This is probably why Dawkins won`t debate with Craig, Because what Dawkins finds a compelling argument against God`s Existence Craig would just destroy
@FeignofCordor Because his arguments do not rely on the application of demonstrated actuality, but rather asserting a view point eloquently based on ideas which he agrees with. In short, it is divorced from reality
@kyral210 It seems as if you're attempting to define the application of demonstrated actuality with some sort of empirical implication.. As if empiricism or naturalism is the absolute method in which we determine the authenticity of "reality", etc.. There is a plethora of philosophers & scientists that have debunked this method of thought.. Hume, Kant, Descartes to name just a few..
At no point has Dr. Craig ever stated or even inferred that his reasons for belief in God`s existence are " Divorced from reality" as you claim. His arguments are based on sound logic from what we know. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
"We have good evidence that ... extraterrestrials have put it there."
What evidence is that Dr Craig? Do you know of some extraterrestrials? What test did you run to show there weren't any ETs? Do you _know_ they haven't developed teapot technology? What you are calling "good evidence" is in fact absence of evidence. Typical wordplay of Dr C.
@FeignofCordor What misquote? Did he not state that we had "good evidence" in the case of an absence?
Please don't be fooled by Dr Craig's misdirections and usage of faith as evidence. Evidence, like facts, are stubborn things. Evidence is not subject to our desires. Craig implies that evidence is.
@drfoxcourt You said "Craig misses the critical issue that his inward feelings (sensing that something is there) is not evidence."
Dr.Craig never claimed that his own relationship and personal experiences with God is Evidence that he can give to others. He called this "Self-Authenticating" which it is.
He gives plenty of reasons for his belief in Gods existence such as the Cosmological argument and so on.
Craig misses the critical issue that his inward feelings (sensing that something is there) is not evidence. Craig has often founded his "evidence" of God on the sensing of "the holy spirit". But he doesn't credit Muslims, Hindus, FSMists with a sense of sensing the divine spirit. Why not? We have no reason to believe that God sent his only begotten son in the same way we have no reason to suppose a teapot is in orbit.
@drfoxcourt We have plenty of historical evidence that Jesus existed and died on a cross however we have no evidence to believe a teapot is orbiting the Earth. so the is no parallel between what I believe about Jesus and some Dawkins argument about a space bound teapot
@FeignofCordor We have evidence of Jesus existence? Outside the Bible? Please don't show your ignorance by claiming Josephus (That is almost certainly an inserted edit). We have plenty of evidence of objects orbiting the Earth and evidence of teapots.
Furthermore, evidence of a man called Jesus does not include evidence of his divinity, redemptive ability or any other part of the Christian mythos.
An example of absence of evidence is evidence of absence: a teacher goes into his classroom and takes attendance. After calling on 10 kids he calls Mary's name and she doesn't respond, and the teacher sees that she isn't in her seat or anywhere in the classroom. There is an absence of evidence that Mary is present, therefore the logical conclusion is that she is absent.
@gregrutz I'm an atheist, and I know logic. Craig said that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, I said absence of evidence can be evidence of absence. It's possible to prove some negatives.
Is Dr. Craig correct when he says " Absence of Evidence is not evidence of absence"? and if you agree that this statement is true. Explain your problem with his use of this statement if you have one?
@FeignofCordor The absence of evidence means an ontologically neutral position. Absence of evidence in a things existence means that evidence for or against the position may surface in the future, which is why it's irrational to interpret that such an absence of evidence as necessarily evidence of absence.
For a concrete example, in 10,000 b.c there existed no evidence to primitive man to affirm the existence of quantum fluctuations. This absence wasn't proof of its absence to him, however.
@Thoughtitorium you oversimplify things. The problem with your argument is that you are confining it to a. a classroom, and b. a backyard. both assertions can be falsified by exploring the realm to which they are confined. That's the point of the teapot argument, there is no way (well technically the likelihood is infinitesimal) that anyone can find a teapot revolving around the sun, because it's impossible to totally explore our solar system as a human.
@h0lystrike God is harder to falsify, possibly impossible to falsify -- especially if He's defined as being all-powerful and all-knowing, which means He can hide at will, no matter what we do. The best view is agnostic atheism -- we don't know and we shouldn't believe, because there's no evidence. There's not even a reason to think there is a God, and we already have plenty of scientific explanations to dismiss new God hypotheses. History is on the side of naturalism.
Absence of evidence can be evidence of absence. If I claim that a visible elephant is in my backyard and then you go in my backyard and don't see a visible elephant, that's counts as evidence of the absence of a visible elephant in my backyard.
The reason Craig hasn't refuted the teapot and the kettle is that their believers, much like Christians, will make it into an unfalsifiable hypothesis: You could be a cleverly disguised kangaroo; only kangaroos that we've observed lack the cognitive chops to disguise himself so well...
The premise itself is that absence of evidence may not necessarily evidence of absence, but it's way fucking dumber to assume what has no evidence exists than to dismiss it.
Craig's refutation of the teapot and the kangaroo took the examples too literally, failing to contest the point the figurative example was attempting to make. I might even call that a strawman, as his literal interpretation of the examples distorted the meaning of the arguments.
The teapot and the kangaroo are not arguments; they are examples of a premise. Refuting those examples don't refute the premise; and mind you, you haven't even disproven the teapot and the kettle.
I like the part where both WLC and MrZazomy say that absence of evidence isn't enough to disprove something then go on to say that because there's no evidence of Santa/fairies that's somehow "positive evidence" that they don't exist...
Prayer doesn't work
The world was not made in 7 days
There was not a worldwide flood
Snakes don't talk
The Earth revolves around the Sun
Women aren't made out of ribs
Even if we go from Craig's dodgy logic then the Christian God can be disproven. Problem Craig?
Ok, Craig. You say we have good evidence that no teapot has been launched into space by humans. Can you tell us a little more about this evidence? I'm all ears.
I think theists sometimes shoot down metaphysical claims by asserting the superiority of their metaphysical claims. other times though where the bible doesn't give them grounds to decide they shoot metaphysical claims down by absence of evidence (like the case with children's invisible friends). They do also take into account the consistency here of the metaphysical claims (contradictions and such) and history (which is probably the real way they shoot down santa)as well.
@TheAlphaPyro As a theist, I have every right to make metaphysical claims. If you are an atheist you have every right to make your metaphysical claims as well. As long as you dont make the bogus statement that your claims are actually rooted in science, or that you are smarter than every body else in the room because your claims rooted in ignorance are not that more superior to any body else's claims rooted in ignorance.
Indeed you do have that right. I can't prove or disprove anybodies metaphysical ideas about reality. But when those metaphysical tires meet the road of reality consistency within a persons model of reality will or will not be observed. If a persons model makes sense with what we all experience then I wouldn't assert the superiority of my world view but I don't see a good consistent model with scripture following believers (which may not even apply to you) so I call it out.
@TheAlphaPyro Actually those scripture believers are more consistent than you lot. They actually do believe that something can be eternal and create the universe violating all laws of physics as we know them. You on the other hand will make the inconsistent self contradictory claim that nothing is eternal but at the same time matter can create itself from nothing and flourish into the life we know now!
@karamarouge Friend you shouldn't assume a bunch of stuff about me & then draw your own conclusions. Secondly if the "lot" you are refering to is atheists I don't know any personally nor do I think any of the mainstream ones make the claim that nothing is eternal or that it can create itself from nothing. We simply say we don't know how it got there but that bible god was most likely not the one that did it becuase he is frought with historical problems and there is no convincing evidence of him
@TheAlphaPyro Um Richard Dawkins has said it very many times that there is no such thing as a creator. (for the record you should also not make assumptions about me and assume that I argue for the biblical God. As some of us say, even we dont believe in Dawkin's God) It is to his brand of aggressive and arrogant atheism that is the subject of this video and hence my post.
@karamarouge I didn't assume you did believe in Bible god it was a general statement. Dawkins has also said that he cannot with all certainty dismiss the possibility of god but in all practicality he can just like fairies and leprachauns. God also doesn't compose the sum of all things that could be eternal. The case for non deist type gods or gods of scripture is as weak as fairy tales so it's not a wonder for people to rather loudly proclaim it so.
@karamarouge i don't believe this and if you asked hitchens, harris, dawkins, shermer or many of the other mainstream atheists you would find the same answer. Theists seem to be the only ones claiming that something arose from nothing. We don't know seems like the honest answer is my main point I'm trying to convey. I think there could be a god or even an infinite number of them or no god or just some other non god causal phenomenon. Atheist is a label used to dismiss all the man made gods
@TheAlphaPyro Um this is bullshit! Hitches makes this very argument in a debate vs Dinesh Desouza. Dawkins has made the same claim about how life came from some unknown, never seen unfalsifiable self replicating particle (or some fairy dust type thing along those lines)
See it is very easy for one to make fun of your pseudo science just like you like to do of theists. What we dont know is one thing. But what we do know, that nothing comes from nothing is key to this argument!
@karamarouge I think Hitchen's has been quite clear on the we don't know notion. Dawkin's "particle" I'm guessing was actually the self replicating RNA he and others discuss. This doesn't have to do with the origin of the universe but more so the origins of the first proto cell. However, even if he was discussing the possible existence of some other particle I doubt it was a " this is it" dogmatic notion. Out of all the possibilities we have the god idea has very weak explanatory power.
@TheAlphaPyro Again you dont seem to know nearly enough about the atheists you are defending. Hitches was quite clear in the claims he made (well hitchens really never makes any scientific claims, he always, always extolls the claims of others being that the man has no original ideas.) Watch the debate between him and Desouza. And ultimately the "Dawkins' Particle" would also have had to have arisen from nothing.
@karamarouge *And ultimately the "Dawkins' Particle" would also have had to have arisen from nothing*. That is according to you but you were trying to say that this was stated by others so please show evidence that this is what he was saying. Attacking Hitchens personally does not further your point. I'll watch the Desouza debate again and get back to you. All this debate aside, I hope you have some good holiday fun and I've actually enjoyed our discussion so far.
@TheAlphaPyro This is really becoming silly. If a person argues that God or designer of life is none existent, he/she is in effect is arguing that the universe hence all life created itself from nothing.
Go and google "Richard Dawkins Who created the designer" and you will get a massive number of videos and articles quoting the man directly.
@TheAlphaPyro Only you would think that Aliens an idea that has been advanced by dawkins himself is weak by comparison to a creator. BTW When you say god, I dont know which one you refer to. If it is Dawkin's god then we are agree.
@karamarouge I'm referring to any god other than some sort of deistic god (meaning a god who does not particularly care about the well being of his creation but was somehow involved in creation). Sorry It's hard to discuss all this with this short format.
@TheAlphaPyro I do know for a fact Dawkins has said both in writing and verbally that there cant be a creator/designer since his existence would pause the question of his own creator. That inversely means the man actually believes the universe created itself from nothing. It has to be one or the other. And dawkins has passed on several tortured theories on how the universe was created including Aliens. (i guess thats not as silly as fairies.)
@karamarouge Saying aliens are a POSSIBILITY is not that tortured of a hypothesis. It's really not that crazy to say there could be other intelligent beings out there in a universe of gagillions of stars and planets that could do more than we can understand. he did not imply the inverse you stated. He was getting at if you posit a creator to fix the "something can't come from nothing" idea then why are u not bothered about this concerning your creator (pure assertive power?)?
@TheAlphaPyro BTW. dawkins revisions on his opinions about the existence of god are not really relevant. I am wondering why they heck you brought them up. The fact is that Dawkins is a main stream atheist who has made various inconsistent remarks about where he thinks the universe came from. The crux of which, is that matter created itself out of nothing. So please dont confuse the issue and try to pass of a lie that main stream atheists dont claim that matter created itself
@karamarouge he has often argued that it comes from nothing and yet he is talking about something. it's odd cosmologists do this too. But even craig understands what they mean because I've seen him bring it up in another vid. I think Brian Greene said it on fabric of the cosmos on nova too. The universe arose from nothing and yet something as it is often said. What we often think about as nothing (meaning space) may actually contain something known as the higgs field.
@TheAlphaPyro That is double speak if I have ever seen it. Nothing to me means the absence of anything. This includes energy matter or even the higgs field. Because even that ultimately is something.
@karamarouge So if someone asks me what I'm up to and I reply "nothing" they should in fact assume i'm essentially in a state of nonexistence? I will totally agree with you if you say that saying nothing on their part is a poor representation of what they mean.
They should choose their words more intelligently. But the point they are trying to make is pretty clear.
@TheAlphaPyro Sorry, I will not let you apply silly analogies to my definition of nothing as used in the context of this argument. Any other use of the word is irrelevant because it has nothing whatsoever to do with the beginning of the universe.
When we theists use the word "nothing" in the context of creation, Then we mean the absence of anything. I will not argue the use of the word in any other context. That would be a waste of my time!
I find it a bit ironic that craig is actually attacking a santa straw man. He is attacking the physically detectable santa, but isn't santa by his nature metaphysical? If a non-believer attacks the existence of god by saying there is no physical evidence that scientifically proves god's existence despite the fact that he should be detectable if real then one would see craig up in arms about how god is metaphysical. He just doesn't get the analogy does he?
craig and those that think like him like to say that the data points to god and when people show otherwise, then they make up new ways to interpret the data that are unsupported by data but are mere conjecture. Or they talk about how the mind of god is unknowable to defend the inaction on god's part regarding rape and death of little kids. They love to have their cake and eat it too, even the bits of cake that are imaginary.
The description of this vid misses an important point. if people really argued that santa existed they would just make up a bunch of extraneous stuff like christian's do to cover for the fact that he can't be found in the north pole. He is testing your faith or he is an invisible agent existing in the realm of the metaphysical and is so powerful and clever he can move into our dimension at will and back to the metaphysical. That's the problem with giving an idea an unlimited defense budget.
Don't waste time trying to refute something as straighforward as the teapot analogy you morons. By the way don;t confuse what it claims, it doesn;t intend to prove gods non-existence, it's simply shows that lack of proof of the non existence of something like a teapot or unicorn, does not add any credibility to the proposal of it's existence, since in principle it is impossible to prove that something doesn't exist. It is quite simple to prove something does exist however, provided that it does.
As a borderline-agnostic I'm going to say that the new atheism is intellectually dishonest. Buddhists, Theists, and other philosophers have exposed Russell's teapot analogy to be both a strawman and a red herring. The philosopher's definition of God entails a conscious abstract entity to the universe. We have no evidence for probabilty in immaterial realms because we cannot regularly access them. The burden of proof shifts onto everyone equally.
@antiteista83 This was really dumb. The argument was refuted, then you just disregard the evidence, because you don't agree with it, by asking the same question. 1. Where is your evidence for the absence of the teapot? Again, we have evidence that a teapot has NOT been shot up in space, and it sure as heck can't float up into space on it's own, and there are no aliens that would have left the teapot there, so the argument of the teapot fails.
First of all he said (and rightly) "a proposition is not to be shown false by the absence of evidence for it"
nobody has ever searched a teapot around Mars and demonstrated that there is not.
Therefore say "teapot has NOT been shot up in space" or "no aliens put it there" prove nothing!
Of course no one believes in the teapot because it's an analogy created by Russell to show that we can believe in thousands of stupid things without a single evidence.
@antiteista83 The problem is we know that no teapot has ever been launched into space, and there are only a few ways a teapot could get there, let's go over them shall we? 1. It got there by itself. (Not logical.) 2. It was launched and let go in space by our space program or another. (Which we know is not true, there are no "teapots" on the space shuttle. 3. Aliens put it there.(Not very probable.) So by logic we can determine there is no teapot and that the statement is STUPID. cont....
@antiteista83 cont.."Of course no one believes in the teapot because it's an analogy created by Russell to show that we can believe in thousands of stupid things without a single evidence." So by that statement you're accusing theists of being stupid and believing in a stupid thing, that you can't disprove or even prove that it's illogical to believe. Is that right??? If you say yes, the prove that God is illogical to believe in, and use science, if you can't you lose.
I don't undestand your question, in fact I think you totally missed the point...I cannot even disprove -for example- the fairies, but then I have to believe in them? Absolutely not. I say only there are a thousands of this kind of things that there is no evidence about it and therefore is stupid to believe in them, this is perfectly logical at least for non-believers.
@antiteista83 Okay that makes no sense, you think I totally missed the point, but fail to understand the question? How can you know that I missed the point if you don't understand the question?? You don't have to believe in Fairies, these "entities" have nothing to do with your salvation. "There are a thousands of this kind of things that there is no evidence about it, and therefore is stupid to believe in them." Wait, then how do you know it's stupid to believe in???? You don't. cont....
With "I don't undestand your question"I thought that was pretty clear that the non-existence of something is impossible to prove and consequently illogical to believe in it. Or have I misunderstood?
However the example of the sister is wrong and illogical, has nothing to do with other examples of imaginary beings or things... It's quite likely that a girl that could be your sister exist, rather than the fairies, and if someone has a sister or not, it can be demonstrated.
@antiteista83 You're assuming it's non existent first. Who says that if it does exist it needs to exist in our time? Again you're assuming God is imaginary first.
And why you're assuming that god exist without a single evidence? Be onest with yourself and suspend judgement, or the logic in this case you don't like to apply?
I'm assuming that God doesn't exist because in the first place there are no evidence, and secondly for people like you that saying "god is real" and created this belief system that we all know. There will be no such problem in the first place if people were honest and reasonable.
Obviously I can't prove that the christian God doesn't exist, but I can't prove neither that Zeus, Odino, Thor, Mithra and thousand of Gods and things doesn't exist, but then is reasonable and logical believe in all of them? For me no. I can't even be sure at 100% that God doesn't exist but a 99,9% I think is reasonable. Sorry for my bad english.
@antiteista83 cont...You don't make sense...lets look at that statement...."I don't see evidence of your sister, therefor it's stupid to believe you have one??" Why would it be stupid? See, that makes no sense. "This is perfectly logical at least for non-believers." How is it logical? What truth makes it logical??
@Lan5in6 Some theistic arguments do have some weight to them. You can't dismiss the notion of God's existence by simply claiming there is no evidence, because in reality, the claim that "God exists" does have an evidential basis for it.
There is no evidential or rational basis for saying God exists, It originates from authority and faith, even Craig admits to this. Some people claim there is, and come up with fallacious logical arguments to work backwards, and come up with some kind of argumentation to prove what they've already decided to be the truth. I could just as easily come up with a fallacious argument for the unproven but not disprove existence of gnomes. Why should this idiot have a platform for debate and not me?
@Lan5in6 I'd like to know what you think is "fallacious" about Craig's arguments. Where does the logical fallacy lie in his main arguments? Instead of making baseless assertions and using ad hominem attacks against Craig, maybe you should point out what is wrong with the arguments he has presented.
@tomdenman btw I didn't study latin. i'll give you some examples if you want, of craig using fancy rhetoric to win over the crowd. Dawkins says it's ok to assert God probably doesn't exist despite lack of evidence of absence. Then Craig says "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" but this is not what anyone is claiming,it is we don't have to disprove god anymore than we need to disprove gnomes, ufo's or anything you can imagine to be unfalsifiable, since its impossible by their nature
His main argument is that anything that begins to exist has a cause, and that the universe began to exist, hence there is a cause we call God. However, from the point of view of pure rationalism, there is no evidence that things can't happen without cause, no matter how often you associate causes to observed phenomenon. Secondly It fails scientifically, since according to the experts such as Hawkins the laws of physics alone are sufficient "cause" for the Universe originating.
@Lan5in6 well damn. Don't you think the basis to debate it is to see if your mind will change? Don't you this the basis is to figure out whether or not he exists since . . . our lives depend on it (whether or not he exists).
@ninetails009 People rarely change their mind through debate, i put this down tho fact some people are rational an some simply aren't. I would be easily persuaded to believe in a god if there were some scientific evidence for this, i would expect there to be an abundance of it were the god hypothesis to be true. I am not however impressed by rhetoric from theologists and philosophers like craig, who construct fallacious arguments with enormous confidence, only people with faith like them.
@Lan5in6 Many people change their minds through debate. I did. That's the entire point of debate (and maybe entertainment).
I'm just referring to your statement that there's no good reason to debate about God's existence. If our lives are valuable, then talking about such a thing would only make sense.
@Lan5in6 That's wrong, people change their mind through going to debates all the time, infact look up a debate between WLC and Frank Zindler, 47 people indicated that they had become believers at the end of the debate, which shows at best that this is not a "rare" occurance in debates.
see the thing is dawkins doesn't want to debate craig because he knows he'd get spanked. Even all the other major atheists have admitted craig is a superior debater. Sam harris in the debate stated he felt he was under a lot of pressure. Christopher hitchens admitted craig was a tough opponent, and after their debate many atheists were saying hitchens got 'spanked'. So its just intellectual cowardice by dawkins
@jamaicanification perhaps a coward but whats an intelectual coward? craig is a tough debater, becuse he lacks intelectual honesty, and makes ridiculous statements with logic fallacies, making unjustified assumption with no intelectual rigour, but says things with confidence like theres no other option, though anyone with a brain can see through the arguments. perhaps dawkins is afraid to look less confident, and hence appear less truthful,but this would only work for the most retarded audienc
@Lan5in6 really, so thats your explanation for why he's a 'coward'(i grant you an indulgence because yes, i agree he's not even an intellectual cowards because there's nothing intellectual about him). Would you care to explain the logical fallacies behind his argument? Because you know its always easy for people who cant refute and argument to say it has logical fallacies therefore im not gonna bother even considering it(continued)
@Lan5in6 and yes, hitchens said so. Watch the pre-debate conference he had with william lane craig where right before when the camera men ask is this david vs goliath, he said there were 2 goliaths. He even recognized craigs intelligence and strong argument. And sure, harris said that because he couldn' t refute his argument. Harris didn't even debate craigs propositions. All he did was read of his lab top like a mindless drone(continued)
@Lan5in6 and harris himself said at the beginning of the debate that he was under a lot of pressure to not screw the debate up because "Dr Craig puts the fear of God into atheists". These are his words
@jamaicanification he did say Dr Craig puts the fear of God into atheists, but that was a bit of a joke you humourless christian. i've just pointed out some of craigs fallacies. Sure, Craig is a tough opponent in front of a naive crowd, which doesn't see the unjustified assumptions and other fallacies. he just chats shit in a very confident way when dealing with a subject like the origin of the universe, not the greatest minds in physics dare say they have a definite anwer to. Won;t work for me
@Lan5in6 you humorless atheists who seems to have something stuck up his ass, i know its a joke. Im just pointing out that a lot of the prominent new atheists recognize william lane craig as a tough opponent. And the reason why he 'chats shit' is because he's a philosopher who deals with the argument for the existence of god from a philosophical standpoint. And appealing to the greatest minds in physics to say god is unlikely is not convincing(continued)
@jamaicanification One of the greatest minds in physics, Father George Lemaitre, discovered the Big Bang theory, and he was a catholic priest at the same time. What was proven was that the universe had a beginning, contrary to what many skeptics were saying since the time of David Hume at least, and consistence with what religious people have always been saying
@jamaicanification whatever the point remains God is uneccessary for the origin of the Universe to the best of our knowledge. it hasn't exaclty been proven it had an origin, we only know the universe is expansion. Sure religious nutters may have thought the universe had an origin, but since what they say is based on faith, and were strong advocators of the geocentric theory theres no reason they should have been taken seriously. Hume would have said why assume an origin until theres evidence
@Lan5in6 And it's not like the Big Bang is just something we assume; it's something that's been scientifically demonstrated for decades. That, compounded by the many reasons why it is logically impossible for the universe to have existed through an infinite sequence of events, is plenty of reason to think that the universe began to exist.
@AvadaKedavra1138 Yes i know about the Big Bang theory, great program, but it hasn't been shown time began at that moment, according to Hawkins it's possible there was time and things going on before the explosion but they no consequence. i don't see what's wrong with an infinite sequence of events. Do you realise the universe has to end, as well as begin, for time to be limited? Even supposing an origin of time, to say it had a cause pretty much shit on reasoning you used previously.
@Lan5in6 And why assume the universe is eternal either?Why should that be taken seriously until there is evidence to support that? Your logic applies both ways
"Even all the other major atheists have admitted craig is a superior debater"
Complete nonsense. Hitchens said nothing of the kind. And according to Sam Harris, Craig resorts to "high school debating tricks to mislead the audience." Not exactly recognition of a "superior debater."
You also neglect to mention that Dawkins HAS debated Craig. Any reason to think further debate would be productive? I don't see how anyone who watched the last one could possibly think so.
"we know that matter in the universe does not self-organize into teapot shapes."
yes, but we do know matter self organizes via gravity to form stars, galaxies, planets, and eventually self replicating molecules..all it takes is physics and time. the question is, does it take an intelligence for there to be physics and space-time?
He didn't refute that argument at all. He never gave us evidence that the flying spaghetti monster didn't place a microscopic teapot in our galaxy. So it must be there. There may be no evidence for it, but there isn't evidence against it.
Craig is a piece of shit who is deliberalely misrepresenting intelligent positions. He says we don;t believe in the teapot because there is evidence aginst it/ where? no one is claiming absence of evidence is evidence of absence. But since nothing can be disproved the onus is on anyone who wants to make a christianity apology to bring forth evidence or else be treated like teapot, unicorn or santa claus believers
@Lan5in6 someone's a little angry. Hey, if Dawkins is so intelligent why doesn't he debate william lane craig? Why does he use the dumb excuse that he 'supports the old testament', but he was willing to debate with people like Alistair Mgrath? Even people like Eugenie Scott, whos a skeptic herself, views some of dawkins positions as idiotic
@jamaicanification You ask why Dawkins won't debate Craig? well i suggest you read the guardian article dawkins wrote himself. I think Craig is an idiot, and an advocate of genocide, but he speaks with a lot of confidence and makes claims which are nonsene, though not all falsifiable. These traits however, are the sort you find in a professional debater but not a good intelligent and intellectually honest scientist or academic. What position held by Dawkins is idiotic?
@Lan5in6 It is idiotic to believe morality is subjective and fundamentally illusory whilst continuing to condemn genocide; in fact, Dawkins sees nothing wrong in infanticide as he claimed so himself.
If Dr. Craig is so idiotic - despite Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchen claiming otherwise - then let Dawkins prove it by wiping the floor with Craig's arguments instead of regurgitating one lame excuse after another.
"It is idiotic to believe morality is subjective and fundamentally illusory whilst continuing to condemn genocide"
Great. But who on earth thinks morality is subjective and illusory?
At some point, you might wish to deal honestly with the views held by people you disagree with - instead of mischaracterizing those views. It doesn't fool anyone.
@Marduniya We have instinctive moral values, but we often find ourselves debating over what is morally right or wrong, this means we don't have objective moral values, otherwise we would all be in agreement. I for example think a woman should have the right to abort, but christian fundementalits will say otherwise. we all think some things like genocide and rape we can say are wrong, (even if we cant define wrong), but when it comes to more of a gray area, there are differences of opinion
@Marduniya Any good scientist will tell you the instinct for morality is an evolutionary trait. We all have similar instincts, but not always identical, hence why i like to fuck women and you probably don't. The instinct is therefore, subjective, though this isn't to say Non-Existent, a propert belonging to subjects such as God and your intelligence.
@Marduniya i don't get the whole straw men thing but i see youve abandoned the route of rational debate, hardly a surprise. I don't have a god and Dawkins is not a prophet of atheism, the idea is absurd. Thats one advantage of being an atheist, he could back away from debates or go to prison for sex crimes, anything, It won't change the fact his arguments are almost all irrefutable, and religion is a crutch for the weak minded, without any evidence. it must suck when your god doesnt exist, no?
@Lan5in6 The position that he thinks the bible is a filthy book, filled with nonsense, but he loves the King James version. the position that his lame excuse for not debating william lane craig includes he only debates priests, or bishops, even though they say pretty much the same point craig would. It just shows He's an intellectual coward. Thats all. If he's not ready to debate craig, he shouldn't have debated all the priests, and rabbi's and bishops that he's debated so far........
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of Absence." True , but Absence of evidence is not Evidence that something exists either. God most exist because there is no evidence that he doesn't? Really? Then there most be a unicorn millions of light years from earth because there is no evidence that their isn't one?
@keagar1 But there is evidence that God existence. We do have life. It could only have come from the theist's description of a god. We do have a finely tuned universe, that could only have been created by a theists God. (an no even the big bang theory has huge holes that are unexplained a lot and relies on mathematical equations where too much is assumed.)
your "evidence" is based on your lack of understanding of science..life doesn't need magic to exist. the only people who say that are those who don't understand science. and the universe is fine tuned for life? lol..is that why in 99% of the universe we'd die in under a minute?..even if the universe was fine tuned for life, that wouldn't matter because there could very well be many other universes, and ours being the way it is could have been inevitable.
@itzahazylife Then pray tell how did life begin. If you are sure "magic" was not necessary explain exactly how life begun. Tell us why scientists after all this time cant even replicate it in a lab given the basic proteins they claim spawned life. (forget about the magic mud puddle that didnt have all the tools the scientists have)
@karamarouge Really a god of the gaps argument? Just because science doesn't currently know exactly how something happened, it doesn't mean you can simply insert "God X" to fix it. If science did that, we'd get nowhere.
@ApatheticOmniscience The inverse works out even worse for science. Science requires observation and experimentation. You cant argue on the side of science yet your claims have never been experimented upon and cant be observed. You sir are worse than the guy who claims belief in a god based on faith alone.
@karamarouge Scientists are working on creating life in a lab and have succeeded with RNA and simple amino acids. The RNA experiments are monumental because RNA capable of self-replicating is fundamental to the RNA world hypothesis.
However, it's quite possible that we'll never know for sure how life arose on Earth because it only happened once. But using God "X" to fill the gap is complete nonsense because arguments from ignorance don't explain anything.
@ApatheticOmniscience Really? arguments from ignorance dont explain anything? Kinda like how just said we shall never know how life arose and you still chose to make an argument from that affirmation of your ignorance on the genesis of life?
ARE YOU SERIOUS.?
PS.. Do not tell silly lies about those bogus unscientific experiments. Those scientists used already existing by products from living organisms to fabricate that RNA. They did not start out with the most basic elem
@karamarouge Wtf? I never said "we shall never know", you're disingenuously twisting my words, so don't even dare call me a liar. I said it's POSSIBLE that we'll never be certain how life arose. Take the time to actually read my comments before you respond.
Many chemical combinations like those naturally occur in the right circumstances. For example we know that DNA can be created in space. But saying "goddidit" and walking away is downright intellectually lazy and of no use to science.
We know that DNA can created in space? lol...You are joking right? seriously posting such bogus unproven and immensely daft shit as though it were legit science? you people are down right insane. You talk about me failing to understand your words? how about you go back to that article you read about "SPACE DNA" and appreciate the highly speculative nature of the words that scientists that made that claim used.
@ApatheticOmniscience The real problem is semi-literate people like you. You cant read simple freaking english. A scientist says he thinks its possible DNA came from space, and a dumbass like you runs off saying "its fact" or claiming "its known" know by fucking whom if I may ask? you and the biased crowd trying so badly to disprove gods existence so you can feel guilt free while blowing off some dude? (being an atheist that shouldnt rub you badly. Think of it as steak. Thats all we are..meat.)
@karamarouge If you're going to deny the discoveries I submit it simply because they've been discovered by scientists, then I can not possibly expect any intelligence to come from your side. Try acting like your role model Dr. Craig, and actually attack my evidence for what it's worth rather than spout up ad hominems
Your insults are baseless and not germane to this conversation. If you wish to continue such immaturity then I'm afraid this will have to be my last comment. G'day to you sir.
@ApatheticOmniscience LOL.. This is indeed getting quite more fun. AFter posting the very quotes of the very scientist Craig Venter who you falsely thought had invented life in a lab (what a laugh) now you are saying I am not posting facts?
Seriously dude, I know I am kicking your arse but that is weak fucking shit even from you! I am not the one disputing the bogus nonsense you posted, THE VERY SCIENTIST WHO DID THE XPERIMENT IS THE ONE DISPUTING YOUR BOGUS CLAIMS!
@ApatheticOmniscience And that is all I have done, attacked all your evidence. (no wonder you have not responded to that bogus claim you made that scientists created life in the lab.
Like an idiot you decided to jump on worn out disproven pseudo science from the Miller_Urey school of thought.
Thats why I think you are retarded. Do you really think i could be that informed about the truth of Craig Venters bogus claims and not know that Sidney. Fox claims are bogus?
@ApatheticOmniscience I think I now know more about you. You have to be some dumb american teacher that has spent too much time reading obsolete text books to even dumber american students teaching them bogus science as though it were real. Thats why you are faking as though you have a grasp of the very information even an amateur like me can blow up!
Seriously you are freaking quoting Sidney Fox? Sidney fucking fox? are you kidding me? 50 year old disproven science?
@karamarouge "They did not start out with the most basic elem" Yes they did.
In fact a couple scientists have proved that the basic molecules of life can spontaneously not only polymerize but conglomerate up to the level of protobionts.
As for you to say "bogus unscientific"... your Ph.D. is? Oh right, you probably just barely got out of high school yet you're somehow able to dictate what scientists are doing right and what they are doing wrong.... you bigoted hypocrite, learn your place.
@DSkaz89 UM NO THEY DID NOT...YOU FREAKIN F#$kING LIAR....HERE IS A QUOTE FROM THE SCIENTIST HIMSELF
"We did not create life from scratch: we transformed existing life into new life. Nor did we design and build a new chromosome from scratch. Rather, using only digitised information, we synthesised a modified version, a copy of the M. mycoides genome with 14 of its genes deleted and a "watermark" written in another 5000-plus base pairs. " Craig venter newscientist mag 05/25.2010
@karamarouge REad the fucking article you illiterate baboon and see where he talks about "BUYING dna from BLUEHERON" and combining these molecules using
WHAT???? LIVING FUCKING YEAST!!! Do you know why he used yeast you dumbass? Because there are absolutely no natural conditions that can direct the assembly of DNA molecules. NONE WHATSOEVER DUMBASS.
BITCH TAKE THAT WEAK SHIT BACK AND RE-THINK YOUR HOCUS POCUS BOOGY WOOGY EVOLUTION MYTH STORIES.
@DSkaz89 LOL..I just caught a big fat f#$king lying bitch wanna be internet genius lying out of his arse!!!
Hey bozo, dont think that you are the only one that can pick up a cheap science paper and read and understand what the scientist is telling you.
There Craig Venter says exactly what I said. He did not even create shit!!!! He did the equivalent of using ford blue prints, took a honda engine out of a car and stuck in a nissan engine and drove off! he didnt build the car dumbass!!!
@DSkaz89 lol... I cant stop laughing at your dumb illiterate ass!! Seriously you think I need a Ph.D to poke a hundred holes in Craig Venters bogus science experiments?
For crying out loud that man tells you himself he did not create life.. But here is your dumbass. Having half read and completely misunderstood an over hyped article, making stupid ass claims and getting owned by a "THEIST" of all people!!! A person who actually thinks evolution is a myth.
@DSkaz89" n fact a couple scientists have proved that the basic molecules of life can spontaneously not only polymerize but conglomerate up to the level of protobionts."
total bullshit. name the scientist, whats the experiment, where is the peer reviewed paper..
I love it when some idiot posts some half assed psuedo science and does a runner hoping no one will check his silly fairy tales.
Fox, S.W., 1965. Simulated natural experiments in spontaneous organization of morphological units from protenoid. In The Origins of Prebiological Systems and Their Molecular Matrices, S.W. Fox (ed), New York: Academic Press, pp. 361-382.
And....
Fox, S.W., 1980. The origins of behavior in macromolecules and protocells. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 67B: 423-436
@DSkaz89 OMG...you have to be retarded. (that is no ad hom it is a genuine concern).
You seriously cant be quoting bogus dis-credited science from the school of Miller and freaking Sydney fox...Go quote that bogus unscientific nonsense to the likes of Sarah Palin who dont read up on modern science journals and dont know that those bogus experiments have been long disproven and discarded not by creationists, but by evolutionists, scientists etc.
"Such experiments are no more than exercises in organic chemistry."—*P. Mora, "The Folly Of Probability," in Origins of Prebiological Systems and their Molecular Matrices, Ed. *S. W. Fox (1965), p. 41."
BTW we are talking about a well known science fraud any one can easily google and find massive frauds from his experiments. (like how the idiot's experiments used exclusively left handed amino acids that dont exist any where in nature.)
@karamarouge "google and find massive" that's true, the thing is, they all have "bible" or "creation" in their name. There isn't even a trace of the guy on wikipedia, i wonder why....
"The Folly Of Probability,"
Oh so that's your argument? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Speaking of debunked....
[Musgrave, Ian. 1998. Lies, damned lies, statistics, and probability of abiogenesis calculations.] [Stockwell, John. 2002. Borel's Law and the origin of many creationist probability assertions.]
This is probably why Dawkins won`t debate with Craig, Because what Dawkins finds a compelling argument against God`s Existence Craig would just destroy
FeignofCordor 1 week ago
WLC = logic fail
kyral210 3 weeks ago
@kyral210
Explain where he failed logically?
FeignofCordor 1 week ago
@FeignofCordor Because his arguments do not rely on the application of demonstrated actuality, but rather asserting a view point eloquently based on ideas which he agrees with. In short, it is divorced from reality
kyral210 1 week ago
@kyral210 It seems as if you're attempting to define the application of demonstrated actuality with some sort of empirical implication.. As if empiricism or naturalism is the absolute method in which we determine the authenticity of "reality", etc.. There is a plethora of philosophers & scientists that have debunked this method of thought.. Hume, Kant, Descartes to name just a few..
MrAudacious21 5 days ago
@kyral210
At no point has Dr. Craig ever stated or even inferred that his reasons for belief in God`s existence are " Divorced from reality" as you claim. His arguments are based on sound logic from what we know. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
FeignofCordor 1 day ago
"We have good evidence that ... extraterrestrials have put it there."
What evidence is that Dr Craig? Do you know of some extraterrestrials? What test did you run to show there weren't any ETs? Do you _know_ they haven't developed teapot technology? What you are calling "good evidence" is in fact absence of evidence. Typical wordplay of Dr C.
drfoxcourt 1 month ago
@drfoxcourt
Yet more misquoting Dr.Craig? Really is that the best you can do.
FeignofCordor 1 week ago
@FeignofCordor What misquote? Did he not state that we had "good evidence" in the case of an absence?
Please don't be fooled by Dr Craig's misdirections and usage of faith as evidence. Evidence, like facts, are stubborn things. Evidence is not subject to our desires. Craig implies that evidence is.
drfoxcourt 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@drfoxcourt You said "Craig misses the critical issue that his inward feelings (sensing that something is there) is not evidence."
Dr.Craig never claimed that his own relationship and personal experiences with God is Evidence that he can give to others. He called this "Self-Authenticating" which it is.
He gives plenty of reasons for his belief in Gods existence such as the Cosmological argument and so on.
FeignofCordor 1 day ago
Craig misses the critical issue that his inward feelings (sensing that something is there) is not evidence. Craig has often founded his "evidence" of God on the sensing of "the holy spirit". But he doesn't credit Muslims, Hindus, FSMists with a sense of sensing the divine spirit. Why not? We have no reason to believe that God sent his only begotten son in the same way we have no reason to suppose a teapot is in orbit.
drfoxcourt 1 month ago
Comment removed
FeignofCordor 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@drfoxcourt We have plenty of historical evidence that Jesus existed and died on a cross however we have no evidence to believe a teapot is orbiting the Earth. so the is no parallel between what I believe about Jesus and some Dawkins argument about a space bound teapot
FeignofCordor 1 week ago
@FeignofCordor We have evidence of Jesus existence? Outside the Bible? Please don't show your ignorance by claiming Josephus (That is almost certainly an inserted edit). We have plenty of evidence of objects orbiting the Earth and evidence of teapots.
Furthermore, evidence of a man called Jesus does not include evidence of his divinity, redemptive ability or any other part of the Christian mythos.
drfoxcourt 1 week ago
An example of absence of evidence is evidence of absence: a teacher goes into his classroom and takes attendance. After calling on 10 kids he calls Mary's name and she doesn't respond, and the teacher sees that she isn't in her seat or anywhere in the classroom. There is an absence of evidence that Mary is present, therefore the logical conclusion is that she is absent.
Thoughtitorium 1 month ago
@Thoughtitorium ''There is an absence of evidence that Mary is present'' >> WTF???!
There is evidence that Mary is not present, her chair is empty.
Creatards need to learn LOGIC. No wonder they don't understand Science.
gregrutz 1 month ago
@gregrutz I'm an atheist, and I know logic. Craig said that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, I said absence of evidence can be evidence of absence. It's possible to prove some negatives.
Thoughtitorium 2 weeks ago
@Thoughtitorium
Is Dr. Craig correct when he says " Absence of Evidence is not evidence of absence"? and if you agree that this statement is true. Explain your problem with his use of this statement if you have one?
FeignofCordor 1 day ago
@FeignofCordor The absence of evidence means an ontologically neutral position. Absence of evidence in a things existence means that evidence for or against the position may surface in the future, which is why it's irrational to interpret that such an absence of evidence as necessarily evidence of absence.
For a concrete example, in 10,000 b.c there existed no evidence to primitive man to affirm the existence of quantum fluctuations. This absence wasn't proof of its absence to him, however.
Imperativism 10 hours ago
@Thoughtitorium you oversimplify things. The problem with your argument is that you are confining it to a. a classroom, and b. a backyard. both assertions can be falsified by exploring the realm to which they are confined. That's the point of the teapot argument, there is no way (well technically the likelihood is infinitesimal) that anyone can find a teapot revolving around the sun, because it's impossible to totally explore our solar system as a human.
h0lystrike 2 weeks ago
@h0lystrike God is harder to falsify, possibly impossible to falsify -- especially if He's defined as being all-powerful and all-knowing, which means He can hide at will, no matter what we do. The best view is agnostic atheism -- we don't know and we shouldn't believe, because there's no evidence. There's not even a reason to think there is a God, and we already have plenty of scientific explanations to dismiss new God hypotheses. History is on the side of naturalism.
Thoughtitorium 2 weeks ago
Absence of evidence can be evidence of absence. If I claim that a visible elephant is in my backyard and then you go in my backyard and don't see a visible elephant, that's counts as evidence of the absence of a visible elephant in my backyard.
Thoughtitorium 1 month ago
What is the evidence that there's no teapot in outer space?
Thoughtitorium 1 month ago
It's funny how Christians like Craig and Hovind are jealous of the Christians that Dawkins will debate.
Thoughtitorium 1 month ago
The reason Craig hasn't refuted the teapot and the kettle is that their believers, much like Christians, will make it into an unfalsifiable hypothesis: You could be a cleverly disguised kangaroo; only kangaroos that we've observed lack the cognitive chops to disguise himself so well...
The premise itself is that absence of evidence may not necessarily evidence of absence, but it's way fucking dumber to assume what has no evidence exists than to dismiss it.
(comment 2)
Dethenger 1 month ago
Craig's refutation of the teapot and the kangaroo took the examples too literally, failing to contest the point the figurative example was attempting to make. I might even call that a strawman, as his literal interpretation of the examples distorted the meaning of the arguments.
The teapot and the kangaroo are not arguments; they are examples of a premise. Refuting those examples don't refute the premise; and mind you, you haven't even disproven the teapot and the kettle.
(comment 1)
Dethenger 1 month ago
What a waste of a mind.
StopSpamming1 1 month ago
I like the part where both WLC and MrZazomy say that absence of evidence isn't enough to disprove something then go on to say that because there's no evidence of Santa/fairies that's somehow "positive evidence" that they don't exist...
Prayer doesn't work
The world was not made in 7 days
There was not a worldwide flood
Snakes don't talk
The Earth revolves around the Sun
Women aren't made out of ribs
Even if we go from Craig's dodgy logic then the Christian God can be disproven. Problem Craig?
TeachSecularHumanism 1 month ago 2
By this (idiot's) logic, prayer is proof god doesn't exist. If God existed, prayer would work.
Kiros37100 1 month ago
We have no evidence for god so what he say just doesn't make sense...
killsarawr 1 month ago
Snap
ashamedz 2 months ago
Ok, Craig. You say we have good evidence that no teapot has been launched into space by humans. Can you tell us a little more about this evidence? I'm all ears.
rgainsburg 2 months ago
Russell's Teapot contains more wisdom than the entire Bible. Wake up, fool.
lotanddaughters 2 months ago
I think theists sometimes shoot down metaphysical claims by asserting the superiority of their metaphysical claims. other times though where the bible doesn't give them grounds to decide they shoot metaphysical claims down by absence of evidence (like the case with children's invisible friends). They do also take into account the consistency here of the metaphysical claims (contradictions and such) and history (which is probably the real way they shoot down santa)as well.
TheAlphaPyro 2 months ago
@TheAlphaPyro As a theist, I have every right to make metaphysical claims. If you are an atheist you have every right to make your metaphysical claims as well. As long as you dont make the bogus statement that your claims are actually rooted in science, or that you are smarter than every body else in the room because your claims rooted in ignorance are not that more superior to any body else's claims rooted in ignorance.
karamarouge 2 months ago
Indeed you do have that right. I can't prove or disprove anybodies metaphysical ideas about reality. But when those metaphysical tires meet the road of reality consistency within a persons model of reality will or will not be observed. If a persons model makes sense with what we all experience then I wouldn't assert the superiority of my world view but I don't see a good consistent model with scripture following believers (which may not even apply to you) so I call it out.
TheAlphaPyro 2 months ago
@TheAlphaPyro Actually those scripture believers are more consistent than you lot. They actually do believe that something can be eternal and create the universe violating all laws of physics as we know them. You on the other hand will make the inconsistent self contradictory claim that nothing is eternal but at the same time matter can create itself from nothing and flourish into the life we know now!
You sir are the inconsistent one.
karamarouge 2 months ago
@karamarouge Friend you shouldn't assume a bunch of stuff about me & then draw your own conclusions. Secondly if the "lot" you are refering to is atheists I don't know any personally nor do I think any of the mainstream ones make the claim that nothing is eternal or that it can create itself from nothing. We simply say we don't know how it got there but that bible god was most likely not the one that did it becuase he is frought with historical problems and there is no convincing evidence of him
TheAlphaPyro 2 months ago
@TheAlphaPyro Um Richard Dawkins has said it very many times that there is no such thing as a creator. (for the record you should also not make assumptions about me and assume that I argue for the biblical God. As some of us say, even we dont believe in Dawkin's God) It is to his brand of aggressive and arrogant atheism that is the subject of this video and hence my post.
karamarouge 2 months ago
@karamarouge I didn't assume you did believe in Bible god it was a general statement. Dawkins has also said that he cannot with all certainty dismiss the possibility of god but in all practicality he can just like fairies and leprachauns. God also doesn't compose the sum of all things that could be eternal. The case for non deist type gods or gods of scripture is as weak as fairy tales so it's not a wonder for people to rather loudly proclaim it so.
TheAlphaPyro 2 months ago
@TheAlphaPyro believing that matter can create itself out of nothing is much much dumber than any belief in a god, or fairy tales.
karamarouge 2 months ago
@karamarouge i don't believe this and if you asked hitchens, harris, dawkins, shermer or many of the other mainstream atheists you would find the same answer. Theists seem to be the only ones claiming that something arose from nothing. We don't know seems like the honest answer is my main point I'm trying to convey. I think there could be a god or even an infinite number of them or no god or just some other non god causal phenomenon. Atheist is a label used to dismiss all the man made gods
TheAlphaPyro 2 months ago
@TheAlphaPyro Um this is bullshit! Hitches makes this very argument in a debate vs Dinesh Desouza. Dawkins has made the same claim about how life came from some unknown, never seen unfalsifiable self replicating particle (or some fairy dust type thing along those lines)
See it is very easy for one to make fun of your pseudo science just like you like to do of theists. What we dont know is one thing. But what we do know, that nothing comes from nothing is key to this argument!
karamarouge 2 months ago
@karamarouge I think Hitchen's has been quite clear on the we don't know notion. Dawkin's "particle" I'm guessing was actually the self replicating RNA he and others discuss. This doesn't have to do with the origin of the universe but more so the origins of the first proto cell. However, even if he was discussing the possible existence of some other particle I doubt it was a " this is it" dogmatic notion. Out of all the possibilities we have the god idea has very weak explanatory power.
TheAlphaPyro 2 months ago
@TheAlphaPyro Again you dont seem to know nearly enough about the atheists you are defending. Hitches was quite clear in the claims he made (well hitchens really never makes any scientific claims, he always, always extolls the claims of others being that the man has no original ideas.) Watch the debate between him and Desouza. And ultimately the "Dawkins' Particle" would also have had to have arisen from nothing.
karamarouge 2 months ago
@karamarouge *And ultimately the "Dawkins' Particle" would also have had to have arisen from nothing*. That is according to you but you were trying to say that this was stated by others so please show evidence that this is what he was saying. Attacking Hitchens personally does not further your point. I'll watch the Desouza debate again and get back to you. All this debate aside, I hope you have some good holiday fun and I've actually enjoyed our discussion so far.
TheAlphaPyro 2 months ago
@TheAlphaPyro This is really becoming silly. If a person argues that God or designer of life is none existent, he/she is in effect is arguing that the universe hence all life created itself from nothing.
Go and google "Richard Dawkins Who created the designer" and you will get a massive number of videos and articles quoting the man directly.
Did you wish me happy holiday? lol
Merry xmas to you man!
karamarouge 2 months ago
@TheAlphaPyro Only you would think that Aliens an idea that has been advanced by dawkins himself is weak by comparison to a creator. BTW When you say god, I dont know which one you refer to. If it is Dawkin's god then we are agree.
karamarouge 2 months ago
@karamarouge I'm referring to any god other than some sort of deistic god (meaning a god who does not particularly care about the well being of his creation but was somehow involved in creation). Sorry It's hard to discuss all this with this short format.
TheAlphaPyro 2 months ago
@TheAlphaPyro I do know for a fact Dawkins has said both in writing and verbally that there cant be a creator/designer since his existence would pause the question of his own creator. That inversely means the man actually believes the universe created itself from nothing. It has to be one or the other. And dawkins has passed on several tortured theories on how the universe was created including Aliens. (i guess thats not as silly as fairies.)
karamarouge 2 months ago
Comment removed
TheAlphaPyro 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@karamarouge Saying aliens are a POSSIBILITY is not that tortured of a hypothesis. It's really not that crazy to say there could be other intelligent beings out there in a universe of gagillions of stars and planets that could do more than we can understand. he did not imply the inverse you stated. He was getting at if you posit a creator to fix the "something can't come from nothing" idea then why are u not bothered about this concerning your creator (pure assertive power?)?
TheAlphaPyro 2 months ago
@TheAlphaPyro BTW. dawkins revisions on his opinions about the existence of god are not really relevant. I am wondering why they heck you brought them up. The fact is that Dawkins is a main stream atheist who has made various inconsistent remarks about where he thinks the universe came from. The crux of which, is that matter created itself out of nothing. So please dont confuse the issue and try to pass of a lie that main stream atheists dont claim that matter created itself
karamarouge 2 months ago
@karamarouge he has often argued that it comes from nothing and yet he is talking about something. it's odd cosmologists do this too. But even craig understands what they mean because I've seen him bring it up in another vid. I think Brian Greene said it on fabric of the cosmos on nova too. The universe arose from nothing and yet something as it is often said. What we often think about as nothing (meaning space) may actually contain something known as the higgs field.
TheAlphaPyro 2 months ago
@TheAlphaPyro That is double speak if I have ever seen it. Nothing to me means the absence of anything. This includes energy matter or even the higgs field. Because even that ultimately is something.
karamarouge 2 months ago
@karamarouge So if someone asks me what I'm up to and I reply "nothing" they should in fact assume i'm essentially in a state of nonexistence? I will totally agree with you if you say that saying nothing on their part is a poor representation of what they mean.
They should choose their words more intelligently. But the point they are trying to make is pretty clear.
TheAlphaPyro 2 months ago
@TheAlphaPyro Sorry, I will not let you apply silly analogies to my definition of nothing as used in the context of this argument. Any other use of the word is irrelevant because it has nothing whatsoever to do with the beginning of the universe.
When we theists use the word "nothing" in the context of creation, Then we mean the absence of anything. I will not argue the use of the word in any other context. That would be a waste of my time!
karamarouge 2 months ago
Comment removed
TheAlphaPyro 2 months ago
I find it a bit ironic that craig is actually attacking a santa straw man. He is attacking the physically detectable santa, but isn't santa by his nature metaphysical? If a non-believer attacks the existence of god by saying there is no physical evidence that scientifically proves god's existence despite the fact that he should be detectable if real then one would see craig up in arms about how god is metaphysical. He just doesn't get the analogy does he?
TheAlphaPyro 2 months ago
Comment removed
TheAlphaPyro 2 months ago
craig and those that think like him like to say that the data points to god and when people show otherwise, then they make up new ways to interpret the data that are unsupported by data but are mere conjecture. Or they talk about how the mind of god is unknowable to defend the inaction on god's part regarding rape and death of little kids. They love to have their cake and eat it too, even the bits of cake that are imaginary.
TheAlphaPyro 2 months ago
The description of this vid misses an important point. if people really argued that santa existed they would just make up a bunch of extraneous stuff like christian's do to cover for the fact that he can't be found in the north pole. He is testing your faith or he is an invisible agent existing in the realm of the metaphysical and is so powerful and clever he can move into our dimension at will and back to the metaphysical. That's the problem with giving an idea an unlimited defense budget.
TheAlphaPyro 2 months ago
Exactly Craig, We have overwhelming evidence that CERTAIN propositions DO NOT EXIST
IronMan50780 2 months ago
what atheists ignore is that there IS evidence for God!
we don't see gravity, yet we experience its effect! The same way, we don't SEE God, but we certainly see his CREATIONS!
Thus, the Santa Clause Sydrom argument fails.
OrganicKing 2 months ago
@OrganicKing Gravity is just a theory
IronMan50780 2 months ago
@IronMan50780 haha how much I love this!
nope gravity is fact! if ou jump off the building you would die!
it's HOW gravity works that it's a theory!
OrganicKing 2 months ago
@OrganicKing Nope Still Just A Theory
IronMan50780 2 months ago
@IronMan50780 hahah!
cover your ears and start singing "LA LA LA LA LA LA"
OrganicKing 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OrganicKing Nope Still Just A Theory
IronMan50780 2 months ago
Don't waste time trying to refute something as straighforward as the teapot analogy you morons. By the way don;t confuse what it claims, it doesn;t intend to prove gods non-existence, it's simply shows that lack of proof of the non existence of something like a teapot or unicorn, does not add any credibility to the proposal of it's existence, since in principle it is impossible to prove that something doesn't exist. It is quite simple to prove something does exist however, provided that it does.
Lan5in6 2 months ago
Spaghetti analogy for me is worthless, because nobody has ever claimed it was true, noone seriously.
quezcatol 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
As a borderline-agnostic I'm going to say that the new atheism is intellectually dishonest. Buddhists, Theists, and other philosophers have exposed Russell's teapot analogy to be both a strawman and a red herring. The philosopher's definition of God entails a conscious abstract entity to the universe. We have no evidence for probabilty in immaterial realms because we cannot regularly access them. The burden of proof shifts onto everyone equally.
OgadaNosaFasu 2 months ago
William Lane Craig response to the Russell's teapot = Epic Logic Fail
1. Where is your evidence of the absence of the teapot? You haven't!
But you waffle around the point...Disprove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster then, ok? My god is not more true or false than yours.
2. "We just would know if it's true"
No, false. You claim that it's true, that's the difference between us and you.
antiteista83 2 months ago
Comment removed
Christistruth1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@antiteista83 This was really dumb. The argument was refuted, then you just disregard the evidence, because you don't agree with it, by asking the same question. 1. Where is your evidence for the absence of the teapot? Again, we have evidence that a teapot has NOT been shot up in space, and it sure as heck can't float up into space on it's own, and there are no aliens that would have left the teapot there, so the argument of the teapot fails.
Christistruth1 2 months ago
@Christistruth1
First of all he said (and rightly) "a proposition is not to be shown false by the absence of evidence for it"
nobody has ever searched a teapot around Mars and demonstrated that there is not.
Therefore say "teapot has NOT been shot up in space" or "no aliens put it there" prove nothing!
Of course no one believes in the teapot because it's an analogy created by Russell to show that we can believe in thousands of stupid things without a single evidence.
antiteista83 2 months ago
@antiteista83 The problem is we know that no teapot has ever been launched into space, and there are only a few ways a teapot could get there, let's go over them shall we? 1. It got there by itself. (Not logical.) 2. It was launched and let go in space by our space program or another. (Which we know is not true, there are no "teapots" on the space shuttle. 3. Aliens put it there.(Not very probable.) So by logic we can determine there is no teapot and that the statement is STUPID. cont....
Christistruth1 2 months ago
@Christistruth1
It's a little bit strange see believers apply logic and science concepts only where they want them...
antiteista83 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@antiteista83 Okay, anyway, personal opinion doesn't count as fact, let's move on.
Christistruth1 2 months ago
@antiteista83 cont.."Of course no one believes in the teapot because it's an analogy created by Russell to show that we can believe in thousands of stupid things without a single evidence." So by that statement you're accusing theists of being stupid and believing in a stupid thing, that you can't disprove or even prove that it's illogical to believe. Is that right??? If you say yes, the prove that God is illogical to believe in, and use science, if you can't you lose.
Christistruth1 2 months ago
@Christistruth1
I don't undestand your question, in fact I think you totally missed the point...I cannot even disprove -for example- the fairies, but then I have to believe in them? Absolutely not. I say only there are a thousands of this kind of things that there is no evidence about it and therefore is stupid to believe in them, this is perfectly logical at least for non-believers.
antiteista83 2 months ago
@antiteista83 Okay that makes no sense, you think I totally missed the point, but fail to understand the question? How can you know that I missed the point if you don't understand the question?? You don't have to believe in Fairies, these "entities" have nothing to do with your salvation. "There are a thousands of this kind of things that there is no evidence about it, and therefore is stupid to believe in them." Wait, then how do you know it's stupid to believe in???? You don't. cont....
Christistruth1 2 months ago
@Christistruth1
With "I don't undestand your question"I thought that was pretty clear that the non-existence of something is impossible to prove and consequently illogical to believe in it. Or have I misunderstood?
However the example of the sister is wrong and illogical, has nothing to do with other examples of imaginary beings or things... It's quite likely that a girl that could be your sister exist, rather than the fairies, and if someone has a sister or not, it can be demonstrated.
antiteista83 2 months ago
@antiteista83 You're assuming it's non existent first. Who says that if it does exist it needs to exist in our time? Again you're assuming God is imaginary first.
Christistruth1 2 months ago
@Christistruth1
Part 1
And why you're assuming that god exist without a single evidence? Be onest with yourself and suspend judgement, or the logic in this case you don't like to apply?
I'm assuming that God doesn't exist because in the first place there are no evidence, and secondly for people like you that saying "god is real" and created this belief system that we all know. There will be no such problem in the first place if people were honest and reasonable.
antiteista83 2 months ago
@Christistruth1
Part 2
Obviously I can't prove that the christian God doesn't exist, but I can't prove neither that Zeus, Odino, Thor, Mithra and thousand of Gods and things doesn't exist, but then is reasonable and logical believe in all of them? For me no. I can't even be sure at 100% that God doesn't exist but a 99,9% I think is reasonable. Sorry for my bad english.
antiteista83 2 months ago
@antiteista83 cont...You don't make sense...lets look at that statement...."I don't see evidence of your sister, therefor it's stupid to believe you have one??" Why would it be stupid? See, that makes no sense. "This is perfectly logical at least for non-believers." How is it logical? What truth makes it logical??
Christistruth1 2 months ago
Some atheist objections to God are laughable. Nice video.
tomdenman 3 months ago
@tomdenman If no evidence exists for gods existence, i see no good reason to evem debate it.
Lan5in6 3 months ago
@Lan5in6 Some theistic arguments do have some weight to them. You can't dismiss the notion of God's existence by simply claiming there is no evidence, because in reality, the claim that "God exists" does have an evidential basis for it.
tomdenman 3 months ago
There is no evidential or rational basis for saying God exists, It originates from authority and faith, even Craig admits to this. Some people claim there is, and come up with fallacious logical arguments to work backwards, and come up with some kind of argumentation to prove what they've already decided to be the truth. I could just as easily come up with a fallacious argument for the unproven but not disprove existence of gnomes. Why should this idiot have a platform for debate and not me?
Lan5in6 3 months ago
@Lan5in6 I'd like to know what you think is "fallacious" about Craig's arguments. Where does the logical fallacy lie in his main arguments? Instead of making baseless assertions and using ad hominem attacks against Craig, maybe you should point out what is wrong with the arguments he has presented.
tomdenman 3 months ago
@tomdenman btw I didn't study latin. i'll give you some examples if you want, of craig using fancy rhetoric to win over the crowd. Dawkins says it's ok to assert God probably doesn't exist despite lack of evidence of absence. Then Craig says "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" but this is not what anyone is claiming,it is we don't have to disprove god anymore than we need to disprove gnomes, ufo's or anything you can imagine to be unfalsifiable, since its impossible by their nature
Lan5in6 3 months ago
His main argument is that anything that begins to exist has a cause, and that the universe began to exist, hence there is a cause we call God. However, from the point of view of pure rationalism, there is no evidence that things can't happen without cause, no matter how often you associate causes to observed phenomenon. Secondly It fails scientifically, since according to the experts such as Hawkins the laws of physics alone are sufficient "cause" for the Universe originating.
Lan5in6 3 months ago
@Lan5in6 well damn. Don't you think the basis to debate it is to see if your mind will change? Don't you this the basis is to figure out whether or not he exists since . . . our lives depend on it (whether or not he exists).
ninetails009 3 months ago
@ninetails009 People rarely change their mind through debate, i put this down tho fact some people are rational an some simply aren't. I would be easily persuaded to believe in a god if there were some scientific evidence for this, i would expect there to be an abundance of it were the god hypothesis to be true. I am not however impressed by rhetoric from theologists and philosophers like craig, who construct fallacious arguments with enormous confidence, only people with faith like them.
Lan5in6 3 months ago
@Lan5in6 Many people change their minds through debate. I did. That's the entire point of debate (and maybe entertainment).
I'm just referring to your statement that there's no good reason to debate about God's existence. If our lives are valuable, then talking about such a thing would only make sense.
ninetails009 3 months ago
@Lan5in6 That's wrong, people change their mind through going to debates all the time, infact look up a debate between WLC and Frank Zindler, 47 people indicated that they had become believers at the end of the debate, which shows at best that this is not a "rare" occurance in debates.
tomdenman 3 months ago
see the thing is dawkins doesn't want to debate craig because he knows he'd get spanked. Even all the other major atheists have admitted craig is a superior debater. Sam harris in the debate stated he felt he was under a lot of pressure. Christopher hitchens admitted craig was a tough opponent, and after their debate many atheists were saying hitchens got 'spanked'. So its just intellectual cowardice by dawkins
jamaicanification 3 months ago
@jamaicanification perhaps a coward but whats an intelectual coward? craig is a tough debater, becuse he lacks intelectual honesty, and makes ridiculous statements with logic fallacies, making unjustified assumption with no intelectual rigour, but says things with confidence like theres no other option, though anyone with a brain can see through the arguments. perhaps dawkins is afraid to look less confident, and hence appear less truthful,but this would only work for the most retarded audienc
Lan5in6 3 months ago
@Lan5in6 really, so thats your explanation for why he's a 'coward'(i grant you an indulgence because yes, i agree he's not even an intellectual cowards because there's nothing intellectual about him). Would you care to explain the logical fallacies behind his argument? Because you know its always easy for people who cant refute and argument to say it has logical fallacies therefore im not gonna bother even considering it(continued)
jamaicanification 3 months ago
@Lan5in6 and yes, hitchens said so. Watch the pre-debate conference he had with william lane craig where right before when the camera men ask is this david vs goliath, he said there were 2 goliaths. He even recognized craigs intelligence and strong argument. And sure, harris said that because he couldn' t refute his argument. Harris didn't even debate craigs propositions. All he did was read of his lab top like a mindless drone(continued)
jamaicanification 3 months ago
@Lan5in6 and harris himself said at the beginning of the debate that he was under a lot of pressure to not screw the debate up because "Dr Craig puts the fear of God into atheists". These are his words
jamaicanification 3 months ago
@jamaicanification he did say Dr Craig puts the fear of God into atheists, but that was a bit of a joke you humourless christian. i've just pointed out some of craigs fallacies. Sure, Craig is a tough opponent in front of a naive crowd, which doesn't see the unjustified assumptions and other fallacies. he just chats shit in a very confident way when dealing with a subject like the origin of the universe, not the greatest minds in physics dare say they have a definite anwer to. Won;t work for me
Lan5in6 3 months ago
@Lan5in6 you humorless atheists who seems to have something stuck up his ass, i know its a joke. Im just pointing out that a lot of the prominent new atheists recognize william lane craig as a tough opponent. And the reason why he 'chats shit' is because he's a philosopher who deals with the argument for the existence of god from a philosophical standpoint. And appealing to the greatest minds in physics to say god is unlikely is not convincing(continued)
jamaicanification 3 months ago
@jamaicanification One of the greatest minds in physics, Father George Lemaitre, discovered the Big Bang theory, and he was a catholic priest at the same time. What was proven was that the universe had a beginning, contrary to what many skeptics were saying since the time of David Hume at least, and consistence with what religious people have always been saying
jamaicanification 3 months ago
@jamaicanification whatever the point remains God is uneccessary for the origin of the Universe to the best of our knowledge. it hasn't exaclty been proven it had an origin, we only know the universe is expansion. Sure religious nutters may have thought the universe had an origin, but since what they say is based on faith, and were strong advocators of the geocentric theory theres no reason they should have been taken seriously. Hume would have said why assume an origin until theres evidence
Lan5in6 3 months ago
@Lan5in6 Two words: Big Bang
AvadaKedavra1138 2 months ago
@Lan5in6 And it's not like the Big Bang is just something we assume; it's something that's been scientifically demonstrated for decades. That, compounded by the many reasons why it is logically impossible for the universe to have existed through an infinite sequence of events, is plenty of reason to think that the universe began to exist.
AvadaKedavra1138 2 months ago
@AvadaKedavra1138 Yes i know about the Big Bang theory, great program, but it hasn't been shown time began at that moment, according to Hawkins it's possible there was time and things going on before the explosion but they no consequence. i don't see what's wrong with an infinite sequence of events. Do you realise the universe has to end, as well as begin, for time to be limited? Even supposing an origin of time, to say it had a cause pretty much shit on reasoning you used previously.
Lan5in6 2 months ago
@Lan5in6 And why assume the universe is eternal either?Why should that be taken seriously until there is evidence to support that? Your logic applies both ways
jamaicanification 2 months ago
@jamaicanification Because I'm not making up a story to explain the origin of the Universe. I'm not making any assumption, but you are
Lan5in6 2 months ago
@Lan5in6 yes you are. Your making the assumption that its non-sense to think that the universe had a prime cause
jamaicanification 2 months ago
maybe it did, even so it doesn't neccessarily have to be God. Why assume it had a first cause, if you just don;t know?
Lan5in6 2 months ago
@jamaicanification
"Even all the other major atheists have admitted craig is a superior debater"
Complete nonsense. Hitchens said nothing of the kind. And according to Sam Harris, Craig resorts to "high school debating tricks to mislead the audience." Not exactly recognition of a "superior debater."
You also neglect to mention that Dawkins HAS debated Craig. Any reason to think further debate would be productive? I don't see how anyone who watched the last one could possibly think so.
citizenghosttown 3 months ago
"we know that matter in the universe does not self-organize into teapot shapes."
yes, but we do know matter self organizes via gravity to form stars, galaxies, planets, and eventually self replicating molecules..all it takes is physics and time. the question is, does it take an intelligence for there to be physics and space-time?
itzahazylife 3 months ago
I believe there is a straw man going round the Earth very fast.
pompousprick 3 months ago
It's funny cuz he's in jail.
red666111 3 months ago
@red666111 "It's funny cuz he's in jail."
-Who's in jail?
libertatus 3 months ago
@libertatus whoops my bad - its Kent Hovind who is in jail not Craig; sorry I always get those two confused.
red666111 3 months ago
He didn't refute that argument at all. He never gave us evidence that the flying spaghetti monster didn't place a microscopic teapot in our galaxy. So it must be there. There may be no evidence for it, but there isn't evidence against it.
jacobryanball10 3 months ago
Craig is a piece of shit who is deliberalely misrepresenting intelligent positions. He says we don;t believe in the teapot because there is evidence aginst it/ where? no one is claiming absence of evidence is evidence of absence. But since nothing can be disproved the onus is on anyone who wants to make a christianity apology to bring forth evidence or else be treated like teapot, unicorn or santa claus believers
Lan5in6 3 months ago
@Lan5in6 someone's a little angry. Hey, if Dawkins is so intelligent why doesn't he debate william lane craig? Why does he use the dumb excuse that he 'supports the old testament', but he was willing to debate with people like Alistair Mgrath? Even people like Eugenie Scott, whos a skeptic herself, views some of dawkins positions as idiotic
jamaicanification 3 months ago
@jamaicanification You ask why Dawkins won't debate Craig? well i suggest you read the guardian article dawkins wrote himself. I think Craig is an idiot, and an advocate of genocide, but he speaks with a lot of confidence and makes claims which are nonsene, though not all falsifiable. These traits however, are the sort you find in a professional debater but not a good intelligent and intellectually honest scientist or academic. What position held by Dawkins is idiotic?
Lan5in6 3 months ago
@Lan5in6 It is idiotic to believe morality is subjective and fundamentally illusory whilst continuing to condemn genocide; in fact, Dawkins sees nothing wrong in infanticide as he claimed so himself.
If Dr. Craig is so idiotic - despite Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchen claiming otherwise - then let Dawkins prove it by wiping the floor with Craig's arguments instead of regurgitating one lame excuse after another.
Marduniya 3 months ago
@Marduniya
"It is idiotic to believe morality is subjective and fundamentally illusory whilst continuing to condemn genocide"
Great. But who on earth thinks morality is subjective and illusory?
At some point, you might wish to deal honestly with the views held by people you disagree with - instead of mischaracterizing those views. It doesn't fool anyone.
citizenghosttown 3 months ago
@Marduniya We have instinctive moral values, but we often find ourselves debating over what is morally right or wrong, this means we don't have objective moral values, otherwise we would all be in agreement. I for example think a woman should have the right to abort, but christian fundementalits will say otherwise. we all think some things like genocide and rape we can say are wrong, (even if we cant define wrong), but when it comes to more of a gray area, there are differences of opinion
Lan5in6 3 months ago
@Marduniya Any good scientist will tell you the instinct for morality is an evolutionary trait. We all have similar instincts, but not always identical, hence why i like to fuck women and you probably don't. The instinct is therefore, subjective, though this isn't to say Non-Existent, a propert belonging to subjects such as God and your intelligence.
Lan5in6 3 months ago
@Lan5in6 Wow, the anger is immense. No need to foam at the computer screen and pull straw men out of your arse.
It must suck when your god is a coward, no?
Marduniya 3 months ago
@Marduniya i don't get the whole straw men thing but i see youve abandoned the route of rational debate, hardly a surprise. I don't have a god and Dawkins is not a prophet of atheism, the idea is absurd. Thats one advantage of being an atheist, he could back away from debates or go to prison for sex crimes, anything, It won't change the fact his arguments are almost all irrefutable, and religion is a crutch for the weak minded, without any evidence. it must suck when your god doesnt exist, no?
Lan5in6 3 months ago
@Lan5in6 kk.
Marduniya 3 months ago
@Marduniya well you've really stumped me there.
Lan5in6 3 months ago
@Lan5in6 The position that he thinks the bible is a filthy book, filled with nonsense, but he loves the King James version. the position that his lame excuse for not debating william lane craig includes he only debates priests, or bishops, even though they say pretty much the same point craig would. It just shows He's an intellectual coward. Thats all. If he's not ready to debate craig, he shouldn't have debated all the priests, and rabbi's and bishops that he's debated so far........
jamaicanification 3 months ago
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of Absence." True , but Absence of evidence is not Evidence that something exists either. God most exist because there is no evidence that he doesn't? Really? Then there most be a unicorn millions of light years from earth because there is no evidence that their isn't one?
keagar1 4 months ago 2
@keagar1 William Craig, once again, obscuring logic through the spinning of his sophistry.
craigpsimpson 4 months ago
@keagar1 But there is evidence that God existence. We do have life. It could only have come from the theist's description of a god. We do have a finely tuned universe, that could only have been created by a theists God. (an no even the big bang theory has huge holes that are unexplained a lot and relies on mathematical equations where too much is assumed.)
There is plenty of evidence for God sir. Plenty.
karamarouge 4 months ago
@karamarouge
your "evidence" is based on your lack of understanding of science..life doesn't need magic to exist. the only people who say that are those who don't understand science. and the universe is fine tuned for life? lol..is that why in 99% of the universe we'd die in under a minute?..even if the universe was fine tuned for life, that wouldn't matter because there could very well be many other universes, and ours being the way it is could have been inevitable.
itzahazylife 3 months ago
@itzahazylife Then pray tell how did life begin. If you are sure "magic" was not necessary explain exactly how life begun. Tell us why scientists after all this time cant even replicate it in a lab given the basic proteins they claim spawned life. (forget about the magic mud puddle that didnt have all the tools the scientists have)
karamarouge 2 months ago
@karamarouge Really a god of the gaps argument? Just because science doesn't currently know exactly how something happened, it doesn't mean you can simply insert "God X" to fix it. If science did that, we'd get nowhere.
ApatheticOmniscience 2 months ago
@ApatheticOmniscience The inverse works out even worse for science. Science requires observation and experimentation. You cant argue on the side of science yet your claims have never been experimented upon and cant be observed. You sir are worse than the guy who claims belief in a god based on faith alone.
karamarouge 2 months ago
@karamarouge Scientists are working on creating life in a lab and have succeeded with RNA and simple amino acids. The RNA experiments are monumental because RNA capable of self-replicating is fundamental to the RNA world hypothesis.
However, it's quite possible that we'll never know for sure how life arose on Earth because it only happened once. But using God "X" to fill the gap is complete nonsense because arguments from ignorance don't explain anything.
ApatheticOmniscience 2 months ago
@ApatheticOmniscience Really? arguments from ignorance dont explain anything? Kinda like how just said we shall never know how life arose and you still chose to make an argument from that affirmation of your ignorance on the genesis of life?
ARE YOU SERIOUS.?
PS.. Do not tell silly lies about those bogus unscientific experiments. Those scientists used already existing by products from living organisms to fabricate that RNA. They did not start out with the most basic elem
karamarouge 2 months ago
@karamarouge Wtf? I never said "we shall never know", you're disingenuously twisting my words, so don't even dare call me a liar. I said it's POSSIBLE that we'll never be certain how life arose. Take the time to actually read my comments before you respond.
Many chemical combinations like those naturally occur in the right circumstances. For example we know that DNA can be created in space. But saying "goddidit" and walking away is downright intellectually lazy and of no use to science.
ApatheticOmniscience 2 months ago
@ApatheticOmniscience MORE BULLSHIT FROM THE SUPPOSED "SCIENCE CROWD"
We know that DNA can created in space? lol...You are joking right? seriously posting such bogus unproven and immensely daft shit as though it were legit science? you people are down right insane. You talk about me failing to understand your words? how about you go back to that article you read about "SPACE DNA" and appreciate the highly speculative nature of the words that scientists that made that claim used.
karamarouge 2 months ago
@ApatheticOmniscience The real problem is semi-literate people like you. You cant read simple freaking english. A scientist says he thinks its possible DNA came from space, and a dumbass like you runs off saying "its fact" or claiming "its known" know by fucking whom if I may ask? you and the biased crowd trying so badly to disprove gods existence so you can feel guilt free while blowing off some dude? (being an atheist that shouldnt rub you badly. Think of it as steak. Thats all we are..meat.)
karamarouge 2 months ago
@karamarouge If you're going to deny the discoveries I submit it simply because they've been discovered by scientists, then I can not possibly expect any intelligence to come from your side. Try acting like your role model Dr. Craig, and actually attack my evidence for what it's worth rather than spout up ad hominems
Your insults are baseless and not germane to this conversation. If you wish to continue such immaturity then I'm afraid this will have to be my last comment. G'day to you sir.
ApatheticOmniscience 2 months ago
@ApatheticOmniscience LOL.. This is indeed getting quite more fun. AFter posting the very quotes of the very scientist Craig Venter who you falsely thought had invented life in a lab (what a laugh) now you are saying I am not posting facts?
Seriously dude, I know I am kicking your arse but that is weak fucking shit even from you! I am not the one disputing the bogus nonsense you posted, THE VERY SCIENTIST WHO DID THE XPERIMENT IS THE ONE DISPUTING YOUR BOGUS CLAIMS!
karamarouge 2 months ago
@ApatheticOmniscience And that is all I have done, attacked all your evidence. (no wonder you have not responded to that bogus claim you made that scientists created life in the lab.
Like an idiot you decided to jump on worn out disproven pseudo science from the Miller_Urey school of thought.
Thats why I think you are retarded. Do you really think i could be that informed about the truth of Craig Venters bogus claims and not know that Sidney. Fox claims are bogus?
karamarouge 2 months ago
@ApatheticOmniscience I think I now know more about you. You have to be some dumb american teacher that has spent too much time reading obsolete text books to even dumber american students teaching them bogus science as though it were real. Thats why you are faking as though you have a grasp of the very information even an amateur like me can blow up!
Seriously you are freaking quoting Sidney Fox? Sidney fucking fox? are you kidding me? 50 year old disproven science?
karamarouge 2 months ago
@karamarouge "They did not start out with the most basic elem" Yes they did.
In fact a couple scientists have proved that the basic molecules of life can spontaneously not only polymerize but conglomerate up to the level of protobionts.
As for you to say "bogus unscientific"... your Ph.D. is? Oh right, you probably just barely got out of high school yet you're somehow able to dictate what scientists are doing right and what they are doing wrong.... you bigoted hypocrite, learn your place.
DSkaz89 2 months ago
@DSkaz89 UM NO THEY DID NOT...YOU FREAKIN F#$kING LIAR....HERE IS A QUOTE FROM THE SCIENTIST HIMSELF
"We did not create life from scratch: we transformed existing life into new life. Nor did we design and build a new chromosome from scratch. Rather, using only digitised information, we synthesised a modified version, a copy of the M. mycoides genome with 14 of its genes deleted and a "watermark" written in another 5000-plus base pairs. " Craig venter newscientist mag 05/25.2010
karamarouge 2 months ago
@karamarouge REad the fucking article you illiterate baboon and see where he talks about "BUYING dna from BLUEHERON" and combining these molecules using
WHAT???? LIVING FUCKING YEAST!!! Do you know why he used yeast you dumbass? Because there are absolutely no natural conditions that can direct the assembly of DNA molecules. NONE WHATSOEVER DUMBASS.
BITCH TAKE THAT WEAK SHIT BACK AND RE-THINK YOUR HOCUS POCUS BOOGY WOOGY EVOLUTION MYTH STORIES.
karamarouge 2 months ago
@DSkaz89 LOL..I just caught a big fat f#$king lying bitch wanna be internet genius lying out of his arse!!!
Hey bozo, dont think that you are the only one that can pick up a cheap science paper and read and understand what the scientist is telling you.
There Craig Venter says exactly what I said. He did not even create shit!!!! He did the equivalent of using ford blue prints, took a honda engine out of a car and stuck in a nissan engine and drove off! he didnt build the car dumbass!!!
karamarouge 2 months ago
@DSkaz89 lol... I cant stop laughing at your dumb illiterate ass!! Seriously you think I need a Ph.D to poke a hundred holes in Craig Venters bogus science experiments?
For crying out loud that man tells you himself he did not create life.. But here is your dumbass. Having half read and completely misunderstood an over hyped article, making stupid ass claims and getting owned by a "THEIST" of all people!!! A person who actually thinks evolution is a myth.
karamarouge 2 months ago
@DSkaz89" n fact a couple scientists have proved that the basic molecules of life can spontaneously not only polymerize but conglomerate up to the level of protobionts."
total bullshit. name the scientist, whats the experiment, where is the peer reviewed paper..
I love it when some idiot posts some half assed psuedo science and does a runner hoping no one will check his silly fairy tales.
Stop telling silly lies dumbass!
karamarouge 2 months ago
@karamarouge
"name the scientist"
Sidney W. Fox among others...
"name the articles" How about
Fox, S.W., 1965. Simulated natural experiments in spontaneous organization of morphological units from protenoid. In The Origins of Prebiological Systems and Their Molecular Matrices, S.W. Fox (ed), New York: Academic Press, pp. 361-382.
And....
Fox, S.W., 1980. The origins of behavior in macromolecules and protocells. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 67B: 423-436
Fair enough, asshole?
DSkaz89 2 months ago
@DSkaz89 OMG...you have to be retarded. (that is no ad hom it is a genuine concern).
You seriously cant be quoting bogus dis-credited science from the school of Miller and freaking Sydney fox...Go quote that bogus unscientific nonsense to the likes of Sarah Palin who dont read up on modern science journals and dont know that those bogus experiments have been long disproven and discarded not by creationists, but by evolutionists, scientists etc.
STOP TELLING LIES ASSHOLE!!!!
karamarouge 2 months ago
@karamarouge " bogus dis-credited science"
Name the scientist and name the peer reviewed paper that discredited sidney fox' work.
DSkaz89 2 months ago
@DSkaz89 as and ye shall receive..lol
"Such experiments are no more than exercises in organic chemistry."—*P. Mora, "The Folly Of Probability," in Origins of Prebiological Systems and their Molecular Matrices, Ed. *S. W. Fox (1965), p. 41."
BTW we are talking about a well known science fraud any one can easily google and find massive frauds from his experiments. (like how the idiot's experiments used exclusively left handed amino acids that dont exist any where in nature.)
NEXT!!!!
karamarouge 2 months ago
@karamarouge "google and find massive" that's true, the thing is, they all have "bible" or "creation" in their name. There isn't even a trace of the guy on wikipedia, i wonder why....
"The Folly Of Probability,"
Oh so that's your argument? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Speaking of debunked....
[Musgrave, Ian. 1998. Lies, damned lies, statistics, and probability of abiogenesis calculations.] [Stockwell, John. 2002. Borel's Law and the origin of many creationist probability assertions.]
DSkaz89 2 months ago