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

[rounder]

Bible contradicts itself, and Quran is newer

No contradictions in the Quran? Seriously?

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Naggar]

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

Of course not the newest wins, but yes it shouldn't contradict itself for sure
but the bible said there will be one last true prophet after Jesus, and beware of the false prophet, they called Muhammad false because he came in a time romans and persians ruled, while arabia was centuries behind, they couldnt accept the fact that this man would be their prophet, arrogance.

No contradictions in the Quran? Seriously?

no, if you found any show us please

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

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

Hinduism has a core of 3 gods: Brahma(the creator), Vishnu (the preserver), and Shiva (the destroyer). Together, they form the trinity. Most of the other gods are either reincarnations, or alternate forms of these 3 gods. Just because the gods once walked on earth, were visible, and even reproduced does not make them any less omniscient, omnipresent or omnipotent.

In fact, I can argue that Allah is not a god because he cannot do something that us mere mortals can do: reproduce. Does he even have genitals?

but a question more important than ask of these is whether any of this is true? And where there it's ANY evidence for us to believe that these his ever existed?

 

[Martin]

Of course not the newest wins

So why did you bring it up?

So what remains it: the one that doesn't contradict itself wins.

 

[rounder]

Of course not the newest wins, but yes it shouldn't contradict itself for sure
but the bible said there will be one last true prophet after Jesus, and beware of the false prophet, they called Muhammad false because he came in a time romans and persians ruled, while arabia was centuries behind, they couldnt accept the fact that this man would be their prophet, arrogance.



no, if you found any show us please

How does that show that Christianity contradicts itself?

I don't mean to be offensive or anything, but the Qu'ran was written by an illiterate? Does that at all sound contradicting to you?

 

[Martin]

Of course not the newest wins, but yes it shouldn't contradict itself for sure
but the bible said there will be one last true prophet after Jesus, and beware of the false prophet, they called Muhammad false because he came in a time romans and persians ruled, while arabia was centuries behind, they couldnt accept the fact that this man would be their prophet, arrogance.

This is not a self contradiction. A self contradiction is like this:

On page 1: god has a red hat.

On page 3: god has never owned a hat.

Calling Muhammad a false prophet would only be a self contradiction if elsewhere they had called him a true prophet.

 

[Naggar]

Hinduism has a core of 3 gods: Brahma(the creator), Vishnu (the preserver), and Shiva (the destroyer). Together, they form the trinity. Most of the other gods are either reincarnations, or alternate forms of these 3 gods. Just because the gods once walked on earth, were visible, and even reproduced does not make them any less omniscient, omnipresent or omnipotent.

but a question more important than ask of these is whether any of this is true? And where there it's ANY evidence for us to believe that these his ever existed?

Please don't make fun.

Can mortals create life? do you know anything about the soul?
Seriously how can anyone believe life created itself? one day there was absolutely nothing and in a matter of time it becomes humans, animals, earth and milky way? are humans that arrogant to rather believe it started itself than to believe in a higher power to have started this evolution?

well there are lots of evidences, which to you are fairy tales, you'd beleive war history, football history but not religion history

God can't be more than one, even the smallest business can't work with 2 bosses

So why did you bring it up?

So what remains it: the one that doesn't contradict itself wins.

I brought it up because christian bible did mention one last true prophet, so they should be the first to believe in islam right?

yes.

How does that show that Christianity contradicts itself?

I don't mean to be offensive or anything, but the Qu'ran was written by an illiterate? Does that at all sound contradicting to you?

This is not a self contradiction. A self contradiction is like this:

On page 1: god has a red hat.

On page 3: god has never owned a hat.

Calling Muhammad a false prophet would only be a self contradiction if elsewhere they had called him a true prophet.

Because they said there will be one last prophet and some of their priests living in Muhammad's days admit he was true, but the rest were too arrogant to admit

I'm not saying this is a contradiction, it's pride

contradictions and mistakes are many in the bible, i like history ones most, and I found none in Quran and I even found really really interesting ones, i could share if you're interested.



they turned all christian rules into options, like covering hair for women, drinking and and marital laws
they changed the first two from laws into options and in the third they cancelled divorce.
and they came up with 'confessions' so i can just kill and rob then confess and live normally?
but there are too many contradictions and more importantly mistakes than this

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I'm not making fun at all. I'm posing a perfectly reasonable question. I'm questioning yours gods omnipotence. If he cannot do something that a mere mortal can do, them how can he be a god? How can he be omnipotent?

Yes, mortals, can create life. We can give birth to babies. Create life from non-life. And this is demonstrable.

The concept of a soul cannot be demonstrated. So I don't care how much you assert it. It doesn't matter.

Who says god can't be more than one? Who made that rule?

 

[AndreaCristiano]

Please don't make fun.

Can mortals create life? do you know anything about the soul?
Seriously how can anyone believe life created itself? one day there was absolutely nothing and in a matter of time it becomes humans, animals, earth and milky way? are humans that arrogant to rather believe it started itself than to believe in a higher power to have started this evolution?

well there are lots of evidences, which to you are fairy tales, you'd beleive war history, football history but not religion history

God can't be more than one, even the smallest business can't work with 2 bosses




I brought it up because christian bible did mention one last true prophet, so they should be the first to believe in islam right?

yes.






Because they said there will be one last prophet and some of their priests living in Muhammad's days admit he was true, but the rest were too arrogant to admit

I'm not saying this is a contradiction, it's pride

contradictions and mistakes are many in the bible, i like history ones most, and I found none in Quran and I even found really really interesting ones, i could share if you're interested.



they turned all christian rules into options, like covering hair for women, drinking and and marital laws
they changed the first two from laws into options and in the third they cancelled divorce.
and they came up with 'confessions' so i can just kill and rob then confess and live normally?
but there are too many contradictions and more importantly mistakes than this

Prophecy proclaimed...

Deu 18:15 The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;

Fulfilled:
Acts 3:22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.

Proclaimed:

Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Fulfilled:
Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
Heb 8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
Heb 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

My stance: No prophets after the coming of Christ, with any new revelation. Only false prophets, wolves in sheeps clothing. Even if there was a reference why would you assume Christians would accept mohammed as that final prophet? To make the assumption that he would automatically be accepted is in err especially when Mohammed contradicts many things Jesus proclaimed

 

[Ford Prefect]

It is as impossible to disprove god as it is to prove god. Everyone give up, you wont win - because you can't.

 

[rounder]

The point isn't to prove or disprove God's existence, but rather to claim which position is more logically sound, or plausible. In fact, anyone who claims that he does have proof for either case clearly doesn't understand the definition of proof.

 

[Nzoric]

Believers using bible quotes as arguments. That is so full of win, it's unbelievable.

 

[Nzoric]

I'm not making fun at all. I'm posing a perfectly reasonable question. I'm questioning yours gods omnipotence. If he cannot do something that a mere mortal can do, them how can he be a god? How can he be omnipotent?

Yes, mortals, can create life. We can give birth to babies. Create life from non-life. And this is demonstrable.

The concept of a soul cannot be demonstrated. So I don't care how much you assert it. It doesn't matter.

Who says god can't be more than one? Who made that rule?

An argument for the soul can be made by creating a theory which strives to prove what happens to the energy which inevitably leaves the body when you die. I had this argument with one of those theists who try to bridge science and religion in order to appear more sane. I just found that logic flawed, because you let out energy when you urinate, ejaculate or even yawn - is that the soul leaving your body too? And if energy = soul, does the soul need food to survive, since it's proven that we obtain energy from digesting food.

 

[rounder]

Believers using bible quotes as arguments. That is so full of win, it's unbelievable.

You know, despite the fact that using Bible quotes isn't exactly a very intellectual method of winning a debate, I can certainly see this similarities in non-believers as well. I love how many times non-believers will choose to cite a scientific theory as a case against the existence of God; when these non-believers themselves have a profound lack of knowledge about the very scientific theory they are citing. Instead, choosing to accept it upon faith.

 

[Martin]

An argument for the soul can be made by creating a theory which strives to prove what happens to the energy which inevitably leaves the body when you die. I had this argument with one of those theists who try to bridge science and religion in order to appear more sane. I just found that logic flawed, because you let out energy when you urinate, ejaculate or even yawn - is that the soul leaving your body too? And if energy = soul, does the soul need food to survive, since it's proven that we obtain energy from digesting food.

Actually, you don't need to do any of that. You eat food, this gets converted into heat, and you radiate heat, you're like a failed power plant that produces 0% electricity and 100% heat.

 

[Nzoric]

You know, despite the fact that using Bible quotes isn't exactly a very intellectual method of winning a debate, I can certainly see this similarities in non-believers as well. I love how many times non-believers will choose to cite a scientific theory as a case against the existence of God; when these non-believers themselves have a profound lack of knowledge about the very scientific theory they are citing. Instead, choosing to accept it upon faith.

I completely agree. As I believe that we live in a age of rationalism, atleast in some parts of the world, I believe that you either have to say "I don't know" or join one of the two sides. The main difference between the two is that the phenomenons science tries to explain by creating theories are empirical. We can measure, weigh and calculate the sizes, contents and numbers. Furthermore, scientists create a theory or hypothesis and then work even harder at disproving it. According to my logic, that is a much more sound fundament to build your beliefs on than 1500 year old scriptures that contain certain scriptures and documentations for phenomenons which have been directly disproved. I'd rather base my beliefs on something I can grasp, disprove and then try again, than to stubbornly clench the holy scriptures.

 

[Nzoric]

Actually, you don't need to do any of that. You eat food, this gets converted into heat, and you radiate heat, you're like a failed power plant that produces 0% electricity and 100% heat.

Oh I know, but I'm just citing one of the arguments I've heard for the existence of the soul.

 

[rounder]

An argument for the soul can be made by creating a theory which strives to prove what happens to the energy which inevitably leaves the body when you die. I had this argument with one of those theists who try to bridge science and religion in order to appear more sane. I just found that logic flawed, because you let out energy when you urinate, ejaculate or even yawn - is that the soul leaving your body too? And if energy = soul, does the soul need food to survive, since it's proven that we obtain energy from digesting food.

A good argument for the existence of a soul would be to examine the problem of free will. if we didn't have souls; then our choices and preferences are merely a result of our bodies reacting to various kinds of external stimuli. We are not controlled, and do not have any control over anything. We are just the product of the random interactions of physical forces. If you have trouble accepting this, then perhaps you would be right to want to believe in a 'soul', or at least consider the possibility of it.

 

[Nzoric]

A good argument for the existence of a soul would be to examine the problem of free will. if we didn't have souls; then our choices and preferences are merely a result of our bodies reacting to various kinds of external stimuli. We are not controlled, and do not have any control over anything. We are just the product of the random interactions of physical forces. If you have trouble accepting this, then perhaps you would be right to want to believe in a 'soul', or at least consider the possibility of it.

I tried to steer away from philosophical concepts as free will, because that will lead the discussion onto something completely different. Tried to banalize my post to the most basic chemical processes which take place.

 

[rounder]

I completely agree. As I believe that we live in a age of rationalism, atleast in some parts of the world, I believe that you either have to say "I don't know" or join one of the two sides. The main difference between the two is that the phenomenons science tries to explain by creating theories are empirical. We can measure, weigh and calculate the sizes, contents and numbers. Furthermore, scientists create a theory or hypothesis and then work even harder at disproving it. According to my logic, that is a much more sound fundament to build your beliefs on than 1500 year old scriptures that contain certain scriptures and documentations for phenomenons which have been directly disproved. I'd rather base my beliefs on something I can grasp, disprove and then try again, than to stubbornly clench the holy scriptures.

Absolutely, someone saying that the earth is a few thousand years old because he read it in the Bible should not be taken seriously, as opposed to someone saying that the earth is 4.2 billion years old according to scientific findings. In these matters, I believe you are right. However, I do think that some questions should not include science or theology at all. These would include the existence of God, the existence of souls, and questions of morality, to name a few.