To blame God because we who have the ability to prevent children from dying of preventable diseases yet don`t do enough is lame and unjust. A child dies of starvation yet we have the ability to feed the world thirty times over. So why blame God for our inability to feed the world.
@FeignofCordor My opinion is this why would a God who cares about humanity create a world where the is a earthquakes (Haiti earthquake killed 220,000), tsuamnis such as Japan where 18,000 died, super volcanoes such as those in Yellowstone and Krakatoa which will continue to wreak havoc to any living abilities long after we are dead and allow 9 million children died each year aged under 5? I personnally believe their souls (so to speak) died with them and are not being tortured in hell.
@BlueFireTrooper The Earth needs Volcanoes to let out pressure, Earthquakes and Tsunamis are a consequence of tectonic plates. clashing this happens because they are loose and it is necessary that it is designed this way. However most danger areas are known so people and were that is the case and people still chose to live there its wrong to blame God, California is a dangerous place to live yet people live there. Like I said in my last comment nobody needs to die of starvation
@FeignofCordor There have been five mass extinctions in the history of life on the earth resulting in 99.8% of all species being extinct. Some plan. God is apparently all knowing and powerful then could he not have created a world where there was no earthquakes on the earth- is he malevolent or indifferent? What about all the genetic diseases children are born with (his creation). What about two year old baby girls getting bone cancer, if this is his creation I have absolutely no respect for him
@FeignofCordor By the way the reason why an estimated 29,000 children under five have died of starvation in Somalia is because your God will not send rain (or manna from heaven) and consequently they can not grow crops or drink clean water. Just imagine the horrendous death those innocent children suffered. Would you prefer if they relied on imports at inflated prices? Is your God malevolent or indifferent? Wiki "list of famines" and praise your apathetic God.
@FeignofCordor Is all of this somehow devinely warrented because a rib women (Eve) was convinced by a talking snake to eat an apple from a magical tree? Dogmatic nonsense.
@FeignofCordor The earth needs to let out pressure? Did you know an All Powerful God could as well create a world where no pressure is needed to be let out? Its not that hard. Just *poof* world where there are no volcanoes, natural disasters hunger etc.
The earth is made perfectly and fine tuned for conscious life to exist and flourish upon it. Now if you have a better design than that which the earth is set by then please share it with the world forget me as i`m sure scientists would love to hear about this improved design. until then my advice is don`t live in known dangerous areas.
@FeignofCordor A better design. I know a better design. One where natural disasters do not occur. One where volcanoes do not need to let out any pressure. One where the tectonic plates under the earth never rub against each other. Do you really think "The Almighty God" cannot create a world where non of these things are present. Let me guess? Yes he can but he chose to create with natural disasters, disease etc. The earth could very well be BETTER than it is.
@FeignofCordor Of and I am sure the people who where hit in Indonesia by the tsunami were in the wrong place right? They should have known it was dangerous to live there. You DISGUST ME!
Oh spare me the mellow dramatics please. They do know it is dangerous in that area i`m just saying I wouldn`t live in a such a danger spot people make the choice to. Unlike your attempt at twisting what I said. I don`t say they deserved it but I am saying you can`t blame God for that. Now go to Dawkins forum and have a cry at how disgusted you`re at evil Christians. lol
@FeignofCordor I did not twist your words, you asked for a better design and I CLEARLY told you what a better design for an all powerful god to do. He just didn't feel like doing that I guess. I still don't get what you mean by "Danger spot". Natural disasters happen almost everywhere in the world. Are you saying people should all move to "less dangerous spots?". And yes I can blame god for that because he created the world dammit. Whether directly or indirectly it is gods fault.
@HolyBiblehiswordonly That would all make sense if it wasn't all fiction. Atheism is more than just the disbelief of god, it is the understanding that the bible is a fictional story book. Explain to me what you actually think about what this man thinks rather than what has been fabricated thousands of years ago.
And a question for you, the antichrist is the servant of the devil right? and the devil was one of gods most prized angels, why did god create the devil (satan, lucifier)?
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
@HolyBiblehiswordonly Dacey doesn't acknowledge God's existence; he's an atheist. Since this is a debate on "Does God Exist?" many of the exchanges are delivered on the grounds of presupposing a God exists, but merely for the sake of argument. And "antichrist" is a term Christians use on anyone who doesn't agree with their version of the faith. 1 John 2:22-23 would exclude Catholics - who do believe Jesus is Christ and don't deny the Father & Son - yet Protestants claim they're "antichrist."
@JosephHolmes108 i think what you mean is you haven't heard any atheist with anything near the debating skils (= practice) as WLC. you've no doubt heard loads of WLC debates - why don't you listen to them, examine his arguments line by line, and see if you can work out where the hidden "and everyone surely agrees" sucker punch is located. it's there in every single one of them! his arguments are illusions, carefully crafted tricks that rely on "common sense" and personal (in)credulity.
yes, he uses logic, but the premeses he bases his arguments on all involve some kind of "surely everyone knows this" clause - everything that began to exist was caused; the universe exists, therefore there is an explanation of its existence; objective moral facts do exist. note that these all depend on some kind of "common sense" understanding of very vague concepts. it's funny that you think that atheists try to avoid logic and reason.
@BozoTheBear lol silly fool.. what your calling "common Sense" is logic... Logic is somthign we use to determince the truth ratehr than expecting ubsurd things to happen.. there is nothing wrong with "common sense" Wish you had some yourself
Why is it that when a theist calls an atheist a "silly fool" (or similar derogatory comment), they always make numerous spelling and grammatical errors?
Oh and I hope you're not a Christian theist, or otherwise you're now in danger of the fire of hell (Matt 5:22).
Regarding the difference between logic and "common sense", logic is a cold hard mathematical system of deduction. "Common sense" ("gut instincts" is probably a better term) is asserting things that seem sensible.
@BozoTheBear your right your not a fool and i shouldnt have insulted you. Even though you insulted me i shouldnt have snaped back. Your wrong to say logic and common sense are different. Even if you are right in saying that Craig isnt at fault at using these so callled "gut instincts" .. You make it apear as if Craig is somehow superstitious or using emotion in his arguements. For example The kalam cosmological argument that whatecer begins to exist has a cause ex nilo.
@BozoTheBear there is nothing illogical with that statement at all. Logic or "common sense" or "gut instinct" call it what you want but there is no way around the fact that you are cornered into two options. 1: either the universe popped into existance from nothing by nothing or 2: God created the universe
Sorry for using a little "common sense" here when i go with option 2 ... and im sorry i was never a good speller but that doesnt make me stupid or incapable of understanding logic
Proving Life is a challenge against natural circumstances does not disprove God, it only alleges a complaint against Naturalism to make what is the Natural World a source of complaint, if at any time the displeased find someone to complain to. But no example exists of a better world, except one in which the Natural World is finished and some outside judgment is made to restore that which is the basis of complaints. the necessity of death as an instrument of progressing life in any direction
If God were to create this world so perfect (which He did) that no children were of malaria then it would've been called Paradise. The Bible holds it sin entered this world which is how it became precisely what it is. This voids Dacey's lengthy argument.
"Appendix is useless"? Dacey's clueless, rather!
"The appendix now appears to have a reason to be as a "safe house" for the beneficial bacteria living in the human gut."
Last but not least - our "terrorists" are their "freedom-fighters"....
@KPECTOHOCETC Well that he actually delivers "proof" (all though I dont agree with him) and doesnt go on a hate rampage against religion like Dawkins, Hitchens etc.. And whenever I hear an Atheist go all "You can disprove a negative" I use Dacey's argument to rebuttle them, and they go quiet.
Also, he fights hard for human rights, just because he's an atheist doesnt make him a bad person.
@TVOham last time i checked this is a free country to say whatever i want. anyways he made poor arguments in the beginning so i voiced my opinion. i personally thought it was a good debate but not one of William lane Craig's best. sooo yeah... still funny.
Dacey ignores that many holocaust victim survivors felt supported and strengthened by God through their ordeal. Is it a choice one makes? That is between God and the individual.
Austin Dacey actually had a positive argument for the non-existence of God. The majority of William Lane Craig debates have been filled with negations of William Lane Craig's argument and these contained no positive argument for not believing in God.
To blame God because we who have the ability to prevent children from dying of preventable diseases yet don`t do enough is lame and unjust. A child dies of starvation yet we have the ability to feed the world thirty times over. So why blame God for our inability to feed the world.
@FeignofCordor My opinion is this why would a God who cares about humanity create a world where the is a earthquakes (Haiti earthquake killed 220,000), tsuamnis such as Japan where 18,000 died, super volcanoes such as those in Yellowstone and Krakatoa which will continue to wreak havoc to any living abilities long after we are dead and allow 9 million children died each year aged under 5? I personnally believe their souls (so to speak) died with them and are not being tortured in hell.
@BlueFireTrooper The Earth needs Volcanoes to let out pressure, Earthquakes and Tsunamis are a consequence of tectonic plates. clashing this happens because they are loose and it is necessary that it is designed this way. However most danger areas are known so people and were that is the case and people still chose to live there its wrong to blame God, California is a dangerous place to live yet people live there. Like I said in my last comment nobody needs to die of starvation
@FeignofCordor There have been five mass extinctions in the history of life on the earth resulting in 99.8% of all species being extinct. Some plan. God is apparently all knowing and powerful then could he not have created a world where there was no earthquakes on the earth- is he malevolent or indifferent? What about all the genetic diseases children are born with (his creation). What about two year old baby girls getting bone cancer, if this is his creation I have absolutely no respect for him
@FeignofCordor By the way the reason why an estimated 29,000 children under five have died of starvation in Somalia is because your God will not send rain (or manna from heaven) and consequently they can not grow crops or drink clean water. Just imagine the horrendous death those innocent children suffered. Would you prefer if they relied on imports at inflated prices? Is your God malevolent or indifferent? Wiki "list of famines" and praise your apathetic God.
@FeignofCordor Is all of this somehow devinely warrented because a rib women (Eve) was convinced by a talking snake to eat an apple from a magical tree? Dogmatic nonsense.
@FeignofCordor The earth needs to let out pressure? Did you know an All Powerful God could as well create a world where no pressure is needed to be let out? Its not that hard. Just *poof* world where there are no volcanoes, natural disasters hunger etc.
The earth is made perfectly and fine tuned for conscious life to exist and flourish upon it. Now if you have a better design than that which the earth is set by then please share it with the world forget me as i`m sure scientists would love to hear about this improved design. until then my advice is don`t live in known dangerous areas.
@FeignofCordor A better design. I know a better design. One where natural disasters do not occur. One where volcanoes do not need to let out any pressure. One where the tectonic plates under the earth never rub against each other. Do you really think "The Almighty God" cannot create a world where non of these things are present. Let me guess? Yes he can but he chose to create with natural disasters, disease etc. The earth could very well be BETTER than it is.
@FeignofCordor Of and I am sure the people who where hit in Indonesia by the tsunami were in the wrong place right? They should have known it was dangerous to live there. You DISGUST ME!
Oh spare me the mellow dramatics please. They do know it is dangerous in that area i`m just saying I wouldn`t live in a such a danger spot people make the choice to. Unlike your attempt at twisting what I said. I don`t say they deserved it but I am saying you can`t blame God for that. Now go to Dawkins forum and have a cry at how disgusted you`re at evil Christians. lol
@FeignofCordor I did not twist your words, you asked for a better design and I CLEARLY told you what a better design for an all powerful god to do. He just didn't feel like doing that I guess. I still don't get what you mean by "Danger spot". Natural disasters happen almost everywhere in the world. Are you saying people should all move to "less dangerous spots?". And yes I can blame god for that because he created the world dammit. Whether directly or indirectly it is gods fault.
@HolyBiblehiswordonly That would all make sense if it wasn't all fiction. Atheism is more than just the disbelief of god, it is the understanding that the bible is a fictional story book. Explain to me what you actually think about what this man thinks rather than what has been fabricated thousands of years ago.
And a question for you, the antichrist is the servant of the devil right? and the devil was one of gods most prized angels, why did god create the devil (satan, lucifier)?
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
@HolyBiblehiswordonly Dacey doesn't acknowledge God's existence; he's an atheist. Since this is a debate on "Does God Exist?" many of the exchanges are delivered on the grounds of presupposing a God exists, but merely for the sake of argument. And "antichrist" is a term Christians use on anyone who doesn't agree with their version of the faith. 1 John 2:22-23 would exclude Catholics - who do believe Jesus is Christ and don't deny the Father & Son - yet Protestants claim they're "antichrist."
@JosephHolmes108 i think what you mean is you haven't heard any atheist with anything near the debating skils (= practice) as WLC. you've no doubt heard loads of WLC debates - why don't you listen to them, examine his arguments line by line, and see if you can work out where the hidden "and everyone surely agrees" sucker punch is located. it's there in every single one of them! his arguments are illusions, carefully crafted tricks that rely on "common sense" and personal (in)credulity.
yes, he uses logic, but the premeses he bases his arguments on all involve some kind of "surely everyone knows this" clause - everything that began to exist was caused; the universe exists, therefore there is an explanation of its existence; objective moral facts do exist. note that these all depend on some kind of "common sense" understanding of very vague concepts. it's funny that you think that atheists try to avoid logic and reason.
@BozoTheBear lol silly fool.. what your calling "common Sense" is logic... Logic is somthign we use to determince the truth ratehr than expecting ubsurd things to happen.. there is nothing wrong with "common sense" Wish you had some yourself
Why is it that when a theist calls an atheist a "silly fool" (or similar derogatory comment), they always make numerous spelling and grammatical errors?
Oh and I hope you're not a Christian theist, or otherwise you're now in danger of the fire of hell (Matt 5:22).
Regarding the difference between logic and "common sense", logic is a cold hard mathematical system of deduction. "Common sense" ("gut instincts" is probably a better term) is asserting things that seem sensible.
@BozoTheBear your right your not a fool and i shouldnt have insulted you. Even though you insulted me i shouldnt have snaped back. Your wrong to say logic and common sense are different. Even if you are right in saying that Craig isnt at fault at using these so callled "gut instincts" .. You make it apear as if Craig is somehow superstitious or using emotion in his arguements. For example The kalam cosmological argument that whatecer begins to exist has a cause ex nilo.
@BozoTheBear there is nothing illogical with that statement at all. Logic or "common sense" or "gut instinct" call it what you want but there is no way around the fact that you are cornered into two options. 1: either the universe popped into existance from nothing by nothing or 2: God created the universe
Sorry for using a little "common sense" here when i go with option 2 ... and im sorry i was never a good speller but that doesnt make me stupid or incapable of understanding logic
Proving Life is a challenge against natural circumstances does not disprove God, it only alleges a complaint against Naturalism to make what is the Natural World a source of complaint, if at any time the displeased find someone to complain to. But no example exists of a better world, except one in which the Natural World is finished and some outside judgment is made to restore that which is the basis of complaints. the necessity of death as an instrument of progressing life in any direction
If God were to create this world so perfect (which He did) that no children were of malaria then it would've been called Paradise. The Bible holds it sin entered this world which is how it became precisely what it is. This voids Dacey's lengthy argument.
"Appendix is useless"? Dacey's clueless, rather!
"The appendix now appears to have a reason to be as a "safe house" for the beneficial bacteria living in the human gut."
Last but not least - our "terrorists" are their "freedom-fighters"....
@KPECTOHOCETC Well that he actually delivers "proof" (all though I dont agree with him) and doesnt go on a hate rampage against religion like Dawkins, Hitchens etc.. And whenever I hear an Atheist go all "You can disprove a negative" I use Dacey's argument to rebuttle them, and they go quiet.
Also, he fights hard for human rights, just because he's an atheist doesnt make him a bad person.
@TVOham last time i checked this is a free country to say whatever i want. anyways he made poor arguments in the beginning so i voiced my opinion. i personally thought it was a good debate but not one of William lane Craig's best. sooo yeah... still funny.
Dacey ignores that many holocaust victim survivors felt supported and strengthened by God through their ordeal. Is it a choice one makes? That is between God and the individual.
Austin Dacey actually had a positive argument for the non-existence of God. The majority of William Lane Craig debates have been filled with negations of William Lane Craig's argument and these contained no positive argument for not believing in God.
When one says "the world would not be this way IF God existed". They immediately try to stack what they deem to be their own superior logic and reasoning against that of a being that can see all the workings of the universe (and beyond) then, here and later and measure each heart of each human simultaneously. How does one even come close to matching wits against a being that created the very foundations of the universe?
Ahh this is not what i was expecting from this Dacey character. he started off humble,friendly and respectful, then turned smarmy :S bit of a let down. the soft voice does not disguise his bitterness to my ears unfortunately. Is he even attempting to attack WLC's defence ?
I have not heard one bit of LOGIC in what Dacey said...not one bit. What I did hear though is a lot of emotion, hidden anger and...lots of arrogance. I thought an atheist would use jaw dropping logic...all I heard from him was emotion.
@omnissient No supernatural being can be disproven. Supernatural does not need to follow any rules. Like the Flying Spaghetti Monster that only I can see.
As for omnipotence, it may or may not be a concept that is beyond our comprehension. Don't forget what we are. We are merely evolved beings that share 98% of our DNA with chimps. We might be like insects compared to other entities or potential entities in the universe that are more evolved or more intelligent through other methods.
@CambridgeHeights supernatural is exactly one of these words of confusion. I prefer real and imaginary. Its either real or not.
If i believe the earth is flat am i wrong? Maps are flat, blue prints of buildings are flat. Withing a local regional context it is true to assume this. In that context God exists and doesnt exist. Both is true.
But where is the explanatory power? The falsifiability? The predictions possible based on the claim?
@omnissient Real vs imaginary is not the same dichotomy as natural vs supernatural.
Natural means obeying the laws of physics. Supernatural means it is not constrained by the laws of physics. If supernatural phenomenon do exist, they would be beyond scientific inquiry, since science is based on the assumption that the natural world obeys certain laws.
@CambridgeHeights Science is not based on this assumption. Science derives these laws from observation. Supernatural items might be chaotic, unpredictable or against any mathematic laws. But they would still be observable and thereby testable.
@omnissient Science derives these laws from observation, but the fact that we consider them laws is because they are assumed to follow a consistency. We don't measure the speed of every photon. We measure a few photons and assume they all travel at the measured speed based on a natural law.
If a photon was supernatural and had an erratic speed, science wouldn't have an answer. We could observe the photon but wouldn't have a scientific explanation for it because it's not following natural law
@CambridgeHeights Oh i get it. Its like saying "This dice rolls a seven once in a while. We just dont know when." And no amount of non non sevens disproves that.
I dont think so. If i roll a bunch of non sevens, then at some point i will just declare it can not, and go from there.
The photon though could at least be observed as unexplained and that would disprove the laws of physics. But we didnt see such a photon so i ll go with it doesnt exist until we see otherwise.
Just because the photon is unexplained does not mean that it is supernatural. It could be following a different law of physics that we have not discovered yet. If it is supernatural, science will never be able to explain it. If it is due to undiscovered laws, then science could in theory explain it eventually.
@CambridgeHeights You agnostics have the wrong approach. The flying spaghetti monster doesnt exist because:
1: It is infalsifiable
2: It has no explanatory power
If the God claim is specific enough to make any predictions it can immediately be called scientific and rejected. A vague God claim is worthless and infalsifiable.
I am not very much a fan of calling myself agnostic toward a christian God. Maybe toward a deistic God.
@omnissient Existence has absolutely nothing to do with falsifiability nor explanatory power. You might wish it does though.
As for God claims, they are not scientific if they are supernatural. Another way to think about it is this: How can you tell if the phenomenon is caused by a God or super-mega-advanced aliens that are tricking us? Both appear to us as unknowns scientifically. The difference is that the alien cause could be explained in theory (but not in practice). The God cause could not
@CambridgeHeights Yes it does. Existence is what manifests in reality. If its infalsifiable it doesnt manifest. If it exists then it can explain whatever effects it causes.
As for the aliens: If i cant figure it out, then its just an unexplained phenomenon. If we had such a phenomenon it might be reasonable to assume a cause untill found otherwise, but we dont have one.
There was one, which was the creation of humans. But now theres evolution.
@omnissient the cocept of a divinity simply goes beyond the measures of mankind using conventional methods to falsify. It would be akin to bringing a pail and shovel to a black hole. The tools are ill equipped and unable to even gain a reading for something so vastly beyond their scope. If man is even to make an attempt to quantify an infentesimal portion of God...it will have to be through unconventional means.
@omnissient the cocept of a divinity simply goes beyond the measures of mankind using conventional methods to falsify. It would be akin to bringing a pail and shovel to a black hole. The tools are ill equipped and unable to even gain a reading for something so vastly beyond their scope. If man is even to make an attempt to quantify an infentesimal portion of God...it will have to be through unconventional means.
the appendix isn't useless while it may have been different in our ancestors it probably continues to play some role in our digestive process and immune function which is supported by recent research. Long-term effects of removal include Crohn's which would make sense. Thus, we should be trying to prevent appendicitis from happening which is obviously achieved through diet and lifestyle. We may also be able to reverse it's onset with natural means. Conclusion? don't fuck with nature
Consider the huge number of viruses, bacteria, and parasites that kill or torture people every year, especially innocent children. If a creator god exists, he's pretty damn creative at inflicting pain and suffering. The faithful keep talking about God allowing suffering. It's not about allowing suffering. It's about creating it. No psychopath, mass murderer or serial killer even comes close to that level of sadism. It doesn't make sense if there is a god but it fits easily with evolution.
Understandable view point, but if you're gna make such a HUGE comment abt a God, u obviously don't know - wudn't it be wise to regard what He says and does first? That is a huge assumption on ur part. What I wud like to offer is this; if indeed we're talkin abt the same God, then consider what He did in the beginning.He made man and woman, set them in the most peaceful, tranquil utopia-Eden. Gave everything except 1specification to eat, gave work, even a relationship with Him.
4) If you combine the suffering caused by every mass murderer, serial killer, sadist, or just plain asshole who has ever existed, it does even come close to what these organisms have done. (I think this could be called a fact.)
5) Their existence is perfectly compatible with evolution. (fact)
6) If a "loving" deity (1 John 4:8) designed all these organisms, it is certainly a mystery as to what purpose they serve (fact..unless "you" happen to know why...guessing doesn't count)
To which you respond with nothing but assumptions.
1) a god made man and woman
2) set them in the most peaceful tranquil utopia-Eden
4) gave everything except 1 specification to eat
5) relationship with Him
Everything you stated is based on the "assumption" that the bible is true and therefore there just has to be some explanation for these organisms as well as, I "assume", every other piece of scientific data that doesn't happen to fit the "God" hypothesis.
Mate of all the organisms and incredibly malicious things that should have killed us all have you ever been touched by them and not healed? Have they killed ur family? Infact name one person that you know personally that has died as a result of these malicious orgs attacking him without him causing it to occur. To conclude that it was all done in an act of evil is to assume that u know it all, and therefore that u urself are on par with God. If we both agree that a God exists, then..
huh?? Where did I give the impression that I think a god exists? I don't think there is sufficient evidence to conclude that a god exists. I was merely pointing out that IF you "assume" a god exists then the existence of so many viruses, bacteria, and parasites, and the almost infinite amount of suffering and death inflicted by them doesn't make any sense but if you "assume" that a god does not exist, then it makes perfect sense.
"To conclude that ts was all done in an act of evil"
I didn't conclude that is WAS an act of evil. I said IF you're going to assume that a god created the world and all life on it then the existence of all these organisms is fully compatible with that deity being sadistic. I don't "believe" any kind of god exists (good or bad). What science has so far discovered about the world and the life on it is compatible with the theory that all species have evolved without divine intervention.
Ok my bad, you seemed to be taking the "God is evil" stance when u said, god created things that cause us pain and suffering. If u dnt blv He exists, y wud u bother forming an opinion then! all that energy for nothing. or maybe...just maybe...nice talkin to u man, take care. over n out.
I spend energy on this because in the U.S. there is a huge amount of energy being expended by the faithful to influence government and control education. They are constantly trying to pass laws to get creationism (or whatever watered-down version of it they can get away with) taught in schools. So, every time they try, it ends up in court (e.g. "Kitzmiller vs Dover".) It's a huge headache and a massive waste of time and money.
there's a lot more explaining to do of the GOOD things in life! There's far more plesant things than bad that we must explain away inorder to accept ur definition of a GOd, that He is evil..! (if He exits) But since we wake up in the mornining, have breath in ur lungs, life in r blood, already this is a gift we could never repay. As for the evil in the world, no doubt! though there are viruses, ddnt God give us immune systems to cope? Didn't He give us a means to fight back with meds?rnt we win
rnt we winning day by day? U see the problem is nt with God, its wit our mindset towards him, He has givn us a means to survive indeed to thrive, but it involves us reaching out to the desperate, those who don't have the means the way u &i do, did u knw there is more than enough food for eg to feed the ENTIRE world?Read UN or WHO Report on food, the problm is that WE dnt share it! same with health issues. Now if we tlk abt evil in general there is stil smethin i hv to say abt it...I blv God is..
I blv God is good, and that all things were made through Him and without Him nothing was made that was made..John1:3..even though there is evil in the world, God is not the CAUSATION of it, the devil is. the Devil comes to kill steal and destroy.U dnt hav to blv me, take a look arnd-judgin from ur comments u'v seen his handiwork! God is involved in rectifying wat the devil tears down, and He does that thru people! If u nd me are alive thats proof God is good.
You'll have to be more specific. Which laws did those millions of babies (including unborn) break? And if the master plan is eternal punishment in hell, what's the point of torturing babies in this life. If a deity set it up, he's one sadistic prick.
@fusedchromosome My answer to that, is that a question had to be answered related to evil and this is the answer. Sounds silly in a temporal sense but if never experienced it might not be understood. My guess is the question will never be asked again. In the grand scheme of things it doesn't suggest a sadistic God rather it displays that you are horrified.
Your response "suggests" that you are capable of justifying pretty much anything that supports your faith. Good luck with that. However, IMHO, your response went thud. And so the debate marches on. From my point of view, you're dumping perfume on a pile of shit in the hopes that no one will notice the stench.
@hvutrong I don't think so. The arguement about suffering is mostly sophistic (i' m looking for something. i can't find it. Thus, it does not exist.) In this case he says "I can't think of any reason why God doesn't prevent the suffering. Therefore, he has no reason not to. Therefore He does not exist. INEPT!
Jer. 1:5 says what?...His knowledge PRECEDES any of our actions. Isaiah 46:10 says that which hasn't occured yet has been set up by God's "purpose". God "declares" X will occur, i.e. God states emphatically & authoritatively that X will occur & there is NO possibility that what he declares, will not occur. You aren't free to act in a way contra to what's already set up. S can't "choose" to do Y if an omniscient God declared (from before S's birth) that S WILL do X, therefore S MUST. Get it, now?
Your definition of "omniscient" is erroneous. You stated that "His knowledge is based on our free acts", when an omniscient mind would have TOTAL knowledge of past, present, & future. there is NO room for free will if an omniscient mind allegedly dwells "outside" of space-time (& supposedly created it) w/ knowledge of ALL the consequences that would result from the initial conditions/laws he himself set up. again, his knowledge/"will" precede any action in time. Jer.1:5; Isa.46:10; Rev. 13:8
It's NOT erroneous. You rebuttal is based on ignorance of the distinction I mentioned below. God's omniscience is based on His seeing the future, or on any kind of Perception - it the Conceptual attribute of knowing all true propositions and believe no false ones. Further, God is not timeless, but related to time since its creation. God exists in Eternity.
"This Cause must be a causeless, **timeless**, changeless, and immaterial being of unimaginable power, which created the universe." --William Lane Craig, during his opening statement @ a debate w/ Antony Flew, 1998 (**emphasis added)
You are officially an ignorant moron. I've read Craig voluminously, and while, yes, he does say God WAS timeless prior to creation, He is NOW temporal.
So god was eternal, but now he's not. how could this be if he's immutable?
Ad hominem already? lol. and this coming from a self-professing follower of Jesus. If he were alive today, you think he'd call a guy like you a "representative" of his? lol
since you wish to conclude this exchange with ad hominems, then based on observation, i can only deduce that "christian" slash20062006 is officially a hypocritical, pompous and credulous dipshit.
Oh my gosh you're dense. Did I say eternal? No, I said timeless. Two totally different comments. Learn how to read. He's not immutable in the sense that He never loses or gains any properties. In the Bible, when it talks about God's not changing, it's talking about Him keeping His promises. Stop importing Greek concepts into a Jewish mindset. And I guess Jesus was non-Christian for calling people vipers, Paul for telling the Galatians to emasculate themselves! Did you get your feelings hurt?
time·less (t m l s). adj. 2 a : having no beginning or end : eternal
Paul's "emasculate" is a mistranslation found only in the NIV. the KJV correctly shows how Paul wished for the false prophets to be "cut off", or separated. in other words, he just wanted them to go away.
jesus-is-savior. com / Bible / NIV / emasculate. htm
ironic that an atheist needs to give bible lessons to a christian. lol "hurt"? nope, i've been laughing at you for quite a while now.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Lol! Using a dictionary to adjudicate concepts in philosophical literature. This is getting funnier by the day. What is ironic is the extent of your own cognitive dissonance, while posturing as an intellectual. You remind of that mentally handicapped boxer in Million Dollar Baby. So 'emasculate' is a mistranslation - so what? The point stands. Being a Christian doesn't being the equivalent of Edward Norton's character in Death to Smoochy! Precedents for rhetoric and satire exist! Deal with it.
define terms properly is something to 'lol' about?. perhaps it escaped you that your entire position is one of conjecture. attempting to wax intellectual about the "clothes" when your 'invisible man' is highly likely to not even be there to begin with is what's ironic (and frankly, stupid). You remind me of a politician: uses sharp vernacular, yet its complete bullshit. Judging from your comments, you saying it's me who tries to pose as an intellectual is like the pot calling the kettle "black".
Dacey is dumb!!! Period
eltopus4747 4 weeks ago
When Intelligent Design wins the day in biology, atheists will be ashamed that they ever believed in the creative power of "natural selection".
Jesrael1986M 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Jesrael1986M evolution has already won the day ...over and over and over.
adstanra 3 months ago
@Jesrael1986M That day will never come.
Jaybond63 2 months ago
To blame God because we who have the ability to prevent children from dying of preventable diseases yet don`t do enough is lame and unjust. A child dies of starvation yet we have the ability to feed the world thirty times over. So why blame God for our inability to feed the world.
FeignofCordor 4 months ago 2
@FeignofCordor My opinion is this why would a God who cares about humanity create a world where the is a earthquakes (Haiti earthquake killed 220,000), tsuamnis such as Japan where 18,000 died, super volcanoes such as those in Yellowstone and Krakatoa which will continue to wreak havoc to any living abilities long after we are dead and allow 9 million children died each year aged under 5? I personnally believe their souls (so to speak) died with them and are not being tortured in hell.
BlueFireTrooper 4 months ago
@BlueFireTrooper Wait till natural disaster destroys every single church on the surface of the planet, then I'll believe there's god.
h2321 3 months ago in playlist DOES GOD EXIST? William Lane Craig vs Austin Dacey
@BlueFireTrooper The Earth needs Volcanoes to let out pressure, Earthquakes and Tsunamis are a consequence of tectonic plates. clashing this happens because they are loose and it is necessary that it is designed this way. However most danger areas are known so people and were that is the case and people still chose to live there its wrong to blame God, California is a dangerous place to live yet people live there. Like I said in my last comment nobody needs to die of starvation
FeignofCordor 3 months ago
@FeignofCordor There have been five mass extinctions in the history of life on the earth resulting in 99.8% of all species being extinct. Some plan. God is apparently all knowing and powerful then could he not have created a world where there was no earthquakes on the earth- is he malevolent or indifferent? What about all the genetic diseases children are born with (his creation). What about two year old baby girls getting bone cancer, if this is his creation I have absolutely no respect for him
BlueFireTrooper 3 months ago
@FeignofCordor By the way the reason why an estimated 29,000 children under five have died of starvation in Somalia is because your God will not send rain (or manna from heaven) and consequently they can not grow crops or drink clean water. Just imagine the horrendous death those innocent children suffered. Would you prefer if they relied on imports at inflated prices? Is your God malevolent or indifferent? Wiki "list of famines" and praise your apathetic God.
BlueFireTrooper 3 months ago
@FeignofCordor In the Youtube search bar put in "Neil Degrasse Tyson Stupid Design".
BlueFireTrooper 3 months ago
@FeignofCordor Is all of this somehow devinely warrented because a rib women (Eve) was convinced by a talking snake to eat an apple from a magical tree? Dogmatic nonsense.
BlueFireTrooper 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BlueFireTrooper
So what are you saying? God doesn`t exist or you just don`t believe the Bible?
FeignofCordor 3 months ago
@FeignofCordor The earth needs to let out pressure? Did you know an All Powerful God could as well create a world where no pressure is needed to be let out? Its not that hard. Just *poof* world where there are no volcanoes, natural disasters hunger etc.
Jaybond63 2 months ago
@Jaybond63
The earth is made perfectly and fine tuned for conscious life to exist and flourish upon it. Now if you have a better design than that which the earth is set by then please share it with the world forget me as i`m sure scientists would love to hear about this improved design. until then my advice is don`t live in known dangerous areas.
FeignofCordor 2 months ago
@FeignofCordor A better design. I know a better design. One where natural disasters do not occur. One where volcanoes do not need to let out any pressure. One where the tectonic plates under the earth never rub against each other. Do you really think "The Almighty God" cannot create a world where non of these things are present. Let me guess? Yes he can but he chose to create with natural disasters, disease etc. The earth could very well be BETTER than it is.
Jaybond63 2 months ago
@FeignofCordor Of and I am sure the people who where hit in Indonesia by the tsunami were in the wrong place right? They should have known it was dangerous to live there. You DISGUST ME!
Jaybond63 2 months ago
@Jaybond63
Oh spare me the mellow dramatics please. They do know it is dangerous in that area i`m just saying I wouldn`t live in a such a danger spot people make the choice to. Unlike your attempt at twisting what I said. I don`t say they deserved it but I am saying you can`t blame God for that. Now go to Dawkins forum and have a cry at how disgusted you`re at evil Christians. lol
FeignofCordor 2 months ago
@FeignofCordor I did not twist your words, you asked for a better design and I CLEARLY told you what a better design for an all powerful god to do. He just didn't feel like doing that I guess. I still don't get what you mean by "Danger spot". Natural disasters happen almost everywhere in the world. Are you saying people should all move to "less dangerous spots?". And yes I can blame god for that because he created the world dammit. Whether directly or indirectly it is gods fault.
Jaybond63 2 months ago
@HolyBiblehiswordonly That would all make sense if it wasn't all fiction. Atheism is more than just the disbelief of god, it is the understanding that the bible is a fictional story book. Explain to me what you actually think about what this man thinks rather than what has been fabricated thousands of years ago.
And a question for you, the antichrist is the servant of the devil right? and the devil was one of gods most prized angels, why did god create the devil (satan, lucifier)?
Dytex4 4 months ago in playlist DOES GOD EXIST? William Lane Craig vs Austin Dacey
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK (DONATED) FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
@HolyBiblehiswordonly Dacey doesn't acknowledge God's existence; he's an atheist. Since this is a debate on "Does God Exist?" many of the exchanges are delivered on the grounds of presupposing a God exists, but merely for the sake of argument. And "antichrist" is a term Christians use on anyone who doesn't agree with their version of the faith. 1 John 2:22-23 would exclude Catholics - who do believe Jesus is Christ and don't deny the Father & Son - yet Protestants claim they're "antichrist."
gmn545 7 months ago
im a thiest and a Dr. Criag fan but i havent heard good arguments against God until i saw this. Though i disagree, much respect to Ausitn Dacey
JosephHolmes108 7 months ago
@JosephHolmes108 i think what you mean is you haven't heard any atheist with anything near the debating skils (= practice) as WLC. you've no doubt heard loads of WLC debates - why don't you listen to them, examine his arguments line by line, and see if you can work out where the hidden "and everyone surely agrees" sucker punch is located. it's there in every single one of them! his arguments are illusions, carefully crafted tricks that rely on "common sense" and personal (in)credulity.
BozoTheBear 7 months ago
@BozoTheBear no he doesnt use "common sense".. he use logic and reason which is something you athiest try to avoid
JosephHolmes108 7 months ago
@JosephHolmes108
yes, he uses logic, but the premeses he bases his arguments on all involve some kind of "surely everyone knows this" clause - everything that began to exist was caused; the universe exists, therefore there is an explanation of its existence; objective moral facts do exist. note that these all depend on some kind of "common sense" understanding of very vague concepts. it's funny that you think that atheists try to avoid logic and reason.
lol @ "he doesnt use common sense" ;-)
BozoTheBear 7 months ago
@BozoTheBear lol silly fool.. what your calling "common Sense" is logic... Logic is somthign we use to determince the truth ratehr than expecting ubsurd things to happen.. there is nothing wrong with "common sense" Wish you had some yourself
JosephHolmes108 7 months ago
@JosephHolmes108
Why is it that when a theist calls an atheist a "silly fool" (or similar derogatory comment), they always make numerous spelling and grammatical errors?
Oh and I hope you're not a Christian theist, or otherwise you're now in danger of the fire of hell (Matt 5:22).
Regarding the difference between logic and "common sense", logic is a cold hard mathematical system of deduction. "Common sense" ("gut instincts" is probably a better term) is asserting things that seem sensible.
BozoTheBear 7 months ago
@BozoTheBear your right your not a fool and i shouldnt have insulted you. Even though you insulted me i shouldnt have snaped back. Your wrong to say logic and common sense are different. Even if you are right in saying that Craig isnt at fault at using these so callled "gut instincts" .. You make it apear as if Craig is somehow superstitious or using emotion in his arguements. For example The kalam cosmological argument that whatecer begins to exist has a cause ex nilo.
JosephHolmes108 7 months ago
@BozoTheBear there is nothing illogical with that statement at all. Logic or "common sense" or "gut instinct" call it what you want but there is no way around the fact that you are cornered into two options. 1: either the universe popped into existance from nothing by nothing or 2: God created the universe
Sorry for using a little "common sense" here when i go with option 2 ... and im sorry i was never a good speller but that doesnt make me stupid or incapable of understanding logic
JosephHolmes108 7 months ago
@JosephHolmes108
You hadn't heard these arguments before you watched this video?
Wow, just wow.
1878EFC2008 7 months ago
@1878EFC2008 .... sure i have but he portrayes them well
JosephHolmes108 7 months ago
Proving Life is a challenge against natural circumstances does not disprove God, it only alleges a complaint against Naturalism to make what is the Natural World a source of complaint, if at any time the displeased find someone to complain to. But no example exists of a better world, except one in which the Natural World is finished and some outside judgment is made to restore that which is the basis of complaints. the necessity of death as an instrument of progressing life in any direction
CarmineFragione 8 months ago
we all dismiss theism as ridiculous when we meet these new age christains and fundamentalists. I respect craigs ability to debate this
6hundred3score6 8 months ago
nice reflexions and everything but no reasoning, just preconceived assumptions
VDMpeniel 10 months ago
Great Dacey proved that evil exist, great job!
VDMpeniel 10 months ago
If God were to create this world so perfect (which He did) that no children were of malaria then it would've been called Paradise. The Bible holds it sin entered this world which is how it became precisely what it is. This voids Dacey's lengthy argument.
"Appendix is useless"? Dacey's clueless, rather!
"The appendix now appears to have a reason to be as a "safe house" for the beneficial bacteria living in the human gut."
Last but not least - our "terrorists" are their "freedom-fighters"....
KPECTOHOCETC 11 months ago
@KPECTOHOCETC well said
ShawDAMAN 7 months ago
Im a Christian but man, I got mad respect for Austin Dacey.
adrianggarcia 11 months ago
@adrianggarcia
What exactly inspires in you such a profound feeling of awe and adoration for Austin Dacey?
KPECTOHOCETC 11 months ago
@KPECTOHOCETC Well that he actually delivers "proof" (all though I dont agree with him) and doesnt go on a hate rampage against religion like Dawkins, Hitchens etc.. And whenever I hear an Atheist go all "You can disprove a negative" I use Dacey's argument to rebuttle them, and they go quiet.
Also, he fights hard for human rights, just because he's an atheist doesnt make him a bad person.
adrianggarcia 11 months ago
I can't believe Austin Dacey did such a better job than Hitchens. Go Dacey!!!
III24601III 11 months ago
Austin Dacey your fired! put another atheist up there.
SuperMarco7 1 year ago
@SuperMarco7
Not funny, and really a sad response in light of the great debate that these two had.
TVOham 11 months ago
@TVOham last time i checked this is a free country to say whatever i want. anyways he made poor arguments in the beginning so i voiced my opinion. i personally thought it was a good debate but not one of William lane Craig's best. sooo yeah... still funny.
SuperMarco7 11 months ago
Dacey ignores that many holocaust victim survivors felt supported and strengthened by God through their ordeal. Is it a choice one makes? That is between God and the individual.
caveatemp 1 year ago
Evolution is inefficent. Thats fine. It's not true anyway.
vesperus1981 1 year ago
Al of his objections to creation design from bad design were pathetic
arktheball 1 year ago
Austin Dacey actually had a positive argument for the non-existence of God. The majority of William Lane Craig debates have been filled with negations of William Lane Craig's argument and these contained no positive argument for not believing in God.
smix86 1 year ago
Dacey bout to get his ass whooped...
zblamm2121 1 year ago
@zblamm2121 By who?
MicahBuzan 1 year ago
Dacey is dumb!!! Period
eltopus4747 4 weeks ago
When Intelligent Design wins the day in biology, atheists will be ashamed that they ever believed in the creative power of "natural selection".
Jesrael1986M 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Jesrael1986M evolution has already won the day ...over and over and over.
adstanra 3 months ago
@Jesrael1986M That day will never come.
Jaybond63 2 months ago
To blame God because we who have the ability to prevent children from dying of preventable diseases yet don`t do enough is lame and unjust. A child dies of starvation yet we have the ability to feed the world thirty times over. So why blame God for our inability to feed the world.
FeignofCordor 4 months ago 2
@FeignofCordor My opinion is this why would a God who cares about humanity create a world where the is a earthquakes (Haiti earthquake killed 220,000), tsuamnis such as Japan where 18,000 died, super volcanoes such as those in Yellowstone and Krakatoa which will continue to wreak havoc to any living abilities long after we are dead and allow 9 million children died each year aged under 5? I personnally believe their souls (so to speak) died with them and are not being tortured in hell.
BlueFireTrooper 4 months ago
@BlueFireTrooper Wait till natural disaster destroys every single church on the surface of the planet, then I'll believe there's god.
h2321 3 months ago in playlist DOES GOD EXIST? William Lane Craig vs Austin Dacey
@BlueFireTrooper The Earth needs Volcanoes to let out pressure, Earthquakes and Tsunamis are a consequence of tectonic plates. clashing this happens because they are loose and it is necessary that it is designed this way. However most danger areas are known so people and were that is the case and people still chose to live there its wrong to blame God, California is a dangerous place to live yet people live there. Like I said in my last comment nobody needs to die of starvation
FeignofCordor 3 months ago
@FeignofCordor There have been five mass extinctions in the history of life on the earth resulting in 99.8% of all species being extinct. Some plan. God is apparently all knowing and powerful then could he not have created a world where there was no earthquakes on the earth- is he malevolent or indifferent? What about all the genetic diseases children are born with (his creation). What about two year old baby girls getting bone cancer, if this is his creation I have absolutely no respect for him
BlueFireTrooper 3 months ago
@FeignofCordor By the way the reason why an estimated 29,000 children under five have died of starvation in Somalia is because your God will not send rain (or manna from heaven) and consequently they can not grow crops or drink clean water. Just imagine the horrendous death those innocent children suffered. Would you prefer if they relied on imports at inflated prices? Is your God malevolent or indifferent? Wiki "list of famines" and praise your apathetic God.
BlueFireTrooper 3 months ago
@FeignofCordor In the Youtube search bar put in "Neil Degrasse Tyson Stupid Design".
BlueFireTrooper 3 months ago
@FeignofCordor Is all of this somehow devinely warrented because a rib women (Eve) was convinced by a talking snake to eat an apple from a magical tree? Dogmatic nonsense.
BlueFireTrooper 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BlueFireTrooper
So what are you saying? God doesn`t exist or you just don`t believe the Bible?
FeignofCordor 3 months ago
@FeignofCordor The earth needs to let out pressure? Did you know an All Powerful God could as well create a world where no pressure is needed to be let out? Its not that hard. Just *poof* world where there are no volcanoes, natural disasters hunger etc.
Jaybond63 2 months ago
@Jaybond63
The earth is made perfectly and fine tuned for conscious life to exist and flourish upon it. Now if you have a better design than that which the earth is set by then please share it with the world forget me as i`m sure scientists would love to hear about this improved design. until then my advice is don`t live in known dangerous areas.
FeignofCordor 2 months ago
@FeignofCordor A better design. I know a better design. One where natural disasters do not occur. One where volcanoes do not need to let out any pressure. One where the tectonic plates under the earth never rub against each other. Do you really think "The Almighty God" cannot create a world where non of these things are present. Let me guess? Yes he can but he chose to create with natural disasters, disease etc. The earth could very well be BETTER than it is.
Jaybond63 2 months ago
@FeignofCordor Of and I am sure the people who where hit in Indonesia by the tsunami were in the wrong place right? They should have known it was dangerous to live there. You DISGUST ME!
Jaybond63 2 months ago
@Jaybond63
Oh spare me the mellow dramatics please. They do know it is dangerous in that area i`m just saying I wouldn`t live in a such a danger spot people make the choice to. Unlike your attempt at twisting what I said. I don`t say they deserved it but I am saying you can`t blame God for that. Now go to Dawkins forum and have a cry at how disgusted you`re at evil Christians. lol
FeignofCordor 2 months ago
@FeignofCordor I did not twist your words, you asked for a better design and I CLEARLY told you what a better design for an all powerful god to do. He just didn't feel like doing that I guess. I still don't get what you mean by "Danger spot". Natural disasters happen almost everywhere in the world. Are you saying people should all move to "less dangerous spots?". And yes I can blame god for that because he created the world dammit. Whether directly or indirectly it is gods fault.
Jaybond63 2 months ago
@HolyBiblehiswordonly That would all make sense if it wasn't all fiction. Atheism is more than just the disbelief of god, it is the understanding that the bible is a fictional story book. Explain to me what you actually think about what this man thinks rather than what has been fabricated thousands of years ago.
And a question for you, the antichrist is the servant of the devil right? and the devil was one of gods most prized angels, why did god create the devil (satan, lucifier)?
Dytex4 4 months ago in playlist DOES GOD EXIST? William Lane Craig vs Austin Dacey
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK (DONATED) FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
@HolyBiblehiswordonly Dacey doesn't acknowledge God's existence; he's an atheist. Since this is a debate on "Does God Exist?" many of the exchanges are delivered on the grounds of presupposing a God exists, but merely for the sake of argument. And "antichrist" is a term Christians use on anyone who doesn't agree with their version of the faith. 1 John 2:22-23 would exclude Catholics - who do believe Jesus is Christ and don't deny the Father & Son - yet Protestants claim they're "antichrist."
gmn545 7 months ago
im a thiest and a Dr. Criag fan but i havent heard good arguments against God until i saw this. Though i disagree, much respect to Ausitn Dacey
JosephHolmes108 7 months ago
@JosephHolmes108 i think what you mean is you haven't heard any atheist with anything near the debating skils (= practice) as WLC. you've no doubt heard loads of WLC debates - why don't you listen to them, examine his arguments line by line, and see if you can work out where the hidden "and everyone surely agrees" sucker punch is located. it's there in every single one of them! his arguments are illusions, carefully crafted tricks that rely on "common sense" and personal (in)credulity.
BozoTheBear 7 months ago
@BozoTheBear no he doesnt use "common sense".. he use logic and reason which is something you athiest try to avoid
JosephHolmes108 7 months ago
@JosephHolmes108
yes, he uses logic, but the premeses he bases his arguments on all involve some kind of "surely everyone knows this" clause - everything that began to exist was caused; the universe exists, therefore there is an explanation of its existence; objective moral facts do exist. note that these all depend on some kind of "common sense" understanding of very vague concepts. it's funny that you think that atheists try to avoid logic and reason.
lol @ "he doesnt use common sense" ;-)
BozoTheBear 7 months ago
@BozoTheBear lol silly fool.. what your calling "common Sense" is logic... Logic is somthign we use to determince the truth ratehr than expecting ubsurd things to happen.. there is nothing wrong with "common sense" Wish you had some yourself
JosephHolmes108 7 months ago
@JosephHolmes108
Why is it that when a theist calls an atheist a "silly fool" (or similar derogatory comment), they always make numerous spelling and grammatical errors?
Oh and I hope you're not a Christian theist, or otherwise you're now in danger of the fire of hell (Matt 5:22).
Regarding the difference between logic and "common sense", logic is a cold hard mathematical system of deduction. "Common sense" ("gut instincts" is probably a better term) is asserting things that seem sensible.
BozoTheBear 7 months ago
@BozoTheBear your right your not a fool and i shouldnt have insulted you. Even though you insulted me i shouldnt have snaped back. Your wrong to say logic and common sense are different. Even if you are right in saying that Craig isnt at fault at using these so callled "gut instincts" .. You make it apear as if Craig is somehow superstitious or using emotion in his arguements. For example The kalam cosmological argument that whatecer begins to exist has a cause ex nilo.
JosephHolmes108 7 months ago
@BozoTheBear there is nothing illogical with that statement at all. Logic or "common sense" or "gut instinct" call it what you want but there is no way around the fact that you are cornered into two options. 1: either the universe popped into existance from nothing by nothing or 2: God created the universe
Sorry for using a little "common sense" here when i go with option 2 ... and im sorry i was never a good speller but that doesnt make me stupid or incapable of understanding logic
JosephHolmes108 7 months ago
@JosephHolmes108
You hadn't heard these arguments before you watched this video?
Wow, just wow.
1878EFC2008 7 months ago
@1878EFC2008 .... sure i have but he portrayes them well
JosephHolmes108 7 months ago
Proving Life is a challenge against natural circumstances does not disprove God, it only alleges a complaint against Naturalism to make what is the Natural World a source of complaint, if at any time the displeased find someone to complain to. But no example exists of a better world, except one in which the Natural World is finished and some outside judgment is made to restore that which is the basis of complaints. the necessity of death as an instrument of progressing life in any direction
CarmineFragione 8 months ago
we all dismiss theism as ridiculous when we meet these new age christains and fundamentalists. I respect craigs ability to debate this
6hundred3score6 8 months ago
nice reflexions and everything but no reasoning, just preconceived assumptions
VDMpeniel 10 months ago
Great Dacey proved that evil exist, great job!
VDMpeniel 10 months ago
If God were to create this world so perfect (which He did) that no children were of malaria then it would've been called Paradise. The Bible holds it sin entered this world which is how it became precisely what it is. This voids Dacey's lengthy argument.
"Appendix is useless"? Dacey's clueless, rather!
"The appendix now appears to have a reason to be as a "safe house" for the beneficial bacteria living in the human gut."
Last but not least - our "terrorists" are their "freedom-fighters"....
KPECTOHOCETC 11 months ago
@KPECTOHOCETC well said
ShawDAMAN 7 months ago
Im a Christian but man, I got mad respect for Austin Dacey.
adrianggarcia 11 months ago
@adrianggarcia
What exactly inspires in you such a profound feeling of awe and adoration for Austin Dacey?
KPECTOHOCETC 11 months ago
@KPECTOHOCETC Well that he actually delivers "proof" (all though I dont agree with him) and doesnt go on a hate rampage against religion like Dawkins, Hitchens etc.. And whenever I hear an Atheist go all "You can disprove a negative" I use Dacey's argument to rebuttle them, and they go quiet.
Also, he fights hard for human rights, just because he's an atheist doesnt make him a bad person.
adrianggarcia 11 months ago
I can't believe Austin Dacey did such a better job than Hitchens. Go Dacey!!!
III24601III 11 months ago
Austin Dacey your fired! put another atheist up there.
SuperMarco7 1 year ago
@SuperMarco7
Not funny, and really a sad response in light of the great debate that these two had.
TVOham 11 months ago
@TVOham last time i checked this is a free country to say whatever i want. anyways he made poor arguments in the beginning so i voiced my opinion. i personally thought it was a good debate but not one of William lane Craig's best. sooo yeah... still funny.
SuperMarco7 11 months ago
Dacey ignores that many holocaust victim survivors felt supported and strengthened by God through their ordeal. Is it a choice one makes? That is between God and the individual.
caveatemp 1 year ago
Evolution is inefficent. Thats fine. It's not true anyway.
vesperus1981 1 year ago
Al of his objections to creation design from bad design were pathetic
arktheball 1 year ago
Austin Dacey actually had a positive argument for the non-existence of God. The majority of William Lane Craig debates have been filled with negations of William Lane Craig's argument and these contained no positive argument for not believing in God.
smix86 1 year ago
Dacey bout to get his ass whooped...
zblamm2121 1 year ago
@zblamm2121 By who?
MicahBuzan 1 year ago
When one says "the world would not be this way IF God existed". They immediately try to stack what they deem to be their own superior logic and reasoning against that of a being that can see all the workings of the universe (and beyond) then, here and later and measure each heart of each human simultaneously. How does one even come close to matching wits against a being that created the very foundations of the universe?
hexusziggurat 1 year ago
Ahh this is not what i was expecting from this Dacey character. he started off humble,friendly and respectful, then turned smarmy :S bit of a let down. the soft voice does not disguise his bitterness to my ears unfortunately. Is he even attempting to attack WLC's defence ?
REDN1NE 1 year ago
Comment removed
DarthVega7 1 year ago
Is it not possible that God uses the physical laws that he created. Why will Dacey not take this into consideration?
angrypuppyca 1 year ago
@angrypuppyca for the emotional drivel impact.
ThisIsMySockAccount 1 year ago
@ThisIsMySockAccount ,
I have not heard one bit of LOGIC in what Dacey said...not one bit. What I did hear though is a lot of emotion, hidden anger and...lots of arrogance. I thought an atheist would use jaw dropping logic...all I heard from him was emotion.
flotopo 1 year ago
@flotopo what you said x 2
ThisIsMySockAccount 1 year ago
I love how people keep talking about God like they know him or can understand him. NO human can understand God.
7tylerjb 1 year ago
That round goes to Austin Dacey
chrismx24 1 year ago
How does evil disprove God. Maybe God is just an assh0le?
omnissient 1 year ago
@omnissient Or maybe God has sufficient reasons to allow evil that we are currently incapable of understanding.
CambridgeHeights 1 year ago
@CambridgeHeights So in other words you dont have a clue whats going on.
omnissient 1 year ago
@omnissient Correct. I'm agnostic.
CambridgeHeights 1 year ago
@CambridgeHeights Ofc, everyone is when they re honest. Yet some things can not be:
omnibenevolence and omnipotence and evil?
Can God destroy evil without negating the reasons he has to allow evil?
yes => he is evil.
no => he not omnipotent.
infinite merci and infinite hell? Obviously doesnt work.
When christians hear people say God cant be disproven they believe THEIR God cant be disproven, which is a totally different case.
omnissient 1 year ago
@omnissient No supernatural being can be disproven. Supernatural does not need to follow any rules. Like the Flying Spaghetti Monster that only I can see.
As for omnipotence, it may or may not be a concept that is beyond our comprehension. Don't forget what we are. We are merely evolved beings that share 98% of our DNA with chimps. We might be like insects compared to other entities or potential entities in the universe that are more evolved or more intelligent through other methods.
CambridgeHeights 1 year ago
@CambridgeHeights supernatural is exactly one of these words of confusion. I prefer real and imaginary. Its either real or not.
If i believe the earth is flat am i wrong? Maps are flat, blue prints of buildings are flat. Withing a local regional context it is true to assume this. In that context God exists and doesnt exist. Both is true.
But where is the explanatory power? The falsifiability? The predictions possible based on the claim?
omnissient 1 year ago
@omnissient Real vs imaginary is not the same dichotomy as natural vs supernatural.
Natural means obeying the laws of physics. Supernatural means it is not constrained by the laws of physics. If supernatural phenomenon do exist, they would be beyond scientific inquiry, since science is based on the assumption that the natural world obeys certain laws.
CambridgeHeights 1 year ago
@CambridgeHeights Science is not based on this assumption. Science derives these laws from observation. Supernatural items might be chaotic, unpredictable or against any mathematic laws. But they would still be observable and thereby testable.
omnissient 1 year ago
@omnissient Science derives these laws from observation, but the fact that we consider them laws is because they are assumed to follow a consistency. We don't measure the speed of every photon. We measure a few photons and assume they all travel at the measured speed based on a natural law.
If a photon was supernatural and had an erratic speed, science wouldn't have an answer. We could observe the photon but wouldn't have a scientific explanation for it because it's not following natural law
CambridgeHeights 1 year ago
@CambridgeHeights Oh i get it. Its like saying "This dice rolls a seven once in a while. We just dont know when." And no amount of non non sevens disproves that.
I dont think so. If i roll a bunch of non sevens, then at some point i will just declare it can not, and go from there.
The photon though could at least be observed as unexplained and that would disprove the laws of physics. But we didnt see such a photon so i ll go with it doesnt exist until we see otherwise.
omnissient 1 year ago
@omnissient Bad analogy with the dice.
Just because the photon is unexplained does not mean that it is supernatural. It could be following a different law of physics that we have not discovered yet. If it is supernatural, science will never be able to explain it. If it is due to undiscovered laws, then science could in theory explain it eventually.
CambridgeHeights 1 year ago
@CambridgeHeights You agnostics have the wrong approach. The flying spaghetti monster doesnt exist because:
1: It is infalsifiable
2: It has no explanatory power
If the God claim is specific enough to make any predictions it can immediately be called scientific and rejected. A vague God claim is worthless and infalsifiable.
I am not very much a fan of calling myself agnostic toward a christian God. Maybe toward a deistic God.
omnissient 1 year ago
@omnissient Existence has absolutely nothing to do with falsifiability nor explanatory power. You might wish it does though.
As for God claims, they are not scientific if they are supernatural. Another way to think about it is this: How can you tell if the phenomenon is caused by a God or super-mega-advanced aliens that are tricking us? Both appear to us as unknowns scientifically. The difference is that the alien cause could be explained in theory (but not in practice). The God cause could not
CambridgeHeights 1 year ago
@CambridgeHeights Yes it does. Existence is what manifests in reality. If its infalsifiable it doesnt manifest. If it exists then it can explain whatever effects it causes.
As for the aliens: If i cant figure it out, then its just an unexplained phenomenon. If we had such a phenomenon it might be reasonable to assume a cause untill found otherwise, but we dont have one.
There was one, which was the creation of humans. But now theres evolution.
omnissient 1 year ago
@omnissient the cocept of a divinity simply goes beyond the measures of mankind using conventional methods to falsify. It would be akin to bringing a pail and shovel to a black hole. The tools are ill equipped and unable to even gain a reading for something so vastly beyond their scope. If man is even to make an attempt to quantify an infentesimal portion of God...it will have to be through unconventional means.
hexusziggurat 1 year ago
@omnissient the cocept of a divinity simply goes beyond the measures of mankind using conventional methods to falsify. It would be akin to bringing a pail and shovel to a black hole. The tools are ill equipped and unable to even gain a reading for something so vastly beyond their scope. If man is even to make an attempt to quantify an infentesimal portion of God...it will have to be through unconventional means.
hexusziggurat 1 year ago
god is sadist and we are martyrs! lol it's crazy fuck Jesus
insanewarlock666 1 year ago
This debate just got a lot better. 5/14 = Austin Dacey FTW
kaduisaui 1 year ago
the appendix isn't useless while it may have been different in our ancestors it probably continues to play some role in our digestive process and immune function which is supported by recent research. Long-term effects of removal include Crohn's which would make sense. Thus, we should be trying to prevent appendicitis from happening which is obviously achieved through diet and lifestyle. We may also be able to reverse it's onset with natural means. Conclusion? don't fuck with nature
InnerSmile72 1 year ago
It's interesting, but John Hick's philosophy effectively answers all of Austin Dacey's objections in this section as far as I can tell.
22jaykob22 1 year ago
The birth canal is too small
Craig would just say that is because of the fall.
And as for the extinct animals Craig would just say that was because of the flood.
HonestTechnoAtheist 1 year ago
Consider the huge number of viruses, bacteria, and parasites that kill or torture people every year, especially innocent children. If a creator god exists, he's pretty damn creative at inflicting pain and suffering. The faithful keep talking about God allowing suffering. It's not about allowing suffering. It's about creating it. No psychopath, mass murderer or serial killer even comes close to that level of sadism. It doesn't make sense if there is a god but it fits easily with evolution.
fusedchromosome 2 years ago
@fusedchromosome
Understandable view point, but if you're gna make such a HUGE comment abt a God, u obviously don't know - wudn't it be wise to regard what He says and does first? That is a huge assumption on ur part. What I wud like to offer is this; if indeed we're talkin abt the same God, then consider what He did in the beginning.He made man and woman, set them in the most peaceful, tranquil utopia-Eden. Gave everything except 1specification to eat, gave work, even a relationship with Him.
vuci4111 1 year ago
part 3)
7) The sheer number of such organisms and their mechanisms for infecting and killing people (and animals) is certainly compatible with sadism. (fact)
fusedchromosome 1 year ago
part 1)
What exactly did I "assume"
1) A huge number of viruses, bacteria and parasites exist. (fact)
2) These organisms cause "indiscriminate" and absolutely horrific suffering and death, not just to people but to other species as well. (fact)
3) The sheer number of such organisms and their mechanisms for infecting and killing people (and animals) can easily be argued as "creative." (fact)
fusedchromosome 1 year ago
part 2)
4) If you combine the suffering caused by every mass murderer, serial killer, sadist, or just plain asshole who has ever existed, it does even come close to what these organisms have done. (I think this could be called a fact.)
5) Their existence is perfectly compatible with evolution. (fact)
6) If a "loving" deity (1 John 4:8) designed all these organisms, it is certainly a mystery as to what purpose they serve (fact..unless "you" happen to know why...guessing doesn't count)
fusedchromosome 1 year ago
Comment removed
fusedchromosome 1 year ago
part 4)
To which you respond with nothing but assumptions.
1) a god made man and woman
2) set them in the most peaceful tranquil utopia-Eden
4) gave everything except 1 specification to eat
5) relationship with Him
Everything you stated is based on the "assumption" that the bible is true and therefore there just has to be some explanation for these organisms as well as, I "assume", every other piece of scientific data that doesn't happen to fit the "God" hypothesis.
fusedchromosome 1 year ago
@vuci4111
Sorry if you received some duplicate comments. Some of them didn't appear to go through so I resent them.
fusedchromosome 1 year ago
Mate of all the organisms and incredibly malicious things that should have killed us all have you ever been touched by them and not healed? Have they killed ur family? Infact name one person that you know personally that has died as a result of these malicious orgs attacking him without him causing it to occur. To conclude that it was all done in an act of evil is to assume that u know it all, and therefore that u urself are on par with God. If we both agree that a God exists, then..
vuci4111 1 year ago
"If we both agree that a God exists..."
huh?? Where did I give the impression that I think a god exists? I don't think there is sufficient evidence to conclude that a god exists. I was merely pointing out that IF you "assume" a god exists then the existence of so many viruses, bacteria, and parasites, and the almost infinite amount of suffering and death inflicted by them doesn't make any sense but if you "assume" that a god does not exist, then it makes perfect sense.
fusedchromosome 1 year ago
"To conclude that ts was all done in an act of evil"
I didn't conclude that is WAS an act of evil. I said IF you're going to assume that a god created the world and all life on it then the existence of all these organisms is fully compatible with that deity being sadistic. I don't "believe" any kind of god exists (good or bad). What science has so far discovered about the world and the life on it is compatible with the theory that all species have evolved without divine intervention.
fusedchromosome 1 year ago
Ok my bad, you seemed to be taking the "God is evil" stance when u said, god created things that cause us pain and suffering. If u dnt blv He exists, y wud u bother forming an opinion then! all that energy for nothing. or maybe...just maybe...nice talkin to u man, take care. over n out.
vuci4111 1 year ago
I spend energy on this because in the U.S. there is a huge amount of energy being expended by the faithful to influence government and control education. They are constantly trying to pass laws to get creationism (or whatever watered-down version of it they can get away with) taught in schools. So, every time they try, it ends up in court (e.g. "Kitzmiller vs Dover".) It's a huge headache and a massive waste of time and money.
And I enjoy a good debate.
be well.
fusedchromosome 1 year ago
there's a lot more explaining to do of the GOOD things in life! There's far more plesant things than bad that we must explain away inorder to accept ur definition of a GOd, that He is evil..! (if He exits) But since we wake up in the mornining, have breath in ur lungs, life in r blood, already this is a gift we could never repay. As for the evil in the world, no doubt! though there are viruses, ddnt God give us immune systems to cope? Didn't He give us a means to fight back with meds?rnt we win
vuci4111 1 year ago
rnt we winning day by day? U see the problem is nt with God, its wit our mindset towards him, He has givn us a means to survive indeed to thrive, but it involves us reaching out to the desperate, those who don't have the means the way u &i do, did u knw there is more than enough food for eg to feed the ENTIRE world?Read UN or WHO Report on food, the problm is that WE dnt share it! same with health issues. Now if we tlk abt evil in general there is stil smethin i hv to say abt it...I blv God is..
vuci4111 1 year ago
I blv God is good, and that all things were made through Him and without Him nothing was made that was made..John1:3..even though there is evil in the world, God is not the CAUSATION of it, the devil is. the Devil comes to kill steal and destroy.U dnt hav to blv me, take a look arnd-judgin from ur comments u'v seen his handiwork! God is involved in rectifying wat the devil tears down, and He does that thru people! If u nd me are alive thats proof God is good.
vuci4111 1 year ago
@fusedchromosome Unless these events are a curse on a world that has turned its back on God aka judgement for law breakers.
coreva 1 year ago
@coreva
You'll have to be more specific. Which laws did those millions of babies (including unborn) break? And if the master plan is eternal punishment in hell, what's the point of torturing babies in this life. If a deity set it up, he's one sadistic prick.
fusedchromosome 1 year ago
@fusedchromosome My answer to that, is that a question had to be answered related to evil and this is the answer. Sounds silly in a temporal sense but if never experienced it might not be understood. My guess is the question will never be asked again. In the grand scheme of things it doesn't suggest a sadistic God rather it displays that you are horrified.
MayonR 1 year ago
@MayonR
Your response "suggests" that you are capable of justifying pretty much anything that supports your faith. Good luck with that. However, IMHO, your response went thud. And so the debate marches on. From my point of view, you're dumping perfume on a pile of shit in the hopes that no one will notice the stench.
fusedchromosome 1 year ago
@fusedchromosome Your opinion is the argument? hmm.
MayonR 1 year ago
Dacey is a genius
hvutrong 2 years ago
@hvutrong I don't think so. The arguement about suffering is mostly sophistic (i' m looking for something. i can't find it. Thus, it does not exist.) In this case he says "I can't think of any reason why God doesn't prevent the suffering. Therefore, he has no reason not to. Therefore He does not exist. INEPT!
TheLambrozorz 2 years ago
read the bible properly then youll know
blademanx 2 years ago
@blademax You misunderstood me. I was merely seting out Dacey's arguement.
TheLambrozorz 2 years ago
This is a nice debate... well, aside from the ones happening right under my comment. :))
amvacct 2 years ago
Jer. 1:5 says what?...His knowledge PRECEDES any of our actions. Isaiah 46:10 says that which hasn't occured yet has been set up by God's "purpose". God "declares" X will occur, i.e. God states emphatically & authoritatively that X will occur & there is NO possibility that what he declares, will not occur. You aren't free to act in a way contra to what's already set up. S can't "choose" to do Y if an omniscient God declared (from before S's birth) that S WILL do X, therefore S MUST. Get it, now?
gmn545 2 years ago
Your definition of "omniscient" is erroneous. You stated that "His knowledge is based on our free acts", when an omniscient mind would have TOTAL knowledge of past, present, & future. there is NO room for free will if an omniscient mind allegedly dwells "outside" of space-time (& supposedly created it) w/ knowledge of ALL the consequences that would result from the initial conditions/laws he himself set up. again, his knowledge/"will" precede any action in time. Jer.1:5; Isa.46:10; Rev. 13:8
gmn545 2 years ago
It's NOT erroneous. You rebuttal is based on ignorance of the distinction I mentioned below. God's omniscience is based on His seeing the future, or on any kind of Perception - it the Conceptual attribute of knowing all true propositions and believe no false ones. Further, God is not timeless, but related to time since its creation. God exists in Eternity.
slash20062006 2 years ago
"God is not timeless"
really? I think Craig himself might disagree.
"This Cause must be a causeless, **timeless**, changeless, and immaterial being of unimaginable power, which created the universe." --William Lane Craig, during his opening statement @ a debate w/ Antony Flew, 1998 (**emphasis added)
gmn545 2 years ago
You are officially an ignorant moron. I've read Craig voluminously, and while, yes, he does say God WAS timeless prior to creation, He is NOW temporal.
slash20062006 2 years ago
So god was eternal, but now he's not. how could this be if he's immutable?
Ad hominem already? lol. and this coming from a self-professing follower of Jesus. If he were alive today, you think he'd call a guy like you a "representative" of his? lol
since you wish to conclude this exchange with ad hominems, then based on observation, i can only deduce that "christian" slash20062006 is officially a hypocritical, pompous and credulous dipshit.
Thanks for playing. Have a nice day.
gmn545 2 years ago
Oh my gosh you're dense. Did I say eternal? No, I said timeless. Two totally different comments. Learn how to read. He's not immutable in the sense that He never loses or gains any properties. In the Bible, when it talks about God's not changing, it's talking about Him keeping His promises. Stop importing Greek concepts into a Jewish mindset. And I guess Jesus was non-Christian for calling people vipers, Paul for telling the Galatians to emasculate themselves! Did you get your feelings hurt?
slash20062006 2 years ago
huh?
time·less (t m l s). adj. 2 a : having no beginning or end : eternal
Paul's "emasculate" is a mistranslation found only in the NIV. the KJV correctly shows how Paul wished for the false prophets to be "cut off", or separated. in other words, he just wanted them to go away.
jesus-is-savior. com / Bible / NIV / emasculate. htm
ironic that an atheist needs to give bible lessons to a christian. lol "hurt"? nope, i've been laughing at you for quite a while now.
gmn545 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Lol! Using a dictionary to adjudicate concepts in philosophical literature. This is getting funnier by the day. What is ironic is the extent of your own cognitive dissonance, while posturing as an intellectual. You remind of that mentally handicapped boxer in Million Dollar Baby. So 'emasculate' is a mistranslation - so what? The point stands. Being a Christian doesn't being the equivalent of Edward Norton's character in Death to Smoochy! Precedents for rhetoric and satire exist! Deal with it.
slash20062006 2 years ago
define terms properly is something to 'lol' about?. perhaps it escaped you that your entire position is one of conjecture. attempting to wax intellectual about the "clothes" when your 'invisible man' is highly likely to not even be there to begin with is what's ironic (and frankly, stupid). You remind me of a politician: uses sharp vernacular, yet its complete bullshit. Judging from your comments, you saying it's me who tries to pose as an intellectual is like the pot calling the kettle "black".
gmn545 2 years ago 5