Does God exist? (William Lane Craig vs Peter Atkins debate) (11 Viewers)
- Thread starter Dinsdale
- Start date
This is, was to be purpose of this thread. Alas, we are once again derailed,firstly by it being placed in the religion section, making it a target for the lowest common denominator, and secondly by a pack of jackasses who feel the need to amuse, and try to out do each other ever few minutes with their inane, trivial, childish, foul, banter.
I see little point on trying to add to this thread, as interesting as it was, and much written here was interesting, as I find it sad to have to trudge through the purile and detritius to reach them.
I see little point on trying to add to this thread, as interesting as it was, and much written here was interesting, as I find it sad to have to trudge through the purile and detritius to reach them.
Imagine how i feel .
All i did is to point out that what your idea of god is, it is not the idea of god of the person next door. Even if one idea of god is absolutely and totally refuted, one can always say .."and what about this other god?"
I am making no positive claims. Thats why my insistance for definition of god that we are discussing, so that i know what i am arguing against or for.
Reasons i am here are my own. I dont question your motivation.
Argument stands or fall on it's own merits. It's the argument you present that makes you smart or stupid. If you cant take the heat, dont argue.
Cheers
aca
All i did is to point out that what your idea of god is, it is not the idea of god of the person next door. Even if one idea of god is absolutely and totally refuted, one can always say .."and what about this other god?"
I am making no positive claims. Thats why my insistance for definition of god that we are discussing, so that i know what i am arguing against or for.
Reasons i am here are my own. I dont question your motivation.
Argument stands or fall on it's own merits. It's the argument you present that makes you smart or stupid. If you cant take the heat, dont argue.
Cheers
aca
That isn't implied by what I said. Anyhow, I do realize my use of the word emotional was kind of off, but the reason why you believe god cannot exist is still far from rational.
I was merely pointing out that what you have said so far failed to explain why the existence of god is not plausible.
A religious belief assumes way more than the belief in god. I'm no expert in all these definitions, but if you think both beliefs are the same, we are thinking on a completely different level.
Look, when you're having an argument with the cow farmer from across the street the definition of god might not be fixed, but in a philosophical discussion the definition of god is convention.Had you at least bothered to hear what the people in the video have to say, you would have known the definition of god we're supposed to be using in here. But you seem to be so stuck-up with your atheistic views that you cannot even bother to listen to what an intellectual theist (yes, they do exist) has to say.
You're right.
Nice talking to you about this, Martin.
I was merely pointing out that what you have said so far failed to explain why the existence of god is not plausible.
A religious belief assumes way more than the belief in god. I'm no expert in all these definitions, but if you think both beliefs are the same, we are thinking on a completely different level.
Look, when you're having an argument with the cow farmer from across the street the definition of god might not be fixed, but in a philosophical discussion the definition of god is convention.Had you at least bothered to hear what the people in the video have to say, you would have known the definition of god we're supposed to be using in here. But you seem to be so stuck-up with your atheistic views that you cannot even bother to listen to what an intellectual theist (yes, they do exist) has to say.
You're right.
Nice talking to you about this, Martin.
I never said "god cannot exist". Do you believe that tomorrow you will wake up and find a crate of gold on your desk? I'm guessing no. But it could happen, couldn't it? And yet we know that the likelihood of this is close to zero. So what on earth is the point of asking whether something that has close to zero chance of happening is possible or not?
I have not failed to explain it. I said it just a moment ago that the idea of a super magician creating the world is a lot less likely than the world coming into existence all by itself.
Ultimately a discussion about what is "plausible" is useless, because we don't estimate probability on the same terms. JuveRevolution has already decided that god did it, to him god is an axiom. So if you ask him is evolution probable he says no. He's only being logically consistent with his axioms. If you take me, I don't have the god axiom so obviously to me it's not plausible.
The reason this keeps happening is that I don't know what exactly you mean by a belief in god. It's the same as aca's point of criticism.
As for official definitions, they are not particularly helpful to us, because people don't structure their beliefs in terms of dictionary definitions, they take their own belief and try to find a word that closest describes it.
Over the years lots of people have understood "a belief in god" in very different ways. Einstein defined god as the creator of the universe, but that's where it ended for him. He did not believe in a god that sits around watching humans, caring about what they do, wanting them to pray to him. And yet people love to say "Einstein believed in god" when they're debating. Yes he did, but not in the god that you believe in.
I have not failed to explain it. I said it just a moment ago that the idea of a super magician creating the world is a lot less likely than the world coming into existence all by itself.
Ultimately a discussion about what is "plausible" is useless, because we don't estimate probability on the same terms. JuveRevolution has already decided that god did it, to him god is an axiom. So if you ask him is evolution probable he says no. He's only being logically consistent with his axioms. If you take me, I don't have the god axiom so obviously to me it's not plausible.
The reason this keeps happening is that I don't know what exactly you mean by a belief in god. It's the same as aca's point of criticism.
As for official definitions, they are not particularly helpful to us, because people don't structure their beliefs in terms of dictionary definitions, they take their own belief and try to find a word that closest describes it.
Over the years lots of people have understood "a belief in god" in very different ways. Einstein defined god as the creator of the universe, but that's where it ended for him. He did not believe in a god that sits around watching humans, caring about what they do, wanting them to pray to him. And yet people love to say "Einstein believed in god" when they're debating. Yes he did, but not in the god that you believe in.
Definition of god is anything but fixed, especially in philosophical discussion.
I watched that video long, long time ago and i also watched many more, with different participants.
Let put things in context, shall we? (Cali®)
I asked this:
I simply asked you to clarify further what this "fixed definition" god is all about and i asked you to explain how do you know these things.
On which you replied:
No, you are expecting me to take for granted things like "outside time" and "outside space". I know of nothing that is outside of time and space and i would really like to know how do you KNOW about these things.
The issue with theology is that if you want to debate with a believer, you have to accept some of their beliefs as true to start of with.
I dont. Explain what does it mean outside of time and outside space.
Intelectual theists do exist and i have to admit that i had a pleasure reading many, many interesting discussions where they participated
I ask you a question, you give an answer and vice versa. Do not wave the "you are an arogant atheist & i refuse to talk to you" flag and brush it off.
Football terms: Go for the ball, not for the man.
I don't get the evolution argument as an alternative. If I was going to design something big, something amazing, something unlike anything else, something that should last forever, or as long as possible, something that clever. I'd build evolution, it would be part of the plan, it would be important to keep it going. I also wouldn't design the most beautiful thing in the world and then write my name all over it. Though considering we are made in the image of God, perhaps his name is all over it. There is something beyond this world for sure, another side. For sure, I know I wouldn't risk denouncing the possible creator of everything for the sake of conversation. Enjoy the fires!
1) I don't know what god intended; no one does. However, it is logical to say that we weren't meant to be perfect. If we were, we would have no purpose in life. If we possessed all knowledge, unlimited logic, immortality itself, then why do we live? Theists, like myself, believe life is a test. Surely, to take life's test, you cannot be perfect.
Humans have never come close to creating anything that can think or create. We have merely created computers that can perform calculated and programmed tasks. That is far from miraculous. We simply cannot create and emotional being, we cannot immitate divine work. I am not undesestimating human potential, I am just being realistic.
2) Who said god leaves no trace of his activities in the world? Miracles are performed every day. Some I really have been absolutely touched by, people miraculously being cured from cancer in church. Incredible things that are the work of god. Try watching an episode from the 700 club or something. Miracles that cannot be explained by science happen every day, you just don't want to believe it.
3) I absolutely disagree. If he only did that crime because he thought he wouldn;t get caught, then where did morality ever play its role. Morality stops you from doing something despite you knowing you wouldn't get caught. Morality just spearates wrong from right. Humans do not naturally have this ability. Evolution has not caused this. The world before religion was actually a world completely empty of morality and ethics. We didn't know wrong from right and like animals, we did what we had to to survive.
Human democracy did not evolve from human evolution, it evolved from Theism.
God created morality to enable us to love civilized lives. We are not naturally civilized.
If I believe something to be true. This does not mean I am obediant. The same can be said about you, you are just obeying atheism. Just because you believe in a religion, that doesn't mean you are just a stupid sheep abiding by every word.
i already said that I am a theist from a purely philosphical standpoint. I believe in a higher power. No one ever forced that upon me. If anything, I am the opposite of obediant sheep, I choose what I want to believe in.
i already said that I am a theist from a purely philosphical standpoint. I believe in a higher power. No one ever forced that upon me. If anything, I am the opposite of obediant sheep, I choose what I want to believe in.