Does God exist? (William Lane Craig vs Peter Atkins debate) (24 Viewers)

[Nzoric]

Sheik is real intelect

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Raz]

That's because you're one of them modern christians who pick out passages from the bible that they can apply to their own set of universal principles of conduct. That's cool, nothing wrong with that. But Christianity and the bible are wholy incompatible with the idea of dinosaurs. It's nice that some people are modifying their beliefs to make it streamlined with what we know today - as any set of regulatory principles of conduct should be modified each time a person is faced with a choice.

Lol, I'm quite far from being a christian, I wouldn't call myself one for sure.

I'm equaly muslim as I am christian.

 

[Nzoric]

^^

That is pseudo-christanity. The fact that the believers need to modify their beliefs to something radically different than the holy scripture speaks volumes of how out dated the source is.

- - - Updated - - -

Lol, I'm quite far from being a christian, I wouldn't call myself one for sure.

I'm equaly muslim as I am christian.

And I included all that under the term major-religions. Just picked out Christianity as an example, and because of your location I found it the most obvious one

 

[Buck Fuddy]

What does this even mean?

Good question. Personally, I thought he lived in the sky. You know, floating around, looking down on us.




No wait, that's the flying spaghetti monster I'm thinking of.

 

[ZoSo]

That is pseudo-christanity. The fact that the believers need to modify their beliefs to something radically different than the holy scripture speaks volumes of how out dated the source is.

That really doesn't mean god doesn't exist.

 

[Raz]

More like an unstoppable force meeting an immovable object.

The question is who's who here?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

^^

It means that just because you can think of some thing, doesn't mean that thing actually exists.

Sheik is real intelect

2 L's, nigga.

That is pseudo-christanity. The fact that the believers need to modify their beliefs to something radically different than the holy scripture speaks volumes of how out dated the source is.

Not to mention, some verses don't make sense, so you need to "interpret" it.

 

[ZoSo]

It means that just because you can think of some thing, doesn't mean that thing actually exists.

You could also say there is no god, but then by that god does or may exist, because you can think of it.



That means nothing.

 

[Nzoric]

Not to mention, some verses don't make sense, so you need to "interpret" it.

Which is fine, then just don't say that you're a christian, say that you have a set of moral standards or principles which can be deducted back to Christianity, but if you anything resemblant of a functioning person in secular societies today - you have a much more evolved, complex and diverse set of moral principles.

 

[Raz]

And I included all that under the term major-religions. Just picked out Christianity as an example, and because of your location I found it the most obvious one

As long as the journey is fun and you learn going through it it's a good path in my way, whatever you call it.

 

[ZoSo]

Which is fine, then just don't say that you're a christian, say that you have a set of moral standards or principles which can be deducted back to Christianity, but if you anything resemblant of a functioning person in secular societies today - you have a much more evolved, complex and diverse set of moral principles.

pc assholes

 

[CaesarCod]

That's because you're one of them modern christians who pick out passages from the bible that they can apply to their own set of universal principles of conduct. That's cool, nothing wrong with that. But Christianity and the bible are wholy incompatible with the idea of dinosaurs. It's nice that some people are modifying their beliefs to make it streamlined with what we know today - as any set of regulatory principles of conduct should be modified each time a person is faced with a choice.

Which part?

 

[Nzoric]

You could also say there is no god, but then by that god does or may exist, because you can think of it.

That's a circular argument, and you can't say it. The burden of proof falls on the group of people who claim something is, based solely on apriori belief, it doesn't fall on the group of people saying 'So far my senses and all empirical data suggest it to be otherwise, if there is proof of it I am willing to change or adapt my views - until then I shall refrain'.

 

[Raz]

It means that just because you can think of some thing, doesn't mean that thing actually exists.

But the oposite must be true too, if it's not found doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Otherwise discoveries would be making stuff up, while in all they were always there just that you didn't knew see it.

But anyway, I don't think with science and it's methods one can find god.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

You could also say there is no god, but then by that god does or may exist, because you can think of it.



That means nothing.

Regardless of what we think, evidence is the only thing that can confirm whether what we've conceptualized I actually real or not. I can broaden my horizon for sure, but without evidence to support it, means nothing.

Which is fine, then just don't say that you're a christian, say that you have a set of moral standards or principles which can be deducted back to Christianity, but if you anything resemblant of a functioning person in secular societies today - you have a much more evolved, complex and diverse set of moral principles.

I meant in the context that the source is dated. It's so old that a literal reading doesn't make sense anymore.

 

[Raz]

That's a circular argument, and you can't say it. The burden of proof falls on the group of people who claim something is, based solely on apriori belief, it doesn't fall on the group of people saying 'So far my senses and all empirical data suggest it to be otherwise, if there is proof of it I am willing to change or adapt my views - until then I shall refrain'.

Burden of proof? You live your life yourself, and if you want to find it do it yourself, no one will show you god, you have to search of those secrets yourself.

 

[ZoSo]

That's a circular argument, and you can't say it. The burden of proof falls on the group of people who claim something is, based solely on apriori belief, it doesn't fall on the group of people saying 'So far my senses and all empirical data suggest it to be otherwise, if there is proof of it I am willing to change or adapt my views - until then I shall refrain'.

Yes indeed but it's just stating the obvious. I could think of myself as a billionaire, but of course that isn't true. So I don't think that really affects this argument considering there is a lot more proof and evidence for religion than just imagination.

 

[Raz]

Regardless of what we think, evidence is the only thing that can confirm whether what we've conceptualized I actually real or not. I can broaden my horizon for sure, but without evidence to support it, means nothing.

Do you think philosophical questions can broaden your horizon and would that mean anything?

 

[pitbull]

What does this even mean?

Why can't God exist outside the religions, the churches, the holy texts? Bible says that the π is equal with three, while in reality it's 3,14159..., you can't take everything that's written there literally. I believe there are some God-inspired things written, painted and told, but because of free will God can't be hold responsible for them, in the end it's always the individual that holds the responsibility of his actions.

 

[ZoSo]

Regardless of what we think, evidence is the only thing that can confirm whether what we've conceptualized I actually real or not. I can broaden my horizon for sure, but without evidence to support it, means nothing.

This is a very poor argument. Someone could commit a crime, but there is no evidence so it is thrown out of court. Doesn't mean the crime didn't happen.