Is God a Delusion? 6/12

[libertatus]

There is a video of Dr. Cooke complaining of the debate format, topic and dealing with Dr. Craig's 'handlers' as he put it.

[mahmoudyzadeh]

Here is the basic argument for not believing in god -

It's totally useless and unnecessary, and doesn't lead to a better understanding of anything whatsoever.

Human progress has gone unnerringly in the direction of gaining better understanding of the natural world leaving less of the unknown for god to reside in - notice how WLC has to go all the way back to pre-big-bang to find a space to place God. If we ever discover a naturalistic explanation for that, then god will recede further

[DiatonicSoul]

@mahmoudyzadeh That is merely a subjective statement that doesn't disprove God.

[mahmoudyzadeh]

@DiatonicSoul No one is tryinjg to disprove god it's just that at the moment we can't see him/her/it/them when we look into the world around us.

[ndockett81]

Continued.

It's funny that you try to define the character of God by the actions of either descriptions of actions of biblical characters, or the actions of "self proclaimed" believers. In reality, all humans are capable of terrible things (see Hitler, Stalin, Planned Parenthood.) Just open your local news paper if you want to see "brutal stoneage stuff" that in no way defines the character or morals of God.

[ginganz13]

@ndockett81 - the bible is pretty clear on what god did and did not condone - a lot of it is repellant to say the least. Making a deal to sacrifice someones innocent daughter in return for victory in battle is all I need to know about the nature of your god. this stuff would have made Hitler shrink.

Oh btw - the only Nazi ex-communicated by the catholic church was Goebles - and that was because he married a protestant. At least the religious have standards eh?

[ndockett81]

@ginganz13 - That's why I highly suggest people reject Catholicism and put their faith in Jesus Christ. Again you make the fallacy that what so called followers do defines the moral character of God. How do you know even one person in that Catholic Church had a relationship with Jesus Christ? Yes the Bible is very clear on what you should do and what Jesus commands of His disciples: Love your God with all your heart, soul and mind and to love your neighbor as yourself. Sorry is that wrong?

[ginganz13]

@ndockett81 Thats your problem - you claim what you say is true but you have no better proof or argument than the utterly evil catholic church.

What kind of parent demands love? Its psychotic!

The bible is also very clear on slavery and genocide and torture and a whole lot of stuff that would get you arrested. Its no good trying to cherry pick from that evil stoneage inconsistent collection of rantings.

[ndockett81]

@ginganz13 - I don't have a problem actually, you're the one that has the problem and by your own free will are entering in to angry rants about how God is actually evil and that His followers are all evil as well. You're the one who rather then deal with the facts would rather rant and rage about how much you dislike God. If you don't want to accept the free gift of salvation and repent of your sins then great, move on and enjoy your life and stop worrying about what Christians are doing.

[ginganz13]

@ndockett81 - Oh yes you do - because false empty rhetoric you have used as reply has nothing to do with the statement -

...................You have no more proof or evidence for your claims than the evil catholic church..........

It is impossible to dislike something that does not exist - however I do dislike the idea that I am being watched & judged constantly or that people with NO EVIDENCE for their assertions can dictate my behaviour based on what their invisible friend says

[ndockett81]

God doesn't demand we accept Jesus as our savior, He gives us the free will to choose to be rescued from the punishment for breaking His laws. He paid the fine for our sins in full by sending Jesus to die on the Cross.

"brutal stoneage stuff" ... not sure what you mean by that.

And lastly, punishment for sin is Hell, eternal separation from God. One of the consequences of sin and the fall of man by the disobedience of Adam and Eve was that women would experience pain during childbirth.

[ginganz13]

@ndockett81 - 'free will' - but if you don't do what he says for the brief time you are on earth you're gonna fry in hell forever.

So if we all stop sinning, jesus died for nothing? The idea you can kill someone else to pay for your own wrong doing is truly disgusting.

That said if he is an immortal god it was just a party trick. Who was he kidding?

[ndockett81]

@ginganz13 - Yes, you can freely choose to believe that God is a delusion, refuse His free gift of salvation and live any way you please. Also, even if every person on earth were to stop sinning completely today, that would still leave plenty of sin to be covered by Jesus. Also, I haven't killed anybody, I didn't crucify Jesus nor did I cause the fall of man by disobeying God. This is the world I live in, and I accept it as such.

[ginganz13]

@ndockett81 but it's not 'free' in any sense of the word - it comes at the cost of being constantly judged, every second of every day by a cruel and capricious god - with the constant threat of eternal torture hanging over me.

But you accept the 'christian' idea of killing someone for everyone elses sin - which is pretty sick by even my standards.

[ginganz13]

@ndockett81 - 'Free will' By definition is; 'the power if acting without the contraint of necessity or fate'-

therefore 'love & obey me or burn in hell' no longer leaves one with free will. This idea like most religious assertion is utter self contradicting nonsense.

[ndockett81]

Those who accept Jesus Christ as their savior and repent are saved from punishment from sin (hell) but we are not saved from the consequences of our sin. Example: A guy murders somebody and is caught red handed. He's still going to go to Prison, even if somewhere along the way he get's "saved."

Pain during child birth (which is laughable at best as an argument, my wife smiled during child birth, it's call medicine) is a consequence of sin, not the punishment.

[ginganz13]

@ndockett81 why would the theocratic bully you call god demand we accept this character 'jesus'as our 'saviour'? If murder is not an obstacle to 'salvation' (whatever that might be) along with all the other brutal stoneage stuff the bible condones whats the point of any kind of moral behaviour?

You haven't read your bible very well if you can't remember what your god said about childbirth & pain.

The only explanation for all this is 'its a load of man made nonsense'.

[ginganz13]

If you understand that it's a collection of brutal, immoral, racist, sexist extremist dogma written in the stoneage what else is there really to know?

[terminat1]

@ginganz13 Clearly, you're biased, and you haven't looked at the Bible with any real sincerity.

[ginganz13]

@terminat1 - Is anyone who ignores the many examples of this negativity being really sincere?

[terminat1]

@ginganz13 Well, for example, you undoubtedly believe that the slaying of the Canaanite people was immoral, and that these individuals were innocent. But that's not what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that we're all sinners and guilty before God. The slaying of these people showed that God ultimately uses His Word to destroy the unsaved.

But you can't come to this understanding by reading the Bible for two minutes.

[ginganz13]

@terminat1 - The Bible teaches that we are all sinners, and guilty, exactly the way god knew we would turn out. What kind of half-wit makes something he knows is going to fail? - and then threatens us with eternal damnation for our inevitable, built in (by god) propensity for failure.

And if we are not sinners what was the point of Jesus? If we don't sin he died for nothing.

[terminat1]

@ginganz13 Well, God knew man was going to sin, but He also gave them free choice---to obey or not to obey.

God did not create the human race with a built-in sin nature. Of course, you don't believe in Adam and Eve, but they were made without sin. The curse of God was not on them, or on the human race. They chose to sin. God didn't force them to. The fact that God knew what they would do doesn't mean they didn't have free will.

You are correct, though: Jesus died for sinners.

[ginganz13]

@terminat1 - a bit like putting a lion in a cage with a sheep then punishing it when it eats the sheep.

If one is incapable of behaving in a way other than how one was designed to behave, one does not have free will.

Anyhow - how come if our sins have been forgiven by jesus' sacrifice how come childbirth is still painfull?

[terminat1]

@ginganz13 First of all, Jesus died for the elect, and not for every human being, which most people who claim to be Christians believe.

Second, salvation is a two-part process. First, God makes a person born again, and this is the moment they receive a new soul. Second, a person receives a glorified body on the last day.

The reason God's elect still suffer with pain, disease, etc., is because our bodies are still under sin, and therefore still under the original curse of God (Romans 8:10)

[ginganz13]

@terminat1 What an utter load of nonsense - thank 'god' there's not an ounce of evidence for any of it.

[dannywizz]

Cooke has extremly poor biblical knowledge. I doubt he has even opened a bible.

[AgeOfReasonXXI]

Craig urged Cooke to present arguments for atheism if he's to regard atheism as more rational that theism and doubt his religious experience.

yet, given that Craig argues in his ill-named book "Reasonable Faith" arguments and evidence cannot overrule his faith, i.e. they cannot make him doubt it, this means that Craig is either an idiot or a shameless hypocrite

[AgeOfReasonXXI]

so Craig claims belief in God is not necessary to lead a moral life. how is that not contradicting his claims elsewhere that atheism would lead to demoralization??

[Domzdream]

Lame Craig. Morality IS an invention of humans, sure. But Apes, monkeys, dolphins, dogs, cats, etc experience the same thing, just at different levels due to their nature. DUH! That's so obvious to me, why not you. Oh, right! You're a fuck-tard who can speak well, that's all.

We have moral choices so we use them. Recognizing that rape IS wrong, because it''s obvious to us when we see suffering of the victim.

[DianaBetancur1]

Cooke.......is.....so cynical...........Craig is the one suppose to be the irrational, farfetched, incoherent one...why does he have better arguments than rational, scientific, down to earth atheist Craig then?

[DianaBetancur1]

Cooke.......is.....so cynical...........Craig is the one suppose to be the irrational, farfetched, incoherent one...why does he have better arguments than rational, scientific, down to earth atheist Craig then?

[Roper122]

Ahh this is funny to watch... Cooke completely confounds Craig's expectations.

[DarkfalzReturns]

Craig destroys Bill, here. There's no challenge to his points, and Bill in fact supports portions of Craig's premises.

[7tylerjb]

That guy doing the sqeaky thing in the background made me laugh so hard. How come he always does it only when Dr. Craig is talking though?

[TheMrDeist]

I jumped into this debate and I feel like Cooke must not be talking in the same debate because he avoids all of Craig's arguments. I feel like Cooke thinks if he just babble long enough, people won't realize he isn't addressing anything.

[omnissient]

Cooke is a mor0n. I m an atheist and i have seen some great scientists debate for atheism. But Cooke just rambles on and on about totally obvious trivialities that any atheist already knows. Get to the f4cking point and disprove the f4cking cosmological argument and tell me sth about physics and the bigbang or gtfo.

[Jfstud85]

I did not watch the whole debate, but I agree that from the little I watched Craig was not at all challenged ...

[hexusziggurat]

"....the creation of the universe...I don't know". Well thats what thinkers do Mr Cooke ....you think big about all the big questions. If you don't want to tackle the big parts of the foundation to the arguements...well just throw that out & think it as false even if it completely correct?!!

[ginganz13]

The point is Mr Cooke was brave enough to admit to 'boundaries' in his knowledge and address the parts he does know about.

The religious do not need to think - they have faith...which subjugates knowledge - the problem for them is it can only subjugate so much knowledge, which is why in informed societies it is in terminal decline - like all the other religions before...

[hexusziggurat]

@ginganz13 it is fact that I think even more about the issues b/c I believe in God. It makes me wonder what the reasoning was for everything that was done. Faith is not a detractor to thinking. In some it can be a hindrance yes...but likewise the atheist can claim their disbeliefs simply for not wanting to tackle the big questions which demonstrates a laziness as well. The lazy are everywhere & it doesn't take theistic belief/non-belief to qualify for.

[ginganz13]

As history has proven, sheer 'volume' of thought is no match for an effective thought process. If one is prepared to accept assertions without proof (faith) there is little point in thinking as they are intangible & any assertion becomes equally valid as another. Calling everything one doesn't or can't understand "god" is value-less as it explains precisely nothing.

[hexusziggurat]

@ginganz13 well first you have to have a premise...what is God...what are the foundation to our purpose...what happens when we die...why does it happen...why do we die...why do we have souls. See the context is all linked when you start to build the premises. It is never value-less to use logic to arrive at a conclusion when that conclusion is needed to build on the other questions. You cannot equate faith to non-thinking. Perhaps people arrived at their faith b/c of a multitude of thinking.

[hexusziggurat]

@ginganz13 actually its not in terminal decline b/c there is more realization in the scientific community for the support of a creator. Things like the origin of species through evolution is in decline. Evolution occurs but not as an origin point, but merely adaptations to current climates/neccessities.

[CliffStamp]

@hexusziggurat Modern peer reviewed articles advance the idea that species come into being through a supernatural cause and not through natural causes such as environmental pressure or genetic drift? Can I have a few review articles which support that assertion.

[hexusziggurat]

@CliffStamp So we look at the natural world and those methods CAN be used to review data collected about things existing in a natural state.

Though if we cite the concept of "god" we know for certain that the qualities of such a being may be experienced, but the quantifying can well be beyond our scope to study things via the methods we currently use. Supernatural pertains both to myth & factual things currently unquantifiable (we can't just keep pointing fingers at the mythical portions).

[hexusziggurat]

@CliffStamp "…A tidal wave of new books… threaten to shatter that confidence - titles like Darwin Retried (1971), Macbeth; The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong (1982), Hitching; The Great Evolution Mystery (1983), Taylor; The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution (1984), Fix; Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities (1984), Cohen; Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (1987), Lovtrup;

[hexusziggurat]

@hexusziggurat and Adam and Evolution (1984), Pitman. Not one of these books was written from a Christian-apologetic point of view: they are concerned only with scientific truth - as was Sir Ernst Chain when he called evolution 'a fairy tale'."

[CliffStamp]

@hexusziggurat I realize there are many books, however I am interested in peer reviewed articles, in particular review articles which summarize and assert that conclusion. Review articles generally will follow any major shift as they collect, review and project the current accepted view . Of course if you are not asserting that peer reviewed science accepts this position then there is no need to provide such evidence.

[hexusziggurat]

@CliffStamp are you asking me if somehow humans can put God under a microscope as to quantify?

[CliffStamp]

@hexusziggurat I was asking if your assertion that evolution was in decline was supported by peer reviewed literature or a belief statement.

Evolution is a scientific theory, it is either accepted or rejected based on the evidence.

If you note it is in decline, this would imply you mean as a scientific concept and if this assertion is true it should be seen in the literature.

[kicknotes]

Cooke's supporters were certainly quite rude... squeaky toys during Craig's presentation, untimely applause, etc. Kudos to Craig for his composure.

[kobewild1]

wow yes at around 8:35 yes it looks like he gave up

[Birdieupon]

8.32 seconds = the sound of defeat!

[5tonyvvvv]

@Birdieupon The Golden Rule Atheists now use terms from religion!. lost empty Fools!!!

[Domzdream]

Craig is still deluded. Such a shame- he's really quite bright.

[necr0sys]

Dr Cooke you just got OWNED

[luisdstripper]

Another knockout punch delivered by the champ, Dr. Craig!

[ginganz13]

If you had any idea of the conditions he insisted on for this - er - 'debate' take place you wouldn't be so proud.

In the meantime don't take up boxing.

[Birdieupon]

What were the conditions?

[gbologa]

Me. Cooke he said, she said =absolutly rubbish.

[YinHoNg]

08:32 - the sound of defeat.

[mellielli]

I struggle to understand why the foundation of moral values is of such tremendous importance. What does it matter as long as we don't kill each other? In fact, there is a rational basis for most 'moral' values. We have agreed to refrain from inflicting physical violence on other people in exchange for their promise to do the same. At this point I'm willing to claim that if a moral value is not somehow based on reason, it is, in fact, not a proper value anyway. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[groundhog0339]

Whose "reason" are you referring to? Yours? Mine? Stalins? Chairman Mao?

Just because someone doesn't like being killed that doesn't make it wrong. That just makes it rather inconvenient for that person. Just because people don't like living under a raging dictator doesn't make it wrong. That just makes people's lives harder ... and scarier.

Who decides?

[mellielli]

That is a good point, 'whose reason?' indeed. In my opinion people can do anything they like as long as they don't hurt others. I don't think hurting others can ever be considered rational behaviour and thus I refuse to think of raging dictators as rational beings. I know I'm an idealistic fool, but at least I'm happy and free and can live in peace with everyone without having to base my morals on a mythical being.

In the end, I decide.

[Birdieupon]

"In my opinion people can do anything they like as long as they don't hurt others".

If it's only your opinion, then how do you assert it above the opinion of other person who thinks he can hurt you? Do you appeal to reason? If you do appeal to reason, then you are appealing to the possibility of drawing closer to an objective "truth" by challenging the integrity of somebody's thinking.

[mellielli]

How do I assert it above the opinion of other people? I don't. All I'm saying is, I can live in peace without a mythical being. It's a shame not all people can do that. The fact is, you have to admit, that it is in everyone's interest to live a happy life: even if you don't believe it is our 'telos' as such, there is not much point in being born if you're not meant to live. So yes, I am appealing to reason. Why couldn't there be an objective truth?

[Orationstudy]

"The fact is, you have to admit, that it is in everyone's interest to live a happy life:"

and if abusing others makes me happy, how can you criticize me?

Furthermore, how do you assert is is reasonable to live a happy life? According to the replication of DNA, happiness is irrelevant. It is mere survival that matters. 12 years of happiness with no offspring is nothing compared to 78 years of misery and spreading your genes. Where are you getting your reasoning and standards from?

[Birdieupon]

"What does it matter as long as we don't kill each other?"

That's a claim to an objective moral value which you have just asserted. If you're going to claim that statement you just made was only subjective, then you can't argue that it's wrong.

[jarhood]

Well,,, he just gave up.

[YinHoNg]

I know. I couldn't believe it too! The guy came for a debate, then, when challenged, said that he wasn't here to debate at all, and then gave up altogether! I'm usually against it but I think this is a situation where the apt reaction is truly just: LOL.

[arcadia700]

I'm quite disappointed at this point since I expected more from the atheist speaker--given that atheists are usually viewed as the more philosophical dude. Seems to me that Dr Cooke's throwing punches all over the place and can't really give credible points against the rationale of belief in God.But in fairness, at 4:40 he said that his purpose is to point out how man can live morally without God -- so he wasn't really in this debate to disprove the existence of God after all -- that figures = )

[MachiavelliNZ]

Oh dear, I was really hoping for some juicy points from Dr Cooke but he seems to have run out of steam. If he is, "not going to engage in he-said, she-said, squabble," then why did he agree to a debate. Also, if he disagrees with pretty much the entire premise of the debate then why did he agree to the moot?! Argh, very unsatisfying.

[babystinky]

Exactly, Cooke should never had agreed to the "debate", it sounds like he was looking for a friendly discussion over tea!

[emopeacekid]

This is funny to watch the atheist standing on a cloud. So basically we are to share with others for selfish reasons? Do not know how the universe began?? Then why are u an atheist? Agnosticism is what u should be advocating.

[RationalMan16]

I'm cringing a bit at this debate. I hope that Cooke will begin to come back with some better replies to his five points.

[RedlandsCRC]

The fact that Cooke did not respond any of Dr. Craig's arguments is most likely because he did not know how to answer them. Dr Craig and the theism position is the clear winner in this debate.

[ginganz13]

You need to check your facts again - he did respond to some of Craigs arguments & those he didn't he made very clear why.

Most of Craigs arguments were made on assertions for which there is no evidence as Cooke correctly pointed out.

Craig could just as easily pointed out that Cooke can't prove the non existance of invisible unicorns - the sad truth is this argument though seemingly absurd has the same merit.

[RedlandsCRC]

Dr. Craig's arguments were not just assertions, but were actually laid out in a logical way. Each of his premises he proved to be plausibly true, and Cooke did not show why the premises were false.

[ginganz13]

By Definition logical argument requires evidence and proof Dr Craig has neither therefore it is an assertion.

[RedlandsCRC]

You if listen to the debate again, you will notice that he does back up the premises that don't seem obviously true. Dr. Craig did not provide an extensive amount of evidence on each premise because he was waiting for Mr Cooke to provide a rebuttal against some of his premises, but it never came! However, you can find out how Dr. Craig supports his premises more fully if you go to his website: ReasonableFaith[dot]org

[ginganz13]

The rebuttal was that Dr Craigs claims are based on assertion, this remains the case until Dr Craig can reveal where and what this alleged God is, if it exists at all.

[RedlandsCRC]

Dr. Craig presented 4 arguments for the existence of God which were logically valid. Bill Cooke had the task to first show why the premises in each of Dr. Craig's arguments were false, then present a positive case for atheism. However, he failed to do all that.

[ginganz13]

Positing a 'God' who is unexplainable as the most likely cause for something else one cannot explain is not logic, it is rhetoric.

Craig stated God was transcendant, outside the realms of even probable knowledge - outside of hypothesis one cannot possibly base a logical argument on such assumptions.

Cooke explained it was impossible to falsify the non existant thats why he did challenge the rhetoric. The non existant & Craigs god are utterly indistinguishable in appearance.

[RedlandsCRC]

No, his argument proved an immaterial, changeless, and personal cause, which is the definition of God. Dr. Craig did state what he meant by 'God' in the debate.

[ginganz13]

It very plainly is not the accepted definition of God. It is Craigs definition of God - a specious twisting of semantics & tautological construct to keep God out of harms way.

His argument which was largely rhetorical proved nothing because he had no evidence.

Unfortunately for Craig, lack of explaination does not constitute evidence.

One thing a cursory look at the history of gods does prove is that they definitely do change - all the time.

[RedlandsCRC]

ginganz13: Historically, that has been the definition of God. Please do your research on Church History.

His arguments were all logically valid, and he provided proof for the premises, so the task upon the atheist is to either accept it or try and deny one of the premises. They then have to provide a positive case for atheism.

[ginganz13]

Just looked up the definition of God in the OED, Websters, Collins & Wikipedia - Please buy a dictionary.

If he could provide definitive proof of the existance of god why is he messing about doing party tricks at AUT?

The truth is he has no proof whatsoever beyond asserting god as his most acceptable explanation.

The atheist isn't trying to prove the existance of anything, the theist is. I beleive the vernacular is 'time to put up or shut up'.

[RedlandsCRC]

Remember, I said 'historically'. Historically God has always been defined as the creator of the universe. There are so many apparent representations/definitions of 'god' today.

ginganz13, Dr. Craig presented 4 logical arguments with plausibly true premises, so thus the atheist must show why the premises are not true, and then provide a positive case for theism.

An atheist is one who says there is no god. It is the negation of theism - Source: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

[ginganz13]

Historically God(s) have changed beyond recognition, especially the christian job....more of them have died than were ever 'alive?'

Dr Craig presented 4 logical arguments that would be true only if God existed - he failed to provde evidence on this crucial point - not even a photograph.

Religion requires a leap of faith - that is why it is called belief rather than knowledge.

Call me old fashioned but being able to see something kinda helps the credibility - ya know what I'm saying?

[RedlandsCRC]

Lol ginganz13, the arguments did not rely that God existed, but rather that was their conclusion.

We all believe in things we cannot see. For example, I believe I have thoughts, although I cannot see my thoughts.

Secondly, the statement, "I only believe in things that are physically testable" is literally self-refuting because that statement in itself is not physically testable.

[ginganz13]

But it is close enough which is how the scientific method works (with some sucess) & the reason people don't need to keep jumping off tall buildings to check gravity - religion is the other extreme - beleif for it's own sake with the attendant failure of prayer, miracles, blessing etc etc.....

[ginganz13]

It remains the arguments were not logical they were rhetorical. Citing personal incredulity & abusing the frailties of semantics when regarding the development if the universe is rhetoric not logic.

Logic by definition must deal with known values - only the religious can formulate with unknowns but the answer is always the same x cubed equals God.

[hugiesrox]

Cooke has let off far too many unfounded assertations all throughout Craig's talk.

Craig is being completely unchallenged on any point.

[Christianjr4]

LOL @ the squiggly duck. Dr. Craig got owned by the duck rofl.