Does God exist? (William Lane Craig vs Peter Atkins debate) (28 Viewers)
- Thread starter Dinsdale
- Start date
verynine, i would like to reply to your post, but i think that we are talking pass each other and not really understand what the other party is saying. 
(not to mention that the posts get drowned and that conversation spread like a grapevine ) In my experience, there is no universally accepted definition of god and that is why i insisted on you giving me in your own words explanation on what does the word "god" mean to you. Yahweh (god of abrahamic religions) is that "type" of god, but at the same time they are radically different in each one of their reincarnation. Again, in order to even consider the probability of one particular kind of god existing, the terminology has to be clearly set. Outside time and outside space are philosophical concepts and nothing more. They have no base in reality and the question of existence is a binary question. Yes or No. We need tangible evidence for and against existence of anything before we can ascertain the probability of it's existence.
I suggest we have a :malt: for now. In the mean time i'll do something that i havent done in ages and open a new topic in this forum just to get the feel of what is the general attitude of Juventuz population on religion.
Juve Revolution, anything that can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. In my answers to you i provided you with tones of factual information and all i got in return are ad hock explanation. Sorry, no time for that
(not to mention that the posts get drowned and that conversation spread like a grapevine ) In my experience, there is no universally accepted definition of god and that is why i insisted on you giving me in your own words explanation on what does the word "god" mean to you. Yahweh (god of abrahamic religions) is that "type" of god, but at the same time they are radically different in each one of their reincarnation. Again, in order to even consider the probability of one particular kind of god existing, the terminology has to be clearly set. Outside time and outside space are philosophical concepts and nothing more. They have no base in reality and the question of existence is a binary question. Yes or No. We need tangible evidence for and against existence of anything before we can ascertain the probability of it's existence.I suggest we have a :malt: for now. In the mean time i'll do something that i havent done in ages and open a new topic in this forum just to get the feel of what is the general attitude of Juventuz population on religion.
Juve Revolution, anything that can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. In my answers to you i provided you with tones of factual information and all i got in return are ad hock explanation. Sorry, no time for that
Here it is
http://www.juventuz.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1774490
Maybe after some votes are cast we can discuss any or all of the options?
Time permitting of course
http://www.juventuz.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1774490
Maybe after some votes are cast we can discuss any or all of the options?
Time permitting of course
I think what you and Martin are trying to say is that the statement "God created the universe" is not scientific because it's not falsifiable, which I agree with. But the problem is, nothing falsifiable can be said about the how the universe began to exist. So I think it's impossible to give arguments why one of both theism/atheism is more plausible than the other view.
We had some confusing misunderstandings for sure. When I'm talking about a metaphysical definition of god, to me it's implicitly obvious that that definition limits itself to a creator only, and that it's nonsense to assume that man can know anything more about god besides that he created the universe, knowledge religious beliefs claim to have. It can be easily proved this is not correct because all religions define gods "behaviour" differently. I hope this clarifies why I'm opposing religion to philosophy and why I find this definition of god universal.
You and Martin also define atheism differently. To me, atheism has always meant rejecting the possibility that there exists a god who created the universe. For you guys, it's just not believing in it. By my definition, I'm an agnost, by yours, I'm an atheist.
We had some confusing misunderstandings for sure.
When I'm talking about a metaphysical definition of god, to me it's implicitly obvious that that definition limits itself to a creator only, and that it's nonsense to assume that man can know anything more about god besides that he created the universe, knowledge religious beliefs claim to have. It can be easily proved this is not correct because all religions define gods "behaviour" differently. I hope this clarifies why I'm opposing religion to philosophy and why I find this definition of god universal.You and Martin also define atheism differently. To me, atheism has always meant rejecting the possibility that there exists a god who created the universe. For you guys, it's just not believing in it. By my definition, I'm an agnost, by yours, I'm an atheist.
We had some confusing misunderstandings for sure. When I'm talking about a metaphysical definition of god, to me it's implicitly obvious that that definition limits itself to a creator only, and that it's nonsense to assume that man can know anything more about god besides that he created the universe, knowledge religious beliefs claim to have. It can be easily proved this is not correct because all religions define gods "behaviour" differently. I hope this clarifies why I'm opposing religion to philosophy and why I find this definition of god universal.
When I'm talking about a metaphysical definition of god, to me it's implicitly obvious that that definition limits itself to a creator only, and that it's nonsense to assume that man can know anything more about god besides that he created the universe, knowledge religious beliefs claim to have. It can be easily proved this is not correct because all religions define gods "behaviour" differently. I hope this clarifies why I'm opposing religion to philosophy and why I find this definition of god universal.
If you did that, then I think the hypothesis about god is on a stronger footing, because at least now the picture is cohesive.
Sorry to bring up a 2.5 year old thread, but I've been reading this for the past 5 hours and find some of the arguments really interesting. It had great moments, like when *aca* posted his rebuttal against 3EBlind\JuveRev, and 3EBlind saying the Bible is historic fact, Martin and verynine's arguments, and Burke's involvement! 
aca... you deserve this: 
. 3blind, after reading this thread, I lost a little respect for you man. But that happens for any person taking the Bible or any religious holy book so seriously.
Martin, I think there are 2 types of religions: theistic religion and atheistic religion. Buddhism and Jainism are examples of the latter. Both of them do not believe in a God that created this world and have no creation myths. They both propagate a strong moral values, and suggest you should adopt a certain way of life to end suffering and a cycle of rebirth. Though I don't really believe in rebirth or we having a soul that passes on to the next body, these 2 are currently the only religions I can take seriously. So 3Blind, here's proof that morality can exist without god. And regarding the actual discussion, I find it completely ignorant\arrogant of how you only consider a Christian god and totally disregard all other gods, or at least the ones widely followed around the world today. Just because you were born into a Christian family and were indoctrinated with Christian beliefs, doesn't mean you shouldn't consider other gods for the sake of argument. True, that the First\Second Commandment says you shall not have any other god before me, I still thought you would consider it anyway. And I think this is one of the reasons why it's difficult, if not impossible, to prove the existence of god. There simply are so many gods, and you just don't know whom to start with, and what evidence to gather\look for or which god are you gonna try to prove really exists. It's simply not enough to prove that the god that does exist is one with a generic name of 'god', and you'd need to put the identity of one of these 2000+ gods (known to us) to the character that we'll prove.
Regarding creationism and evolution. If indeed an intelligent designer\creator created us, then why does he give any explanation of how he did it? Anyone can come along and claim to create something. But it's equally important that the supposed creator explains how and why he created the things the way he did for anyone to actually believe him or take him seriously. If they truly created something of such grandeur, then it's only common that they explain how and why they did it (except in the modern world, where there is IP theft and copyright infringements). And I'm not talking about the process of making a man from sand and a woman from mans ribs or some senseless bullshit like that, but the intricate scientific details like DNA, proteins, tissues, ligaments, how the immune system works, how brain controls the rest of the body, etc. AFAIK, none of the creation myths explain this, and instead use some spooky, magical means to describe the tip of the iceberg. I mean, if you were to create something so grand, complex and beautiful, and then write a holy book bragging about yourself, you'd at least mention the details of this creation. It doesn't matter if people of the immediate future actually get it or not. If there is a way that you created something, then explain it no matter what. What's worse is when some creationists claim that evolution was possibly one of the ways that god created us. To consider that all he gave was a silly description about 2000 years ago and does NOTHING more about it since. And then scientists take hundreds of years to come up with a brilliant theory based on lots of research and manpower spent, and then these religious followers claim that it was one of gods methods to create it, I feel like strangling them with Osman's cock! Arrogant pricks! Evolution is still the best theory, or as some people claim as fact, about how life came into existence. While I have not researched and studied extensively, but it simply has more evidence than any creation myths.
As for that part about God and aliens, 3blind, have you heard about a series on History Channel called Ancient Aliens? It presents a pretty plausible theory that aliens did in fact visit Earth in the past and helped us progress. It states that humans beings who inhabited Earth several thousands of years ago might have misinterpreted aliens as gods in their religions. They present various descriptions of the arrival of such gods as witnessed by ancient humans, possible alien technology, idols and statues that look like astronauts in space suits and flying machines among other things. If you believe in the talking snake, walking on water, turning water into wine, and resurrection, then you really shouldn't have a problem in believing this theory.
And your question whether I would kill a man if I could get away with it, and why I wouldn't. Well here's a few reasons. First, I will only treat a human just like how I want to be treated in return. Yeah, karma. I do not want to be killed by a person if I was in the same situation. Second, if I do indeed kill a person, I'd be filled with guilt, shame and torment. It could possibly have mental repercussions and might never be able to live with myself. Also, there is a possibility that you're lying, and that I might actually get caught by the police, or maybe an angry mob. Something like a sting operation. Plus, I could underestimate my victim, and he could counter my attack on him\her, steal my weapon, and kill me instead. I can't think of any more reasons than this, cos I've never really killed a person.
To end this post, I just want to say that the best answer any human can give to such a question is "I don't know". Cos this is what we eventually know... NOTHING. No matter how much we've tried to explain it, we've always hit a dead end. Evolution cannot explain how the first living cell(that later multiplied and evolved into more complex organisms) came into being, and creationism cannot explain how the creator came into being. God, religion and everything else that we believe to be the answer to such questions are just another useless theory until we come to the same conclusion: we don't know! In effect, God and religion is just a redundancy. But while religion is static, science is progressive. While religion gave a primitive explanation, and ceased to give any other over the past millenniums, science always finds out something new in life and offers an explanation to what already exists. If I need to put my faith on one of these two, it has to be science. It's the only one that has shown any signs of comprehensively answering questions and explaining things. I don't believe it'll be possible for science to answer everything in my lifetime(unlike how you think Jesus will return on yours), but I sincerely hope that mankind exists long enough so that we do eventually find the answer to it all and have the opportunity to appreciate its brilliance fully before the earth gets recycled!
Peace.
aca... you deserve this: . 3blind, after reading this thread, I lost a little respect for you man. But that happens for any person taking the Bible or any religious holy book so seriously.Martin, I think there are 2 types of religions: theistic religion and atheistic religion. Buddhism and Jainism are examples of the latter. Both of them do not believe in a God that created this world and have no creation myths. They both propagate a strong moral values, and suggest you should adopt a certain way of life to end suffering and a cycle of rebirth. Though I don't really believe in rebirth or we having a soul that passes on to the next body, these 2 are currently the only religions I can take seriously. So 3Blind, here's proof that morality can exist without god. And regarding the actual discussion, I find it completely ignorant\arrogant of how you only consider a Christian god and totally disregard all other gods, or at least the ones widely followed around the world today. Just because you were born into a Christian family and were indoctrinated with Christian beliefs, doesn't mean you shouldn't consider other gods for the sake of argument. True, that the First\Second Commandment says you shall not have any other god before me, I still thought you would consider it anyway. And I think this is one of the reasons why it's difficult, if not impossible, to prove the existence of god. There simply are so many gods, and you just don't know whom to start with, and what evidence to gather\look for or which god are you gonna try to prove really exists. It's simply not enough to prove that the god that does exist is one with a generic name of 'god', and you'd need to put the identity of one of these 2000+ gods (known to us) to the character that we'll prove.
Regarding creationism and evolution. If indeed an intelligent designer\creator created us, then why does he give any explanation of how he did it? Anyone can come along and claim to create something. But it's equally important that the supposed creator explains how and why he created the things the way he did for anyone to actually believe him or take him seriously. If they truly created something of such grandeur, then it's only common that they explain how and why they did it (except in the modern world, where there is IP theft and copyright infringements). And I'm not talking about the process of making a man from sand and a woman from mans ribs or some senseless bullshit like that, but the intricate scientific details like DNA, proteins, tissues, ligaments, how the immune system works, how brain controls the rest of the body, etc. AFAIK, none of the creation myths explain this, and instead use some spooky, magical means to describe the tip of the iceberg. I mean, if you were to create something so grand, complex and beautiful, and then write a holy book bragging about yourself, you'd at least mention the details of this creation. It doesn't matter if people of the immediate future actually get it or not. If there is a way that you created something, then explain it no matter what. What's worse is when some creationists claim that evolution was possibly one of the ways that god created us. To consider that all he gave was a silly description about 2000 years ago and does NOTHING more about it since. And then scientists take hundreds of years to come up with a brilliant theory based on lots of research and manpower spent, and then these religious followers claim that it was one of gods methods to create it, I feel like strangling them with Osman's cock! Arrogant pricks! Evolution is still the best theory, or as some people claim as fact, about how life came into existence. While I have not researched and studied extensively, but it simply has more evidence than any creation myths.
As for that part about God and aliens, 3blind, have you heard about a series on History Channel called Ancient Aliens? It presents a pretty plausible theory that aliens did in fact visit Earth in the past and helped us progress. It states that humans beings who inhabited Earth several thousands of years ago might have misinterpreted aliens as gods in their religions. They present various descriptions of the arrival of such gods as witnessed by ancient humans, possible alien technology, idols and statues that look like astronauts in space suits and flying machines among other things. If you believe in the talking snake, walking on water, turning water into wine, and resurrection, then you really shouldn't have a problem in believing this theory.
And your question whether I would kill a man if I could get away with it, and why I wouldn't. Well here's a few reasons. First, I will only treat a human just like how I want to be treated in return. Yeah, karma. I do not want to be killed by a person if I was in the same situation. Second, if I do indeed kill a person, I'd be filled with guilt, shame and torment. It could possibly have mental repercussions and might never be able to live with myself. Also, there is a possibility that you're lying, and that I might actually get caught by the police, or maybe an angry mob. Something like a sting operation. Plus, I could underestimate my victim, and he could counter my attack on him\her, steal my weapon, and kill me instead. I can't think of any more reasons than this, cos I've never really killed a person.
To end this post, I just want to say that the best answer any human can give to such a question is "I don't know". Cos this is what we eventually know... NOTHING. No matter how much we've tried to explain it, we've always hit a dead end. Evolution cannot explain how the first living cell(that later multiplied and evolved into more complex organisms) came into being, and creationism cannot explain how the creator came into being. God, religion and everything else that we believe to be the answer to such questions are just another useless theory until we come to the same conclusion: we don't know! In effect, God and religion is just a redundancy. But while religion is static, science is progressive. While religion gave a primitive explanation, and ceased to give any other over the past millenniums, science always finds out something new in life and offers an explanation to what already exists. If I need to put my faith on one of these two, it has to be science. It's the only one that has shown any signs of comprehensively answering questions and explaining things. I don't believe it'll be possible for science to answer everything in my lifetime(unlike how you think Jesus will return on yours), but I sincerely hope that mankind exists long enough so that we do eventually find the answer to it all and have the opportunity to appreciate its brilliance fully before the earth gets recycled!
Peace.
I not telling you that you don't have morals. But if the only reason you're being moral is due to the fear of God, and his judgement, and the fear of ending up in hell, then that's not the right thing to base your moral values on. Morality can exist without the fear of God. Buddhism and Jainism are great proof of this. They leave out all the miracles and creation myths and afterlife and simply teach you to be moral in life. I'm not saying you need to convert to either of these religions either. Don't get me wrong. But like *aca* asked in this thread: if a scientist were to irrefutably prove tomorrow that there is no God, absolutely, whom will you kill, rape or rob first? It's questions like these that made me really question a need for belief God, if one exists on the first place.
What if aliens ARE the gods that are depicted in the holy scriptures? What if the concept of heaven and hell was made up?
What if aliens ARE the gods that are depicted in the holy scriptures? What if the concept of heaven and hell was made up?