Does God exist? (William Lane Craig vs Peter Atkins debate) (17 Viewers)

[Martin]

mmh i wouldnt use self-evident, rather a priori in nature(or argumentation), his ontological argument was thoroughly deconstructed afterwards but still he did put time and effort into formulating it so i wouldnt say there was no questioning on his part

What I'm saying is that although he set out to question "everything" he had a huge blind spot. And I'm not saying he was a moron for not understanding that, he was simply a product of his time.

The idea of questioning everything is a fascinating concept, but he didn't do it correctly.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Martin]

I think what Socrates meant is that with all his knowledge (being the greatest of his time) he knows -relatively- nothing compared to the amount of knowledge humans will reach, and look at us today, Socrates knew nothing compared to you and me
and of course we both know nothing compared to our grand grand children..
it's something but it's too little close to nothing.

Edit:

and if you think you know everything then you'll never learn anything again, as long as you tell yourself 'I don't know' you'll seek more knowledge.

It's like we still don't understand each other. You don't have to say that you know nothing in order to admit that there is much you don't know. Socrates said this, and it's a nice quote, but you're not supposed to take it literally. We do not literally know nothing, we actually know many things.

 

[rounder]

The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.
Socrates

I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.
Socrates

True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing.
Socrates

The quote expresses a self-defeating claim. In knowing you know nothing, you are claiming to know something(That you know that you know nothing), therefore, you do not not know anything. Someone who truly knows nothing would not be aware of his lack of knowledge of everything because he truly knows nothing.



How's it going, Martin?

 

[king Ale]

Seeking answers, following logic and looking to improve your understanding is a natural thing for humans to do, atheist or not. If it wasn't we'd still be living in forests, chasing wild boar, and dying in our forties. But when intelligent people get to religion they have to suddenly stop seeking answers and believe in the mystical. That's fine, but don't be hypocritical if people want to challenge that and say 'hold on a minute, why are your beliefs valid?'.

You mentioned how someone else's theory is stupid...you see the vicious circle here. I actually don't think theists are looking for answers to the existence of a god or where we came from, this is the whole point of a belief system. You do or you don't.

Why do you think theists are not looking to improve their understanding? All we could have of "God" is an understanding after all, if you find it necessary to have a perception of all perfections gathered in one being it naturally means you have sought for an answer you reckon (lets say) morally necessary for yourself. I can't prove that there is a God, you can't prove there is not, I think therefor I believe there must be a God, you think therefor you believe there must not. Both are as clueless as each other, both tend to have a distinct understanding of what we've perceived. There is no ground to claim otherwise. Man created God? So be it, then. I find it rather hypocritical to condemn a group for doing exactly what we are doing ourselves.

mmh i wouldnt use self-evident, rather a priori in nature(or argumentation), his ontological argument was thoroughly deconstructed afterwards but still he did put time and effort into formulating it so i wouldnt say there was no questioning on his part

What I'm saying is that although he set out to question "everything" he had a huge blind spot. And I'm not saying he was a moron for not understanding that, he was simply a product of his time.

The idea of questioning everything is a fascinating concept, but he didn't do it correctly.

As Deneb said, the fact that he put effort to enhance Anselm's ontological argument could imply that God's existence wasn't taken totally for granted by him. His argument was erroneous and was either tried to be improved or was entirely rejected but I'd say he only found his argument (and thus the existence of God) so convincing that he believed it was something one could never question the truth of.

I think what Socrates meant is that with all his knowledge (being the greatest of his time) he knows -relatively- nothing compared to the amount of knowledge humans will reach, and look at us today, Socrates knew nothing compared to you and me
and of course we both know nothing compared to our grand grand children..
it's something but it's too little close to nothing.

Edit:

and if you think you know everything then you'll never learn anything again, as long as you tell yourself 'I don't know' you'll seek more knowledge.

Knowing nothing and knowing everything are beginning and end of a very big spectrum. We don't know everything but it doesn't mean we know nothing. Admitting to our lack of knowledge is humble and wise so long as it doesn't become an excuse for sitting back and stop thinking.

 

[Salvo]

I feel like sparking some arguments, why is God for example any more believable than Santa Claus? If when you were young let's say they swapped the bible/quran or whatever with children's stories would you be such staunch believers in jack and jill for instance?

 

[Naggar]

But without knowing how much is unknown, how do we know how much we know compared to the unknown?

I personally think knowledge is infinite, so what we know will always not be enough.

It's like we still don't understand each other. You don't have to say that you know nothing in order to admit that there is much you don't know. Socrates said this, and it's a nice quote, but you're not supposed to take it literally. We do not literally know nothing, we actually know many things.

The quote expresses a self-defeating claim. In knowing you know nothing, you are claiming to know something(That you know that you know nothing), therefore, you do not not know anything. Someone who truly knows nothing would not be aware of his lack of knowledge of everything because he truly knows nothing.

It basically means 'I know too little' (relatively), Socrates was being humble to say nothing instead of too little but of course he knew that he knew something.
and any other man in his place, position and time would've said I know everything, his humble deserves respect.

 

[Naggar]

Knowing nothing and knowing everything are beginning and end of a very big spectrum. We don't know everything but it doesn't mean we know nothing. Admitting to our lack of knowledge is humble and wise so long as it doesn't become an excuse for sitting back and stop thinking.

I agree it can be used as an excuse for the ignorant, but for the greatest philosopher of his time, when everyone knew he knew most, I think it's inspiring

 

[Naggar]

I feel like sparking some arguments, why is God for example any more believable than Santa Claus? If when you were young let's say they swapped the bible/quran or whatever with children's stories would you be such staunch believers in jack and jill for instance?

Qur'an is not a book of stories, it's a way of life. Look -and I was going to say this to Sheik too- if a book tells people to be good to each other, never harm a living thing, know your rights and obligations, so that everyone can live in harmony and peace. and that there is only one true god and his prophets
basically I don't see why you would refuse it, as for being good I think everyone wants that and if not they have a place called prison, and as for the believing part, if it won't harm you by any way to believe there is a god, then why not? it's not like he's telling you to do anything bad
it's just human arrogance that makes them not want to believe in god because they won't accept the fact that there is someone higher than them after finding themselves the most advanced creatures on earth in my opinion they still want to believe it's either they created everything or it created itself somehow, makes no sense to me.

 

[rounder]

I feel like sparking some arguments, why is God for example any more believable than Santa Claus? If when you were young let's say they swapped the bible/quran or whatever with children's stories would you be such staunch believers in jack and jill for instance?

If the most powerful organization in the world suggested that I believe in Jack and Jill; then yes. At least for a while.

 

[Martin]

How's it going, Martin?

The only place we are guaranteed to meet

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Qur'an is not a book of stories, it's a way of life. Look -and I was going to say this to Sheik too- if a book tells people to be good to each other, never harm a living thing, know your rights and obligations, so that everyone can live in harmony and peace. and that there is only one true god and his prophets
basically I don't see why you would refuse it, as for being good I think everyone wants that and if not they have a place called prison, and as for the believing part, if it won't harm you by any way to believe there is a god, then why not? it's not like he's telling you to do anything bad
it's just human arrogance that makes them not want to believe in god because they won't accept the fact that there is someone higher than them after finding themselves the most advanced creatures on earth in my opinion they still want to believe it's either they created everything or it created itself somehow, makes no sense to me.

Almost everything you said here can apply for the Vedas or the Bible too? What makes the Quran so special? Why do you believe only in the words of the Quran?

 

[Martin]

Why do you think theists are not looking to improve their understanding? All we could have of "God" is an understanding after all, if you find it necessary to have a perception of all perfections gathered in one being it naturally means you have sought for an answer you reckon (lets say) morally necessary for yourself. I can't prove that there is a God, you can't prove there is not, I think therefor I believe there must be a God, you think therefor you believe there must not. Both are as clueless as each other, both tend to have a distinct understanding of what we've perceived. There is no ground to claim otherwise. Man created God? So be it, then. I find it rather hypocritical to condemn a group for doing exactly what we are doing ourselves.

What you seem to be missing is a dose of healthy skepticism. Whenever there is a situation in which someone has something to gain it's wise to think about their motives. Whether a god exists or not is a completely trivial question for all practical matters, precisely as trivial as the existence of Superman. But noone has these ferocious debates about Superman because noone is using Superman to piggyback their social agenda on top of.

So in the case of Superman I agree, we are both equally ignorant. But in the case of god there is an utterly obvious case to question where this came from and why.

As Deneb said, the fact that he put effort to enhance Anselm's ontological argument could imply that God's existence wasn't taken totally for granted by him. His argument was erroneous and was either tried to be improved or was entirely rejected but I'd say he only found his argument (and thus the existence of God) so convincing that he believed it was something one could never question the truth of.

No idea what you're actually objecting to here. I said he found god self evident. And you say he found the argument for god "something one could never question the truth of". Is there something I'm missing? If you read his argument for this it's so naive that it really puts the rest of the work in a bad light.

 

[Martin]

Btw I love the idea that this thread is a poll, like we're going to decide this by a vote. And on top of that the votes are very even.

 

[Naggar]

Almost everything you said here can apply for the Vedas or the Bible too? What makes the Quran so special? Why do you believe only in the words of the Quran?

My disagreements with the bible aren't too many but they're major, like for example they call Muhammad a false prophet, if they think he's a true one then they would all be Muslims.

Buddism and Hinudism
The first has a human God, the second worships cows, no disrespect or offence -if any- I totally believe in the ethical treatment of animals, but not Hindu or PETA way, they're living things but they're not sacred.
and correct me if I'm wrong but don't Hindus have multiple Gods?
I think if it's more than one, if it multiplies and reproduces, if it can be seen and if it's on earth, then it's no God

 

[Martin]

My disagreements with the bible aren't too many but they're major, like for example they call Muhammad a false prophet, if they think he's a true one then they would all be Muslims.

Buddism and Hinudism
The first has a human God, the second worships cows, no disrespect or offence -if any- I totally believe in the ethical treatment of animals, but not Hindu or PETA way, they're living things but they're not sacred.
and correct me if I'm wrong but don't Hindus have multiple Gods?
I think if it's more than one, if it multiplies and reproduces, if it can be seen and if it's on earth, then it's no God

So you used the Koran to check if the Bible is correct? Good. Now use the Bible to check if the Koran is correct and tell us what you find out.

 

[Naggar]

Bible contradicts itself, and Quran is newer

 

[Martin]

Bible contradicts itself, and Quran is newer

So the newest wins, if it doesn't contradict itself?

 

[rounder]

The only place we are guaranteed to meet

Very true. I wonder what keeps bringing us back for more.

Btw I love the idea that this thread is a poll, like we're going to decide this by a vote. And on top of that the votes are very even.

Why isn't there a third option 'I'm not sure'?

 

[Martin]

Why isn't there a third option 'I'm not sure'?

pascal

 

[rounder]

My disagreements with the bible aren't too many but they're major, like for example they call Muhammad a false prophet, if they think he's a true one then they would all be Muslims.

Buddism and Hinudism
The first has a human God, the second worships cows, no disrespect or offence -if any- I totally believe in the ethical treatment of animals, but not Hindu or PETA way, they're living things but they're not sacred.
and correct me if I'm wrong but don't Hindus have multiple Gods?
I think if it's more than one, if it multiplies and reproduces, if it can be seen and if it's on earth, then it's no God

Right, because God needs to be something that you can't see or touch or understand. That would definitely make him more believable.