Does God exist? (William Lane Craig vs Peter Atkins debate) (28 Viewers)

[rounder]

Are you really asking if there is a difference between animals and humans? There is. We are more evolved, we have a reasoning ability, a pretty good memory. We have the ability to think, hence we can ask ourselves questions like "What is the meaning of our lives". Animals cannot, they do not think.

Why do we have a need to be significant? where does this need come from?

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Martin]

Why do we have a need to be significant? where does this need come from?

From our ability to think. If you had no capacity to understand your reality and ask yourself why is it like this, then you would not have this "problem" of not knowing what your purpose is.

Imagine if you created an intelligent robot that could reason. Eventually it would ask itself who am I, what am I supposed to do.

 

[rounder]

Imagine if you created an intelligent robot that could reason. Eventually it would ask itself who am I, what am I supposed to do.

There is the key word.

 

[Martin]

I said "imagine if". Just because something can be imagined does not make it true.

 

[rounder]

I said "imagine if". Just because something can be imagined does not make it true.

The idea of an intelligent being created by someone or something is very plausible. If we exist as intelligent beings, it is reasonable to think that an intelligent being must have created us.

 

[Martin]

The idea of an intelligent being created by someone or something is very plausible. If we exist as intelligent beings, it is reasonable to think that an intelligent being must have created us.

That's a reasonable intuition, yes. Because we see the world in terms of ourselves. But what if the world wasn't created specifically for us and we just happen to be here?

 

[rounder]

That's a reasonable intuition, yes. Because we see the world in terms of ourselves. But what if the world wasn't created specifically for us and we just happen to be here?

That is a possibility, ofcourse. This brings us to another question, why was the world created? Are we just here because of purely circumstantial reasons, or is there meaning and reason behind our creation?

I guess it's simply a matter of choice, you either believe your life has meaning and a greater purpose, or you just believe you were fortunate enough that perfect conditions have randomly come together to give you life.

 

[Martin]

Are we just here because of purely circumstantial reasons, or is there meaning and reason behind our creation?

Does there have to be? Can you accept that there isn't?

I guess it's simply a matter of choice, you either believe your life has meaning and a greater purpose, or you just believe you were fortunate enough that perfect conditions have randomly come together to give you life.

In a sense you're right. It is in a way "magical" that there exists a world on which we live. But it's a stretch to call the conditions "perfect" and it certainly hasn't happened "randomly". Evolution explores every single possibility until it finds the right one. That is randomness and that's experimentation, but it's not making a random choice and by luck finding the right one. It's choosing all the choices and seeing which ones work.

 

[Martin]

 

[ßöмßäяðîëя]

I really like that, Martin.

 

[Zé Tahir]

So who has actually watched the videos? Which was the whole point of the thread

 

[Martin]

So who has actually watched the videos? Which was the whole point of the thread

I watched the first 4 parts or so, it was too boring to continue.

 

[ßöмßäяðîëя]

So who has actually watched the videos? Which was the whole point of the thread

I didn't even know there were videos...

 

[Dinsdale]

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?

So we do agree, except for the fact that you cannot tell how unlikely the existence of god is imo.

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.

To me it feels less likely too, but you cannot give a real explanation of why it would be less likely. And there's no need to use a mocking term like "super magician", in order to make theism sound far fetched.

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.

Then what can we discuss that is useful? And I have no idea why you bring up axioms and Juve Rev's arguments.

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 don't know why this is so confusing to you. In the context of this discussion, it should be obvious that belief in god = belief in a creator = believing god exists. Einstein's view if you want to call it like that. Everything else you mentioned (what god does and wants) is beyond believing in god, and is usually added by religion. And I don't believe in god, if you've missed that, so I really don't know what you're trying to say with that last sentence.

Definitions are one of the most important aspects of a discussion. How can you discuss something if you use words different people have different definitions for? I see this all the time, and usually I don't even bother to participate because of this.

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.

If you've seen the video, then why do you keep asking me how I define god, after I mentioned twice that I use the same definition as the theist in the video? And that definition seems pretty universal and independent of personal interpretation to me. If you know other metaphysical definitions of god, please do share them because I'm always willing to learn. I have never read anything about it and I'm openly admitting that I have little knowledge on this matter.

And it takes no knowledge to form a definition. What have I claimed to know?

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.

No, I'm not expecting you to take anything for granted. Outside space and time is just a concept, just like space and time are also concepts. And I never claimed I know anything. An entity that exists outside space and time is just an assumption. Has anyone ever got further than an assumption when it comes to the beginning of the universe?

Something you know nothing of, cannot exist?

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 really don't understand how you come to say that. Which axioms does every theist use?

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 never meant to wave off any question. I was just agitated because you seemed to keep ignoring my answer. And honestly, if you're comparing the concept of god to aliens, I find it very hard to take whatever you have to say about theism seriously.

 

[Martin]

So we do agree, except for the fact that you cannot tell how unlikely the existence of god is imo.



To me it feels less likely too, but you cannot give a real explanation of why it would be less likely. And there's no need to use a mocking term like "super magician", in order to make theism sound far fetched.



Then what can we discuss that is useful? And I have no idea why you bring up axioms and Juve Rev's arguments.

Because you insist on having this argument about "plausibility" which if of no value unless people can agree on the same assumptions/axioms. If you ask me if I think it's plausible that a car will be involved in an accident, it matters a great deal what we know about the car. If you are thinking all the while that the brakes are busted then your estimate of the plausibility is based on different conditions, hence it's pointless to say "I think this is a plausible" without stating the context for it.

In other words, I think the whole "plausibility" argument is pointless. When theists say "don't you think it's unlikely that this magical world in which we can live was set up exactly this way" the correct response is "compared to what?". There is no reference point. Probability is not an absolute measure, it is relative to certainty. If there is no certainty for comparison, probability is meaningless.

I don't know why this is so confusing to you. In the context of this discussion, it should be obvious that belief in god = belief in a creator = believing god exists. Einstein's view if you want to call it like that. Everything else you mentioned (what god does and wants) is beyond believing in god, and is usually added by religion. And I don't believe in god, if you've missed that, so I really don't know what you're trying to say with that last sentence.

Definitions are one of the most important aspects of a discussion. How can you discuss something if you use words different people have different definitions for? I see this all the time, and usually I don't even bother to participate because of this.

This is one ontology. I'm not saying it's the "correct one", but perhaps we can agree on it here.

deist - belief in a god who created the universe and then went on vacation
theist - belief in a god who not only created the universe but also is a "personal god", cares about humans, intervenes in human life, listens to prayers, eg. the christian god

 

[Dinsdale]

Because you insist on having this argument about "plausibility" which if of no value unless people can agree on the same assumptions/axioms. If you ask me if I think it's plausible that a car will be involved in an accident, it matters a great deal what we know about the car. If you are thinking all the while that the brakes are busted then your estimate of the plausibility is based on different conditions, hence it's pointless to say "I think this is a plausible" without stating the context for it.

In other words, I think the whole "plausibility" argument is pointless. When theists say "don't you think it's unlikely that this magical world in which we can live was set up exactly this way" the correct response is "compared to what?". There is no reference point. Probability is not an absolute measure, it is relative to certainty. If there is no certainty for comparison, probability is meaningless.

So how can you come to the conclusion that one of both views (atheism or theism) is a better view than the other?

This is one ontology. I'm not saying it's the "correct one", but perhaps we can agree on it here.

deist - belief in a god who created the universe and then went on vacation
theist - belief in a god who not only created the universe but also is a "personal god", cares about humans, intervenes in human life, listens to prayers, eg. the christian god

When I was talking about theism so far, I meant a belief in which you only assume that god created the universe. Whether or whatever this god does, wants or likes something, can of course not be known by man and to say we can know (like religion does) is ridiculous. Talking about deism vs atheism sounds a little bit weird though.

P.S.: Eventhough I'm a "beginner", I hope I'm giving you at least sometimes a hard time.

 

[Martin]

So how can you come to the conclusion that one of both views (atheism or theism) is a better view than the other?

Is that the goal? I don't think I ever wanted to accomplish that specifically, I just think it's fun to think about it.

When I was talking about theism so far, I meant a belief in which you only assume that god created the universe. Whether or whatever this god does, wants or likes something, can of course not be known by man and to say we can know (like religion does) is ridiculous. Talking about deism vs atheism sounds a little bit weird though.

P.S.: Eventhough I'm a "beginner", I hope I'm giving you at least sometimes a hard time.

You are

 

[Dinsdale]

Is that the goal? I don't think I ever wanted to accomplish that specifically, I just think it's fun to think about it.

Oh. I'm too lazy atm to look for specific posts, but I had the impression you believe atheism is a 'better' view than theism.

I think I need a short break from this matter because I'm starting to feel satured with it. Anyhow, when I get the time I will certainly read some books about it.

 

[ßöмßäяðîëя]

Does Chinese food exist?


Green Jacket, Gold Jacket, who gives a shit?

 

[Nicholas]

Does Chinese food exist?


Green Jacket, Gold Jacket, who gives a shit?

Chow Mein?.