Peter Kreeft The Existence of God part 2 of 8 apologetics

Boston University Philosopher and Catholic Apologist , Peter Kreeft lectures on The Existenc of God

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• apologetics
• atheism
• theism
• philosophy
• God
• catholic
• existence
• peter
• kreeft
• atheist
• fine
• tunning
• design
• creation
• evolution
• big
• bang
• evil
• suffering
• faith
• reason
• cosmological
• contingency
• Natural
• theology
• naturalism
• materialism
• moral
• ethics
• J.P.
• Moreland
• william
• lane
• craig
• dembski
• koukl
• alvin
• plantinga
• Paul
• copan
• evangelism
• relativism
• objective
• truth
• Aquinas
• grandconjunct
• teleological
• Boston
• college
• professor

[davemccune]

The "argument from common consent" is rarely used because it is, by definition, a fallacy. Just because a lot of people think a proposition is true says nothing about its truth value. I have to admit I was absolutely befuddled by Kreeft's use of this argument, seeing as how the vast majority of people on this planet aren't Christians. By his own logic, Christianity is untrue. I guess all Christians are "snobs," right?

[grandconjunct]

Prt 1 ) No Actually Atheists misunderstand the argument from Common Consent , its actually similar to the Argument from Religious experience and in many ways similar to Argument from Desire, its not a crude Ad populum argument at all as you ignorantly assume, people naturally have a desire for worship and reverence , just look at tube atheists fawn over Dawkins! its conceivable this tendency is from delusion, but more likely the atheist is the one suffering from deprivation and delusion ...

[grandconjunct]

Prt 2 )...More LIKELY the atheists is suffering from a delusion much like the Deaf person who denies the existence of music and says he will not be persuaded by the Majority who "claim" to hear magical music or the frightened tenant who hears screams below the apartment but tells the children I heard nothing. If we are wrong about God its far more than collective Error more like collective psychosis but before you can make that claim you must make a postive case for atheism which you can't.

[DADShadowFox]

merely believing in a god won't save you from damnation. If you apply pascal's wager to being a christian, there are countless religions according to which you will suffer an eternity.

[grandconjunct]

Dad> merely believing in a god won't save you from damnation.

Grand>> No one believes "merely believing in a God" even the correct one will save you. see James 2:19, and I have never liked the popular formulations of pascals wager, If you had watched the complete video series you are now commenting on you would see Peter Kreeft does not like it Either.

[Oisin29]

whther u believe or not, your life does not change much. only after death and even so we are not sure of anything but our life

[grandconjunct]

What do you mean ?

[HammerofHeretics]

Ha! Atheists ARE snobs. They think not believing in God makes the brilliant. What a bunch of boobs.

[cheesemonkey1990]

Dr. William Craig gives us 5 things science can not prove

1. estetic judgements

2. reason/logic

3. metaphysical truths (There is another mind besides my own)

4. History

5. science (this is arguing in a circle)

[Purushadasa]

No Theists have ever posited the bizarre notion that "because most people are Theists then God must exist." That is a deliberate misrepresentation of the argument (straw-man logical fallacy) on the part of the atheist.

In fact, the Theists' argument is the exact opposite: the ample scientific and logical evidence for God's factual appearance and activities is so clear and irrefutable that the vast majority of intelligent human beings on the planet accept it and reject atheist dogma™.

[Purushadasa]

Exactly!

The atheist posits that the vast majority of human beings on the planet -- the Theists -- are somehow deluded, which is highly implausible and also extremely pessimistic.

The Theists understand, conversely, that the extreme miniscule minority, the atheist, is the one who is deluded, and this worldview is not only more reasonable and not extremely pessimistic as the atheist worldview is, but it is the only one of the two views that is realistic.

[cheesemonkey1990]

we mean that we must be able to present inarguable evidence that states that God exists. You are right: it depends on what you are trying to prove... we need philosophical proof because God is immaterial, listen to the audio around 1:09 and up, it may clear this up..

[legolasegb]

What on earth does he mean by prove? Does he mean empirical proof or what? There is a such thing as historical proof, but a different subject matter has different methods of inquiry and therefore a different set of criteria for proofs.

[BeefEraser15]

Just to nitpick on spelling: *Aesthetic