This is the third debate with Dr. Craig I watched. He really is getting boring very fast. He makes the same assertions in his opening statement every time. Then he repeats them over and over again, trying to rebut some of the counter arguments while ignoring the rest, only to conclude, that his assertions still stand. You could make a video with his opening statement from one debate and his closing statement from another and you wouldn't know it were two completely different debates.
Question: If reality is all empirical (what naturalists contend - no metaphysics, no supernatural, only "science (by which they mean empirical naturalism)" why then is the absatract an aspect of reality? Why do we have qualitative attributes?
@ansaz14 I look forward to your video presenting your empirical data then. And of course you would realise that for Platinga to be right requires the possibility of infinites. I assume you will be including your justification for that in your video.
@ansaz14 The problem with those claims is that they aren't documented and you also have to factor in the placebo effect. The bible also claims to be able to heal leprosy from some strange bird ritual involving blood and fire which doesn't cure disease. This is why we rely on science and medics not magic and wizards to heal our ailments. You also can't prove the bible with the bible on the supernatural either.
@philosophizer149 in addtion in Genesis (pre law) the rape of Dinah was declared as something should not be done. Genesis 4 Cain is rebuked for murder. As for the command to kill, God has the right to chose who lives and who dies.
@1878EFC2008 eleven years of bible reading qualifies me in telling you that you are wrong. First you are equivocating record keeping as endorsement. Child Mutilation I'll assume you are reffering to circumsicision, Genocide by mordern definitio you'd find it tough to sell. Second where did God require you to do all these things? The western world frowns on these things by scriptures. Where did the founding fathers get the concept of inalienable rights?
@Huttate1 I am pretty confident in my faith, as it is based on both rational and empirical data; personal expirience and eye witness accounts; I have more evidence for God than for quarks and leptons; and far much more reason for God than a mulitiverse generator. If I can borrow from Platinga, if there is a slight possiblity that God exists then it's certian he does by modal logic.
@Huttate1 Actually I don't, language is a tool to communicate thought. It is not nonesense nor sophistry. Empiricism only functions where there is matter. For energy and beyond Rationalism rules. Theoretica Physics, Big bang cosmology all are founded on abstract thiking. The calculations involoved, all the product of thinking. There were no humans then, so thought is the only way to get answers, even though eye witnesses are not alway believed.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Isn't the net flooded with such claims, wether you believe the witnesses or not is another issue, but it was still the same back then, Jesus healed my leprosy or Elijah called fire from heaven. Just a few names connected with miracles of different theological persuarssion and continents Patricia King, David Herzog, Curry Blake, Kobus van Rensburg, T.B. Joshua,
This is the third debate with Dr. Craig I watched. He really is getting boring very fast. He makes the same assertions in his opening statement every time. Then he repeats them over and over again, trying to rebut some of the counter arguments while ignoring the rest, only to conclude, that his assertions still stand. You could make a video with his opening statement from one debate and his closing statement from another and you wouldn't know it were two completely different debates.
TubeTubyTube 1 week ago 2
Question: If reality is all empirical (what naturalists contend - no metaphysics, no supernatural, only "science (by which they mean empirical naturalism)" why then is the absatract an aspect of reality? Why do we have qualitative attributes?
ansaz14 1 month ago
@ansaz14 I look forward to your video presenting your empirical data then. And of course you would realise that for Platinga to be right requires the possibility of infinites. I assume you will be including your justification for that in your video.
Huttate1 1 month ago
@ansaz14
Firstly, you don't know what 'equivocating' means. Don't use big wprds if you don't know what they mean.
Where did God require these things? Sameul 15:3
"Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have"
there's plenty of others to choose from. I'm surprised you haven't picked up on it in your 11 years of bible reading.
The founding fatehrs got the concept of inalienable rights from themselves. However, The fact that not everyone was born equal is usually overlooked.
1878EFC2008 1 month ago
@ansaz14 The problem with those claims is that they aren't documented and you also have to factor in the placebo effect. The bible also claims to be able to heal leprosy from some strange bird ritual involving blood and fire which doesn't cure disease. This is why we rely on science and medics not magic and wizards to heal our ailments. You also can't prove the bible with the bible on the supernatural either.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 1 month ago
@philosophizer149 in addtion in Genesis (pre law) the rape of Dinah was declared as something should not be done. Genesis 4 Cain is rebuked for murder. As for the command to kill, God has the right to chose who lives and who dies.
ansaz14 1 month ago
@1878EFC2008 eleven years of bible reading qualifies me in telling you that you are wrong. First you are equivocating record keeping as endorsement. Child Mutilation I'll assume you are reffering to circumsicision, Genocide by mordern definitio you'd find it tough to sell. Second where did God require you to do all these things? The western world frowns on these things by scriptures. Where did the founding fathers get the concept of inalienable rights?
ansaz14 1 month ago
@Huttate1 I am pretty confident in my faith, as it is based on both rational and empirical data; personal expirience and eye witness accounts; I have more evidence for God than for quarks and leptons; and far much more reason for God than a mulitiverse generator. If I can borrow from Platinga, if there is a slight possiblity that God exists then it's certian he does by modal logic.
ansaz14 1 month ago
@Huttate1 Actually I don't, language is a tool to communicate thought. It is not nonesense nor sophistry. Empiricism only functions where there is matter. For energy and beyond Rationalism rules. Theoretica Physics, Big bang cosmology all are founded on abstract thiking. The calculations involoved, all the product of thinking. There were no humans then, so thought is the only way to get answers, even though eye witnesses are not alway believed.
ansaz14 1 month ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Isn't the net flooded with such claims, wether you believe the witnesses or not is another issue, but it was still the same back then, Jesus healed my leprosy or Elijah called fire from heaven. Just a few names connected with miracles of different theological persuarssion and continents Patricia King, David Herzog, Curry Blake, Kobus van Rensburg, T.B. Joshua,
ansaz14 1 month ago