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

[Nzoric]

Which part?

The only thing even resembling the idea of dinosaurs and which is mentioned in the bible are the "behemoth" and "leviathan". It's clutching at straws to infere from that to 'they knew dino's existed'.

Oh and, how old is the earth again?

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Raz]

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.

Thouth that's how our society is funtioning now.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh and, how old is the earth again?

You are looking for semantics here, not the meaning or the teachings in it.

 

[Nzoric]

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.

I'm not writing off the possibility that he might exist, at all. I'm just saying that the burden of proof falls on the believer.

And what you are describing is pseudo-christianity. You either follow the holy scripture, or you don't. What modern "believers" are doing is; they are modifying their beliefs and ignoring certain not so convenient parts of the bible in order to function in a society - which I applaud. Some day they might have to abandon the whole thing

 

[ZoSo]

The only thing even resembling the idea of dinosaurs and which is mentioned in the bible are the "behemoth" and "leviathan". It's clutching at straws to infere from that to 'they knew dino's existed'.

Oh and, how old is the earth again?

Not everything is supposed to be taken literally...

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

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.

Not at all. If it's not found, then it means we don't have enough reason to believe that it exists. It doesn't mean that the opposite proposition is true. When a criminal court doesn't find compelling evidence that the accused is guilty, then the verdict they provide is "not guilty". They can't say that he's innocent, because that is a wholly different claim which the court is in no position to make. It can only rule on the claim that the prosecutor is making.

In the same way, by rejecting the proposition of a god, I'm not saying that he doesn't exist. I'm just saying that we don't have enough reasons to believe there IS a god. I just like to go a step further and judge the probability of a god's existence based on his definition, which is purely logical and not empirical.

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

Of course it can't. How is one supposed to gather evidence of a being who is outside of our space and time? It's impossible to investigate, which makes it a pseudo-scientific claim. And such claims have very low credibility. Read about Russell's teapot. Same method of reasoning.

 

[ZoSo]

I'm not writing off the possibility that he might exist, at all. I'm just saying that the burden of proof falls on the believer.

And what you are describing is pseudo-christianity. You either follow the holy scripture, or you don't. What modern "believers" are doing is; they are modifying their beliefs and ignoring certain not so convenient parts of the bible in order to function in a society - which I applaud. Some day they might have to abandon the whole thing

The core values are still the same, just certain beliefs may change, like how old the earth is etc..

 

[CaesarCod]

The only thing even resembling the idea of dinosaurs and which is mentioned in the bible are the "behemoth" and "leviathan". It's clutching at straws to infere from that to 'they knew dino's existed'.

Oh and, how old is the earth again?

So just because the bible doesn't mention them doesnt mean it denies their existence.

Also, the bible doesn't specify the exact age of the Earth either.

 

[Raz]

Nzoric, a true christian would be fallowin 10 commanedments wich are primary the other stuff is really just stuff to show how to live, some stuff cannot be trusted because it was written how to live in those times, some still can because a lot if not most things there are universal, but 10 comandments is the main thing which oyu cannot pseudo around.

 

[Nzoric]

So I don't think that really affects this argument considering there is a lot more proof and evidence for religion than just imagination.

There need not be presented any proof of 'religion' as it is a phenomenon we can examine and have long ago assented to it's existance. What you need to do is to present evidence and proof for the religious beliefs. What compels a thinking human being to believe in something if there is no proof of it, if there is proof indeed; I will stand corrected, as I pointed out eariler.

 

[ZoSo]

Not at all. If it's not found, then it means we don't have enough reason to believe that it exists. It doesn't mean that the opposite proposition is true. When a criminal court doesn't find compelling evidence that the accused is guilty, then the verdict they provide is "not guilty". They can't say that he's innocent, because that is a wholly different claim which the court is in no position to make. It can only rule on the claim that the prosecutor is making.

In the same way, by rejecting the proposition of a god, I'm not saying that he doesn't exist. I'm just saying that we don't have enough reasons to believe there IS a god. I just like to go a step further and judge the probability of a god's existence based on his definition, which is purely logical and not empirical.



Of course it can't. How is one supposed to gather evidence of a being who is outside of our space and time? It's impossible to investigate, which makes it a pseudo-scientific claim. And such claims have very low credibility. Read about Russell's teapot. Same method of reasoning.

Just one side point to all this, I think you don't understand belief (besides whether it exists or not).

 

[Nzoric]

Nzoric, a true christian would be fallowin 10 commanedments wich are primary the other stuff is really just stuff to show how to live, some stuff cannot be trusted because it was written how to live in those times, some still can because a lot if not most things there are universal, but 10 comandments is the main thing which oyu cannot pseudo around.

Thank you for affirming my point. So instead of calling yourself Christian, just say that you have a set of moral principles that you live by, these moral principles can be deducted back to Christianity and the 10 commandments - but through the course of 2000 years they have been altered in accordance with the choices my ancestors have been faced with.

Pseudo-Christianity.

 

[ZoSo]

There need not be presented any proof of 'religion' as it is a phenomenon we can examine and have long ago assented to it's existance. What you need to do is to present evidence and proof for the religious beliefs. What compels a thinking human being to believe in something if there is no proof of it, if there is proof indeed; I will stand corrected, as I pointed out eariler.

Well in my situation, catholicism itself. The bible, what it teaches etc. Those are my reasons for belief.


And also, I think this is all too much to just come from nothing. I mean, it just seems so far fetched that there was a big explosion in space billions of years ago and here we are today talking on Juventuz about it.

 

[Nzoric]

The core values are still the same, just certain beliefs may change, like how old the earth is etc..

No no, you promised me proof for religious beliefs. Give me some empirical data which I can analyse.

You could start with providing it for the main aspect of your religion, the intelligent designer. Proof baby, proof.

 

[pitbull]

I'm not writing off the possibility that he might exist, at all. I'm just saying that the burden of proof falls on the believer.

And what you are describing is pseudo-christianity. You either follow the holy scripture, or you don't. What modern "believers" are doing is; they are modifying their beliefs and ignoring certain not so convenient parts of the bible in order to function in a society - which I applaud. Some day they might have to abandon the whole thing

Not really, I've read the book and I think it's truly great, majestic and a group of ancient guys alone couldn't write something like that. But I'm not a great fan of "How to love, live and be successful" type of books, so in the end I'll probably get influenced by Bible just the way I'd get influenced by any other book I read (though it is superior to any of the books I've read thus far), wihout putting it at the very base of my life. So yeah, I don't follow the "holy scripture", but I kinda do think there's God up above.

 

[ZoSo]

No no, you promised me proof for religious beliefs. Give me some empirical data which I can analyse.

You could start with providing it for the main aspect of your religion, the intelligent designer. Proof baby, proof.

No I didn't, you promised it. I didn't make any promises.

But anyway, read my last post.

 

[Raz]

Not at all. If it's not found, then it means we don't have enough reason to believe that it exists. It doesn't mean that the opposite proposition is true. When a criminal court doesn't find compelling evidence that the accused is guilty, then the verdict they provide is "not guilty". They can't say that he's innocent, because that is a wholly different claim which the court is in no position to make. It can only rule on the claim that the prosecutor is making.

In the same way, by rejecting the proposition of a god, I'm not saying that he doesn't exist. I'm just saying that we don't have enough reasons to believe there IS a god. I just like to go a step further and judge the probability of a god's existence based on his definition, which is purely logical and not empirical.



Of course it can't. How is one supposed to gather evidence of a being who is outside of our space and time? It's impossible to investigate, which makes it a pseudo-scientific claim. And such claims have very low credibility. Read about Russell's teapot. Same method of reasoning.

What if an innocent man is tried for murder, he is judged "not guilty", what then isn't he innocent?

And what does not guilty mean? you are ether guilty or not. You ether commited a crime or oyu didn't. So the lack of evidence just shows how this method is not ultimate, because at the end of the day he is guilty yet there is no evidence of it which would make him innocent in your theory.

I'm not trying to scientificaly prove god. Maybe it can be done, but I don't think it's a possibility.

 

[Maddy]

And also, I think this is all too much to just come from nothing. I mean, it just seems so far fetched that there was a big explosion in space billions of years ago and here we are today talking on Juventuz about it.

yeah unlike ur god who isnt far fetched.

i must lol when the reasoning of ur beliefs is due to "i dont understand so there must be a god to make me understand"

 

[Nzoric]

Well in my situation, catholicism itself. The bible, what it teaches etc. Those are my reasons for belief.


And also, I think this is all too much to just come from nothing. I mean, it just seems so far fetched that there was a big explosion in space billions of years ago and here we are today talking on Juventuz about it.

proof, please.

And you have every right to doubt it, as does anyone else. That is because the big bang theory is presented as a theory. A hypothetical scenario which seems possible according to the facts we know. No one subscribes blindly to it, and every time the theory is successfully attacked - it is modified.

Likewise, Tthere isn't one scientist in the world, or atleast not a respectable one, who accepts the theory of evolution as being without fault. But that is what is convenient about that state of mind, it's open to changes and adjusts it's beliefs according to what new analysis of empirical data shows. The Catholic Christian belief is a universal belief, it's immovable because it's entire foundation is over 2000 years old. If you try to circumvent that fact, you transcend Christianity and become something else.

 

[Maddy]

proof, please.

And you have every right to doubt it, as does anyone else. That is because the big bang theory is presented as a theory. A hypothetical scenario which seems possible according to the facts we know. No one subscribes blindly to it, and every time the theory is successfully attacked - it is modified.

Likewise, Tthere isn't one scientist in the world, or atleast not a respectable one, who accepts the theory of evolution as being without fault. But that is what is convenient about that state of mind, it's open to changes and adjusts it's beliefs according to what new analysis of empirical data shows. The Catholic Christian belief is a universal belief, it's immovable because it's entire foundation is over 2000 years old. If you try to circumvent that fact, you transcend Christianity and become something else.

 

[Raz]

Thank you for affirming my point. So instead of calling yourself Christian, just say that you have a set of moral principles that you live by, these moral principles can be deducted back to Christianity and the 10 commandments - but through the course of 2000 years they have been altered in accordance with the choices my ancestors have been faced with.

Pseudo-Christianity.

Honestly I don't even know those 10, half maybe.

The point is that those 10 are the basic most important rules if you will, from which every other story and it's teachings go. All other stories are just stories so you could easier understand in a liflike situation hwo to act according to those 10 commandments. What's so pseudo about I really don't get.