is over. This is absurdity on the level of insanity. This is an appeal to logical impossibility.
(cont)
4TruthMatters 10 months ago
@4TruthMatters Actually, you should see Hawking's latest book -- the same Hawking that Craig has dishonestly quote-mined for his worthless "fine-tuning" argument. He states that the physical laws are sufficient for the universe to emerge FROM NOTHING.
From his book: “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.”
Go see what your "nuclear physicist" dad has to say about that.
punnet2 10 months ago
@goldenram27.
Scientists and Mathematicians have confirmed that:
a)The Universe began to exist.
b) the beginning of the Universe was an absolute beginning. This means a beginning whereby TIME, SPACE and MATTER itself began to exist from no antecedent MATERIAL causality. Time, soace and matter itself began from NO TIME, SPACE or MATTER. Yet this beginning requires an efficient (and sufficient) causal agency. This causal agent must be timeless, spaceless, immaterial with enourmous capacity.
4TruthMatters 10 months ago
@4TruthMatters The universe as we know it began to exist with the Big Bang. We can't say ANYTHING about what occured or what existed before the big bang because we don't know enough yet. It doesn't have to be timeless,spaceless and immaterial. You probably are a fan of Frank Turek too. But even if there was a first cause, you'd have to explain how you go from Deist to Theist to Christian.
goldenram27 10 months ago
@goldenram27 ,
"We can't say ANYTHING about what occured or what existed before the big bang because we don't know enough yet"
A classic appeal to ignorance. "We dont know enough yet" is rather silly.
1) How can we ever possibly KNOW something scientifically that is absolutely beyond the possible scope of science? Physical Science cannot possibly access conditions that necessarily exclude the PHYSICAL REALM. Quite frankly, pretending science can explain this is absurd.
(cont)
4TruthMatters 10 months ago
@4TruthMatters "'We dont know enough yet' is rather silly"
No you moron, its not silly, its the honest answer right now. And just because we don't know EXACTLY what happened before the Big Bang, doesn't mean that the only other option is your magical God did it.
"How can we ever possibly KNOW something scientifically that is absolutely beyond the possible scope of science?"
We can't So how are you justified to make any claims about something that is outside the realm of science (cont)
goldenram27 10 months ago
@goldenram27 Like I said before, We don't know what happened before the Big Bang, your the one taking a leap of faith by saying that an external force(GOD) caused it. I'm not willing to take that leap of faith. And we don't know with any certainty that the cause of the universe was timeless,spaceless, and immaterial.
goldenram27 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@goldenram27
"Like I said before, We don't know what happened before the Big Bang"
We know there was no "before" the big bang. Time Began at the Big Bang. We do know with logical certainty it was caused and the cause was timeless, spaceless and immaterial.
"I'm not willing to take that leap of faith"
Logical necessity doesn't take much faith. A Universe without a cause or a self-caused Universe from Nothing is an absurd leap of blind credulity.
4TruthMatters 10 months ago
"And we don't know with any certainty that the cause of the universe was timeless,spaceless, and immaterial."
Logical necessity is as good as it's going to get.
You and your Materialist bretheren certainly haven't offered anything that refutes it.
Plus, the evidences for God are not limited to cosmology, but God fits perfectly with what we know from Cosmology - while nothing else does. A comprehensive case for God exists from multiple lines of evidence and reason.
4TruthMatters 10 months ago
@4TruthMatters hahaha no ive brought up many counterarguments but you just want to keep thinking that your God created everything that exists outside of time. You just make bald assertions. Go away troll.
goldenram27 10 months ago
@goldenram27
Wow, you've come unhinged. You got castrated and your nuts handed to you on the rational merits - so now your calling me a troll?? You Atheist never don't do well with losing.
If you don't want to learn, you may do better staying in the utube Atheist echo-chamber swapping lies with each other to make yourselves feel like you have intellectual firepower. Stepping out of the echo-chamber to debate a better informed person will get you humiliated.
4TruthMatters 10 months ago
@4TruthMatters haha i haven't lost any debaste. You theists just like to close your eyes and ears to rational arguments so you can keep believing your fairy tale. Message me if you would like to acutally debate.
goldenram27 10 months ago
@goldenram27 ,
The fundamental problem is not "we need more evidence". The problem is that the evidences and reasons WE DO HAVE point to a the logical necessity of a causal agency behind the Universe. Further some of the necessary attributes of any such agency can be safely inferred.
If TIME, SPACE and MATTER began at the Big Bang boundary, then we most certainly can infer that whatever caused the existence of Material did not pre-exist the existence of itself to cause itself.
(cont)
4TruthMatters 10 months ago
@goldenram27
Further, we know Ontologically from Rational Law (ex nihilo nihilo fit) that something cannot come from Nothing. Therefore, the fact that something exists now, logically necessitates that Something necessarily self-exists without beginning (Timeless).
Still further, Time itself is merely an attribute of our Universe. Our Universe Began to exist. It is NOT that rationally necessary self-existent prime cause.
Same for space. Space cannot pre-exist it's own existence.
(cont)
4TruthMatters 10 months ago
@4TruthMatters Are you paying attention, 4TM? Hawking explains in his latest book that the universe actually is ex nihilo. Is Hawking wrong? The same Hawking your hero WLC has been quote-mining all this time?
punnet2 10 months ago
@goldenram27
Therefore, we know with logical certainty that the cause of the Universe was timeless, spaceless and immaterial.
4TruthMatters 10 months ago
@goldenram27
I think we also can safely infer that any causal agency must itself have a will (intent), therefore be a Mind. Why?
Because any effect that must NECESSARILY proceed from an ETERNAL cause could not be temporal (finite) itself. Any necessary effect from an eternal cause would necessarily exist in a state of eternity (the same state as the cause). A will (or intent) would be necessary for a finite effect (that is not necessary) to proceed from an Infinite cause.
4TruthMatters 10 months ago
@4TruthMatters No your jumping to all of the conclusions, without any evidence. nothing can accurately be said about the relationship of cause and effect before the big bang. It is much the same as saying that order and design must mean there was a designer, just because as far as you can tell this is the case with things that humans design. (continued)
goldenram27 10 months ago
@goldenram27 (from continued) Your saying you cannot fathom a natural process that would explain what you are trying to explain and so you assume that nature must abide by your narrow understanding of order and design.
goldenram27 10 months ago
@goldenram27
"Your saying you cannot fathom a natural process that would explain what you are trying to explain and so you assume that nature must abide by your narrow understanding of order and design"
No, please stop redefining my arguments. I am following logic and reason where it naturally leads - I am not appealing to ignorance and precluding non-material causality apriori. I have no reason to exclude the common sense conclusions. I'm not committed to Materialism. I seek truth.
4TruthMatters 10 months ago
@4TruthMatters So logic and reason naturally leads to the Christian God? Hmmmm its odd how not many people share the same opinion as you, including the worlds most brilliant scientists. If your argument is so genius, why don't you present it to the National Academy of Sciences so you could lead more people to the "truth"
goldenram27 10 months ago
@goldenram27
"So logic and reason naturally leads to the Christian God? Hmmmm its odd how not many people share the same opinion as you, "
No, I made no such claim. But Christianity is consistent with the evidences.
Christianity is the world largest religion son. Atheism is a marginal faith committment.
Most people can distinguish between science and Materialism. Many scientists are horrible philosophers who can't.
I'm afraid you've lost the debate. Now now you're lashing out with
4TruthMatters 10 months ago
@4TruthMatters I got frustrated because I get disguisted that there are still people as dumb as you out there. Just because Christianity is the world's largest religion, doesn't make it true. The statistics show that more and more people are becoming atheist or agnostic. The percent of atheists has doubled in the last ten years.
goldenram27 10 months ago
@goldenram27
"I got frustrated because I get disguisted that there are still people as dumb as you out there"
Do you always lose debates to 'dumb' people?
"Just because Christianity is the world's largest religion, doesn't make it true"
Never said that. I just refuted your implication that we are fringe belief.
"The statistics show that more and more people are becoming atheist or agnostic. The percent of atheists has doubled in the last ten years."
But that proves it's right.
4TruthMatters 10 months ago
@4TruthMatters Explain to me how i lost this debate....I'd rather you message my inbox so we don't have to worry about the character limit.
goldenram27 10 months ago
@goldenram27
"No your jumping to all of the conclusions, without any evidence. nothing can accurately be said about the relationship of cause and effect before the big bang."
That's merely a bald assertion offer without argument or evidence. I offered arguments derived from logic and rational law. These arguments have held up highest levels of scrutiny and never been refuted. Where is your counter-argument?
4TruthMatters 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@goldenram27
"No your jumping to all of the conclusions, without any evidence. nothing can accurately be said about the relationship of cause and effect before the big bang."
That's merely a bald assertion offered without argument or evidence. I offered arguments derived from logic and rational law. These arguments have held up highest levels of scrutiny and never been refuted. Where is your counter-argument?
4TruthMatters 10 months ago
@goldenram27
"It is much the same as saying that order and design must mean there was a designer"
High levels of specified order and integrated complexity DO require a Designer. You'll never find one single example of a computer network or a Shakespear novel self-assembling in nature given finite time constraints - much less the radically more complex and integrated intelligence of a human being.
It defies mathematical plausibility. It's radically implausible.
4TruthMatters 10 months ago
@4TruthMatters This is a common fallacy. You asserting that we're so complex that there can only be one possible explanation and that's an implied argument from ignorance. We, in fact, already understand that evolution by natural selection is sufficient to explain our origins, beginning at simplistic living materials that change, over time, into the diverse forms of life. Its funy how Hawking, Krauss and the most brilliant scientists disagree with you.
goldenram27 10 months ago
@goldenram27 Maybe your not very smart or not sufficiently educated or knowledgeable, but whatever the case, your inability to think of another explanation does not mean that your explanation must be correct. It's like saying "There's no way that I just happened to get two Royal Flushes in a row..God must have changed the cards for me".
goldenram27 10 months ago
@goldenram27
I see you're growing angry and lashing out. You're lack of an argument is not due to my lack of intelligence.
""There's no way that I just happened to get two Royal Flushes in a row..God must have changed the cards for me"."
Actually the probabilities involved in fine tuning are more like 1/10 ^10th Royal flushes dealt consecutively through millions of lifetimes.
You can appeal to dumb luck and chance. Sensible folks will rationally conclude that the game was rigged.
4TruthMatters 10 months ago
@4TruthMatters Wait so are you really trying to say that the universe was fine tuned for life?
goldenram27 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@goldenram27
"Wait so are you really trying to say that the universe was fine tuned for life?"
Yep, but not just me. This is what cosmologists have determined to be fact.
4TruthMatters 10 months ago
@4TruthMatters False. That is more quote-mining. There are several conditional sets under which life is possible. Our planet just happened to meet one of them.
You are certainly ignorant for someone coming from a "family loaded with scientists".
punnet2 10 months ago
@4TruthMatters You seem not to realize there are trillions of planets in the known universe.
Just as it is not extraordinary to get a royal flush if you deal yourself a poker hand 650,000+ times, it is neither extraordinary that at least one planet will meet the conditions necessary for life.
punnet2 10 months ago
@goldenram27
Please stop with the talking points. If you have a serious argument, I'de love to hear it. I've been shredding Atheist talking points and pretenses for years. Your not going to buffalo me with BS. Bring me a real argument
4TruthMatters 10 months ago
@4TruthMatters Alright smart ass....message me in my inbox and we can debate this...i cant take the character limits on comments
goldenram27 10 months ago
@4TruthMatters How strange that the overwhelming majority of scientists (> 95%) are unable to make the same discernment as you and your family "loaded with scientists". Apparently the peer review process doesn't work...
punnet2 10 months ago
@4TruthMatters WLC is one of the weakest apologists. If you wanted atleast a good counter-argument to atheits, you should defend someone like NT Wright. Watch WLC debate Hitchens and Bart Ehrman, he gets destroyed.
goldenram27 10 months ago
@goldenram27
I saw WLC castrate and decapitate Hitchens. It got so bad, Hitchens forfeited his final remarks just to end the debate.
If Craig is weak, why is Dawkins hiding? He knows what happens to Atheists who visit Dr Craigs woodshed.
Don't fool yourself. Dr Craig absolutely owns you guys.
4TruthMatters 10 months ago
@4TruthMatters
Dr Craig....
will WLC spank you if you forget to mention his doctorate? I love the academic pretensions of apologists. does dawkins ever insist on Dr Dawkins, Prof Dawkins? Emeritus Professor Dawkins? No but Professor Sir Dr Craig PhD is RESEARCH professor (is there any other kind in the real world?) at the Jesusological Institute of Advanced Christology,senior advanced titular research fellow at the Dishonesty Institute. He's a circus barker who had memorised some speeches.
mcmanustony 5 months ago
@mcmanustony You could be identified under the following brackets: angry, frustrated, ignorant, powerless, arrogant, bitter and intellectually disadvantaged. I am an atheist and I'd just like to say that people like you are intellectually worthless. Whilst you're bickering pathetically in a Youtube comment, Craig has become one of the most respected debaters by atheists and theists alike. Have the decency to take him seriously.
BlueTusk1 5 months ago
@BlueTusk1
quick question; who the fuck do you think you are? you seem to harbor the idiotic notion that I need your permission to express a negative opinion on craig. get over yourself- he's a pretentious windbag who, when he runs out of rehearsed speeches, just flounders helplessly.
"I am an atheist"- I think you're lying
let's deal with your torrent of tripe: angry? 100% wrong. frustrated? 100% wrong; life is just dandy- family and career going just fine thanks. arrogant? not in the least
mcmanustony 5 months ago
@BlueTusk1
arrogant? from one with the pretention to analyse eductational background, personality, lifestyle etc, from 1 YT comment? get a mirror, blabbering halfwit. bitter? why bitter? I regard craig on his own turf as vacuous and on science as embarassingly ignorant and dishonest. bitter?
intellectually disadvantaged; I studied at one of the most prestigious universities in the country, did research in another and have taught all over the world. wrong again. not very good at this are you?
mcmanustony 5 months ago
@mcmanustony I find it highly unlikely that you are the world class professor/genius you claim to be because if you were you probably wouldn't troll youtube looking for arguments.
rapesauceCF 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Craig has become one of the most respected debaters by atheists and theists alike"- really? are you sure? sure you're not a disciple with a sock puppet account?
read jeff shallit's blog to soak up the "respect" he has in the real world.
mcmanustony 5 months ago
@BlueTusk1 "Craig has become one of the most respected debaters by atheists and theists alike"
Who have you been listening to?
Majority of atheist I've seen and heard comment about craig think his arguements are a joke, many make a plethora of negative comments about him and some think so little of him they don't even think he deserves the attention of a serious debate
I can't take the rubbish he spews seriously but I do take seriously that fact that people follow him and believe his tripe
Scarletpooky 1 month ago 7
@Scarletpooky Yes, but most atheists discredit anyone who doesn't agree with them based on the fact that you all are super geniuses and are the only human beings who have brains apparently. I have met very few atheists who will concede any sort of infallibility on their own part. Most of you, not all, pretend you are fighting a moral war against religion instead of just admitting that you secretly envy people with the capacity to believe in something superior to themselves.
rapesauceCF 1 week ago
@goldenram27 I saw the Hitchens debate. Chrissy got put through the shredder!
DLAbaoaqu 7 months ago
@4TruthMatters I'm afraid the comment history disagrees with you. 1) You were ignorant of the biblical endorsements of slavery and genocide (and thanked me for educating you) - yet even now you're trying to use the moral argument for your biblical god. 2) You failed in your argument for America being a christian nation -- not only with your poor reading of the Declaration, but ignorant citation of a 19th century court case - then ran from the discussion when you knew you lost.
punnet2 10 months ago
@4TruthMatters 3) In the discussion about intelligent design with me and @kyagh you betrayed your illogical foundations when you said you'd rather believe you were created than evolved (once again: what you'd rather believe has no bearing on the actual truth).
You insist you've won "hundreds" of debate points. I challenge you to list one.
And regarding burden of proof, once again (and again, and again…): Does an agnostic believe in god? "Yes" or "No"?
punnet2 10 months ago
@punnet2
I'm not going to get suckered into another time wasting debate with a crass dishonest manipulator who recognizes no accountability. Enough is enough.
Burden of proof, Intelligent design (specified complexity is not mere complexity), Failure of Darwinism to rationally Naturally select intermediates for survival - before any appreciable survival benefits are realized. Your "Something from nothing" claims (Heizenberg) - when vacuum energy is not Nothingness.
Literally everything.
4TruthMatters 10 months ago
@punnet2,
1) "biblical endorsements of slavery and genocide"
Nope, you lie. The Bible merely acknowledges it.
2) You failed in your argument for America being a christian nation.
You misrepresent the discussion that you lost. It was about whether God was in the Declaration. You siad it wasn't. I proved you wrong. The only thing I condeded was that many words other than "Creator" were capitalized.
You are a brazenly dishonest manipulator Punnet - and you know it.
4TruthMatters 10 months ago
@4TruthMatters 1) No, the bible endorses it, and you already know this. Here's your admission from watch?v=itad7AWwTJ0 : "It does appear you are correct (and I was in error) on the point that Lev 25:44-46 permits slavery. Correction accepted."
2) False. I said the reference to "creator" was impersonal. Your contention that it meant "god" was predicated on its capitalization, and nothing else -- the significance of which I corrected you on. Go back and look.
punnet2 10 months ago
Comment removed
4TruthMatters 10 months ago
I've actually listed quite a few in the course of this discussion, though if you wish to persist in your intellectually dishonest quibbling so as to avoid the epistemic responsibility entailed by the [questionable] propositional assertions you've put forth on behalf of your atheistic BELIEF, then here's just one: "The sense data with which we have immediate acquaintance are an accurate representation of relations that actually obtain within a mind-independent external world." Care for another?
djs259 10 months ago
@djs259 So you're saying that the belief that our senses are accurate is a default position?
punnet2 10 months ago
@punnet2 No presuppositions involved, except that little tiny epistemological proposition that "lack of belief" is unconditionally warranted by an "absence of proof". Apart from being quite ambiguous in its use of the terms "belief" and "proof", the truth of this statement is by no means self-evident, but is open to doubt on several major fronts. If Atheism wins, it is not by default.
djs259 10 months ago
@djs259 Feel free to point out what you find ambiguous about the burden of proof, that your confusion may be remedied.
And yes, if he who claims god exists fails to meet the burden of proof for his claim, then the default position stands, namely atheism.
punnet2 10 months ago
@punnet2 You never bothered to address my other arguments and now fiercely cling to this preposterous statement that "atheism is the default position", which is not an argument at all but merely a bunch of question-begging double talk. I would point out in response that, strictly speaking, the withholding of a belief in the truth of a proposition is a type agnosticism. Agnosticism with respect to the proposition "God exists" is not the same as an affirmation of the contrary of that proposition.
djs259 10 months ago
@djs259 It would appear you're defining agnosticism -- lack of belief -- as the default position. Very good. Now tell us: does an agnostic believe in god or not?
punnet2 10 months ago
@punnet2 He neither necessarily believes nor necessarily disbelieves. He says "I DON'T KNOW if the proposition [God exists] is true or not. It could be true and it could not be true. I am not able to make up my mind which conclusion is the best." This is a far cry from arguing that there is NO evidence upon which to ground the belief that the assertion "God exists" is true, much less a judgement as to what kind of reasoning and evidence could conceivably serve to justify that belief.
djs259 10 months ago
@djs259 So once again: Does an agnostic believe in god or not? "Yes" or "No"?
Once again: We are not yet to the point of discussing whether there is in fact evidence for god; we're still trying to get you to realize that evidence is necessary in order to make that assertion. If you can accept that the theist has the burden of proof, we can move on to whether or not the theist can actually meet his burden of proof.
Stay focused, please.
punnet2 10 months ago
@punnet2 Your contention that theism exclusively bears the burden of proof is decisively vitiated by your dubious assumption (which you have thus far not denied), that lack of belief is unconditionally warranted in cases where the truth value of a proposition cannot be demonstrated evidentially, is self-refuting, and moreover reduces to absurdity on several key epistemological fronts. You say: "now show me that God exists". Oh, you genius, you! Is that really the subject we've been debating?
djs259 10 months ago
@punnet2 As Letterman once quipped to O'Reilly, when asked whether he wanted the US to win in IRAQ or not: "It's just not a simple yes or no answer for me, because I'm thoughtful!"
djs259 10 months ago
@djs259 Excellent. If you thoughtfully see a third option to the question "Does an agnostic believe in god", please present it. Otherwise, please answer "Yes" or "No".
punnet2 10 months ago
@punnet2 Even if an agnostic does not positively affirm that God exists, he also does not positively affirm that God does not exist, which leaves open the possibility that God does, in fact, exist. But is that really what atheism is; a position that amounts to the claim that God might very well exist? Ad hoc definitions and semantic equivocations do nothing to relieve the atheist of the obligation to advance arguments for his claim .He can't merely assume its truth until proven otherwise.
djs259 10 months ago
@djs259 Once again: I did not ask if an agnostic positively affirms god does not exist; please try to stay focused. I only asked if the agnostic believes in god -- "Yes" or "No". Do you need explained to you the difference between lack of belief and positive affirmation of non-existence?
punnet2 10 months ago
@punnet2 The contrapositive of a negative claim is a positive affirmation: the proposition "I don't believe God exists" is equivalent in truth-value to the contrapositive of that proposition, namely: "I believe God does not exist" And in the absence of knowledge one way or the other (agnosticism), you must make an argument to support that proposition, rather than simply declaring that we can happily regard it to be presumptively true unless the truth of its negation be demonstrated.
djs259 10 months ago
@djs259 False. Lack of belief in X is not equivalent to the active assertion of ~X. Consider (again): Did Europeans believe in marsupials before Australia was discovered? And if not, does this mean they were actively asserting marsupials did not exist?
Hopefully that clarifies the difference for you, and then hopefully you can answer "Yes" or "No" to: Does an agnostic believe in god?
punnet2 10 months ago
@punnet2 To construe atheism as simply "lack of belief in the existence of God" rather than a claim that "God does not exist" is to render the atheist position devoid of any meaningful propositional content. What does your lack of belief tell us about the state of affairs which obtains outside your own mind? What does it tell us about the question of whether God exists or not? Agnostics profess to refrain from affirming the truth of both the affirmation and its negation.
djs259 10 months ago
@djs259 False. Atheist simply means "not theist". Anyone who doesn't believe in god -- whether through lack of belief in god or positive affirmation of god's nonexistence -- is an atheist. The latter position has a burden of proof; the former is the default position and has no such burden.
punnet2 10 months ago
@djs259 Perhaps you were having trouble with the semantics of the term and of the impression that atheism only applies to active disbelief and not lack of belief; but you have now been corrected. If you require different terms to distinguish between those who lack belief and those who positively assert nonexistence, say so, and we'll proceed accordingly.
punnet2 10 months ago
@punnet2 Again, go back and read my posts. I addressed this more than once. Atheism construed as merely as "lack of belief" is a propositionally vacuous position, reducing us to the absurdity of calling dogs and chimps and babies "atheists". It tells us nothing about the question it's purporting to adopt a view of. Agnostics simply profess ignorance. The assertion, "I don't believe in the existence of God" does not logically follow from ignorance--it's a position in need of justification.
djs259 10 months ago
@djs259
I see you've encountered the poster boy of mindless utube Atheism.
Punnet will never engage the questions. Never. Ever. Period. There is no intellectual honesty. I'm not sure a soul exists. Certainly no shame.
He will robotically repeat silly Atheist talking points - and mindlessly insist you have the burden of proof no matter how demonstrably absurd you demonstrate his talking point to be.
I'll read some of the dialog tomorrow, but it's predictable.
4TruthMatters 10 months ago
@4TruthMatters 4TM, you know full well you've had to admit you were in error more than once in our conversations. As far as this present topic, you desperately tried to disprove logic with logic ("I lack belief in your lack of belief"). And yet in passing you inadvertently conceded the point when you acknowledged that agnosticism ("withholding judgment") is the default position.
punnet2 10 months ago
@punnet2
You are desperately dishonest. You refuse to acknowledge correction on literally hundreds of debate points you lost (any literally 100% of debates).
I am honest. I will accept correction when it is evident. This amounts to about .01 % of debate points - and only minor trivialities, while mopping the floor on the other 99.99%.
You are dead wrong on the burden. The best a lack of evidences justifies is witholding judgement (agnosticism), not disbelief / denial (atheism).
4TruthMatters 10 months ago
Comment removed
punnet2 10 months ago
@punnet2,
Further, Theists provide evidences in spades meeting any burden. Atheists hide from any burden to justify their position, by insisting upon a contrived definition of Atheism in terms indistinguishable from Agnosticism.
We've been through this many times Punnet. You refuse to be honest about anything.
Of course, I don't expect honesty from an Atheist. If there is no moral truth, why should you be honest when honesty doesn't serve your self-interests? Predictably, you're not.
4TruthMatters 10 months ago
@djs259 I already assented that dogs and babies are atheists. You're yet to articulate why this is problematic. We are all atheist (and "aleprechaunist", etc.) by default. Those who adopt a positive belief in god/leprechauns have the burden of proof to justify their adoption (as would those who adopt a positive belief in their nonexistence).
Are you still under the impression that atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive?
punnet2 10 months ago
@punnet2 Not only me, but the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy! :-)
djs259 10 months ago
@djs259 So it is merely an issue of semantics for you. As I said before: If you require different terms to keep your thoughts straight (to distinguish between one who lacks belief in X and one who asserts that X does not exist), say so, and we can proceed accordingly.
And if you wouldn't mind answering: Does an agnostic believe in god?
punnet2 10 months ago
@punnet2 If, as you have already conceded numerous times, mere "lack of belief" is sufficient to determine atheism, and that babies and chimps and dogs can therefore reasonably be referred to as atheists, then would not the truth of the following statement derive logically, on your definition: "There are atheists who lack belief in evolution, other minds, that 2+2=4, that the earth is round, that the sun is bigger than the earth, and that objects appearing within the visual field have...
djs259 10 months ago
@djs259 Yes. Those are all beliefs that one adopts, not that one holds by default. Did you actually think otherwise?
punnet2 10 months ago
@punnet2 Yes, you've made everything clear. Apparently there are some atheists who can lack belief in every conceivable thing, except their atheism.
djs259 10 months ago
@punnet2 ......permanence." But what kind of an atheist would that be? Do you know any such people calling themselves "atheists" who "lack belief" in such things?
djs259 10 months ago
@punnet2 Furthermore, agnostics simply suspend judgement. They tentatively reject both belief and disbelief. They don't necessarily have to, and don't universally in practice, do this on strictly evidential grounds. I could conceivably be an agnostic about God because I suffer from Altzheimer's disease and am unable to affirm belief. Would my "lack of belief" in that instance make me an "atheist", by default? Baloney. Disbelief in God is NOT agnosticism.
djs259 10 months ago
@djs259 So if one suspends judgment regarding X -- does one believe in X or not?
I asked you already to clarify what you mean by disbelief: Do you define disbelief as a lack of belief, or assertion of nonexistence?
punnet2 10 months ago
@punnet2 I would ask you a similar question: If one suspends judgment regarding X---does he lack belief in X? And if he lacks belief, what is he lacking belief in? He's lacking belief in X. He's saying "I don't believe in the existence of X", which is just a logically equivalent way of saying "I believe X does not exist". If you don't grant this, do you deny that any given proposition is logically equivalent to the contrapositive of that proposition? So if I say that, I'm not an agnostic!
djs259 10 months ago
@djs259 Wrong again. Someone who has never heard of X is not in a position to say either "I believe X exists" or "I believe X does not exist". Someone who has never heard of X says nothing in regard to X. Yet by default, he lacks belief in X. Consider (again) the example I gave: Prior to the discovery of Australia, Europeans did not believe in marsupials, yet they were not going about saying "I believe marsupials do not exist".
They LACKED belief in marsupials by default.
punnet2 10 months ago
@punnet2 So if Europeans living prior to the discovery of Australia "lacked belief" in something, what exactly did they lack belief in? Marsupials? Well, since they didn't even know of Australia, they couldn't very well be said to "lack belief" in an animal species existing in a land they didn't know existed. So, WHAT exactly were they lacking belief ABOUT? A lack of belief must be a lack of belief ABOUT SOMETHING.
djs259 10 months ago
@djs259 Apparently we have to slow it down even further for you. So one question at a time:
Did Europeans living prior to the discovery of Australia believe in marsupials?
Yes or No?
punnet2 10 months ago
@punnet2 It's not a yes or no question.
djs259 10 months ago
@djs259 Either you believe or you don't -- regardless of whether you're asked the question.
What other option is there?
punnet2 10 months ago
@punnet2 The other option is this: I don't know whether it is proper to believe, and I also don't know whether it is proper to disbelieve,so I will do neither. I'll plead ignorance. If and when I decide to commit either way,I'll need to advance some reasons to justify that decision. One of those reasons might be direct experience of God,which, after all, is no more absurd than citing direct experience of a mind-independent material world whose existence can also be rationally doubted and denied.
djs259 10 months ago
@djs259 So if don't know...do you believe or not?
Please note that I'm not asking if you disbelieve; only if you believe.
punnet2 10 months ago
@punnet2 This is getting really tiresome. If an agnostic lacked belief, it wouldn't be a justified lack of belief, because it would be based on a [professed] lack of knowledge. Agnostics don't really "lack belief" in the sense that an atheist "disbelieves" in the existence of God. Atheists claim to have knowledge that leads them to reject the existence of God, namely that we should expect to have more or better evidence if God actually existed, than we do have, which isn't self evident at all.
djs259 10 months ago
@djs259 Yes, it's getting tiresome, as we've been through this several times now.
Lack of belief (agnosticism) is the default position, where no assertion is made. "god exists" and "god does not exist" are both assertions, and constitute taking a different position from the default. If one asserts that god exists (or that god does not exist), but fails to meet the burden of proof for that assertion, I do not have sufficient reason for switching from the default position.
punnet2 10 months ago
@punnet2 . So no, they did not, strictly speaking, lack belief in marsupials; they lacked awareness of the necessary conditions in which would their potential belief in marsupials could become actual.
djs259 10 months ago
@punnet2 If you want to say that the same goes for the question of God's existence, then you are not an agnostic, because you are already affirming that there are certain evidential conditions under which you WOULD believe in God, but that those evidential conditions have not been met, and so you reject the truth of the statement "God exists".
djs259 10 months ago
@punnet2 But you have to make an argument for that position; you can't just assume it's the case that the evidence for God's existence would be greater or of a different type if he actually existed than the evidence we do in fact have. Agnostics profess a total lack of knowledge. They don't say: I would believe in the existence of X if X should be demonstrated to exist, but until then I'll hold on to my disbelief in the existence of X.
djs259 10 months ago
@djs259 So once again (and again...and again...): Does an agnostic believe in god -- Yes or No?
punnet2 10 months ago
@punnet2 They don't give an answer to the question, that's what makes them agnostics and not atheists!
djs259 10 months ago
@punnet2 The very fact that you can posit some kind of standard of evidence the satisfaction of which would elicit belief ABOUT an X, demonstrates that, unlike the nescient Europeans, you do, in fact, claim to KNOW SOMETHING about X.
djs259 10 months ago
@djs259 Yes, because I have encountered definitions of god now, and therefore can posit standards of evidence for such definitions -- just as following the discovery of Australia, a European encountering reports of marsupials could posit a standard of evidence to convince him of their existence.
But prior to encountering a definition of god/marsupials, i.e., prior to knowing something about X or having standards to posit for X -- one lacks belief in X by default.
punnet2 10 months ago
@punnet2 Lack of belief and justified lack of belief are two different things altogether. It's meaningless to say that Europeans would have a justified lack of belief in a species of animal existing in a land of which they were entirely unaware. It would be more accurate to say that Europeans had "potential belief" in the existence of Marsupials. And that isn't the same as saying they just didn't believe in the existence of marsupials the way atheists claim not to believe in a deity's existence
djs259 10 months ago
@djs259 Remember dj, we're slowing this down for you because you confuse yourself too easily. So all we need from you right now is a "Yes" or "No":
Prior to the discovery of Australia, did Europeans believe in marsupials?
(I'm not asking if they DISbelieved, or if they had "potential belief"; just if they believed. "Yes" or "No"?)
punnet2 10 months ago
@punnet2 I've addressed this point multiple times. It's not a yes or no question and requires careful qualifications. Perhaps you can answer this: Is the contrapositive of a proposition logically equivalent to that proposition? If not, please explain why you think your dogma is so sacred as to allow you the privilege of defying logical laws. "I don't believe God exists" is just a reworded version of "I believe God doesn't exist". Please tell us why you think that doesn't need justification
djs259 10 months ago