Does God exist? (William Lane Craig vs Peter Atkins debate) (43 Viewers)

[ALC]

Tha lawd tawlks ta me. He say listen to yo' massa' and go werk the in tha fieels.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I'm not believing in any god who somehow influenced people to write those books, and I'm not saying that these books are divine holy or any other supernatural meaning. And certainly don't believe in any personal god who has feelings or any of the emotions attributed to us humans.

I'm just saying that these books, writings or whatever holds deeper meanings than hold the test of time and to think otherwise is odd to me. In these books are written things like love, don't hate and you will be happy, do whatever in your power to do good and you will feel better (i'm kinda tired so i'm just generalising now ) I mean that still is true today as in the day it was written or first said dont you think? These books are nothing divine or holy, they are just written expirience from years and years of generations and throughout generations these stories wouldn't have survived if they were not true, it is this way that it is proven that they are true.

So tu turn from spirituality and to imerse yourself in this scientific truth is very dangerous, because not only you are believing in things, (because it is belief, just different kind) that tomorrow might not be true, but you are things that leads you nowhere. Btw, I'm in no way against science, I just think that the direction we take is the wrong one, the one that leads nowhere, the one that with every new theory makes more questions and that is because I think we should live happy lives and science in no way can bring you inner happines while religion or spirituality I think can.

And I won't even go to the debate 'who created the creator' because to me it is obsolete, you will to these infinity loop if you go there and will not be any more happy while trying to find the next creator.

I think these texts should be taken as life guide not as an scientific explanation of universe creation. Because these text are written by people, maybe those people were a bit more in contact with the world and new a bunch of stuff more then us but they were still written by people, and you should take them as that. But not forget that these text with their stories are way before us and the information would not have gone through if it were false.

I just want to ask you one question? what is the point of all this huge thing we cannot understand and what will be achieved if science one day would actually proven something that couldn't be disproved like the formula of the universe and its creation or something like that? What would that achieve in the end?

What you're talking about in the 2nd paragraph Raz is morality and a guide to living. If you had really thought about science, you'd realize that science does not deal with what people should do and should behave like. Science is not a guide to life. Science only tries to explain how the things around us are made and what they do. Science allows for a better understanding of the things around us and in us. These man-made texts do a good job at flinging morality and way of living into our faces though elaborate story-telling techniques, corrupting children's mind through tradition and religious heads preaching it to large amounts of people everyday. But the premise of it all is bullshit. Judging our actions in an afterlife and getting appropriate rewards in the form of heaven and hell is ridiculous. You've at least abandoned this, I assume from your posts, which is a step in the right direction.

How do you know that everything written in it is true? How do you know that it wasn't forged\falsified? All it takes is to write lies and proclaim them as the truth, and then have to power to silence all the people who speak against it. Once there is no one opposing this, it becomes the new truth.

What do we achieve in the end? Well as you put it: peace of mind. Peace of mind that we have answers to many of the unanswered questions we had before.

 

[Ford Prefect]

Still with the south park examples

I can't help it that south park provides some of the best moral social commentary or any satirical program lol

 

[Raz]

What you're talking about in the 2nd paragraph Raz is morality and a guide to living. If you had really thought about science, you'd realize that science does not deal with what people should do and should behave like. Science is not a guide to life. Science only tries to explain how the things around us are made and what they do. Science allows for a better understanding of the things around us and in us. These man-made texts do a good job at flinging morality and way of living into our faces though elaborate story-telling techniques, corrupting children's mind through tradition and religious heads preaching it to large amounts of people everyday. But the premise of it all is bullshit. Judging our actions in an afterlife and getting appropriate rewards in the form of heaven and hell is ridiculous. You've at least abandoned this, I assume from your posts, which is a step in the right direction.

How do you know that everything written in it is true? How do you know that it wasn't forged\falsified? All it takes is to write lies and proclaim them as the truth, and then have to power to silence all the people who speak against it. Once there is no one opposing this, it becomes the new truth.

What do we achieve in the end? Well as you put it: peace of mind. Peace of mind that we have answers to many of the unanswered questions we had before.

Well I never said science is bad and we should keep doing it, but it should not be a substitute for spirituality that is a fact, they are two seperate things. And not believing in any spirituality is like abandoning one of your senses.

About hell, heaven and the premises that you have to do good or you will burn all eternity in hell Well if you think of us humans as not only material thing body, but and some etherial or some other form of energy then that thought doesn't sound too rediculus, not that you will burn in hell, but that deeds that you do in this life will transfer to your next in one way or another might be true and you will get things accordingly to what you have done.

As for the truth, well if you would look to every major religion you will see that the ideas behind their stories are the same, and I'm saying that not the stories themselfs are true, but ideas behind them, and they are true because they are proven by time, because the ideas were true then as it is now.

Will you achieve a piece of mind when and if we discover the higgs participle? I don't think so.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Well I never said science is bad and we should keep doing it, but it should not be a substitute for spirituality that is a fact, they are two seperate things. And not believing in any spirituality is like abandoning one of your senses.

Well duh! Of course it's not a substitute for spirituality. I never said it was. But you said that immersing yourself in scientific truth is dangerous. And danger is bad, in its most basic sense. So tell me again, why is believing in science dangerous? Why would believing that water is made out of 2 atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen be dangerous? How is believing in the theory of evolution dangerous?

Also I must ask, what is your definition of spirituality?

About hell, heaven and the premises that you have to do good or you will burn all eternity in hell Well if you think of us humans as not only material thing body, but and some etherial or some other form of energy then that thought doesn't sound too rediculus, not that you will burn in hell, but that deeds that you do in this life will transfer to your next in one way or another might be true and you will get things accordingly to what you have done.

What proof do you have that humans are not material things? Do you have proof of some ethereal form of energy that has been scientifically proven through experimentation and testing? Do you have any proof of a new life after death? Do you know where this new life will be? If that place is earth, then do you have any proof that the life we're leading right now is a result of out past deeds? Do you know what these deeds are? Do you know the basis on which the worth of our deeds are measured on? How much value a particular deed carries?

Do you see what I did here? Your idea of life after death has raised so many questions. Yet you choose to believe in this and not science when science apparently does the same thing: answer one question and raise several others.

As for the truth, well if you would look to every major religion you will see that the ideas behind their stories are the same, and I'm saying that not the stories themselfs are true, but ideas behind them, and they are true because they are proven by time, because the ideas were true then as it is now.

Then why not just state the ideas themselves and not through some mythical, non-sensical, illogical stories? I admit that there's definitely some stories that have no such bullshit and are completely possible in real life. That's OK. But you can't deny that a lot of these stories are quite the opposite. Why not keep it simple, so that there's no room for misinterpretation, and everyone from a child to a man on his deathbed will understand it?

Will you achieve a piece of mind when and if we discover the higgs participle? I don't think so.

Maybe I will. How do you know that I won't? Are you omniscient all of a sudden?

 

[Raz]

Well the stories are there for ordinary people to understand, so that they could relate to them. And you should remember that those stories are told for people who lived many years before us, so even though the stories themself may be obsolete so to speak, but the core ideas behind them is till very muhc true today as it was then.

What I said is dangerous about in science is not believing that water = h2o, but that you start denying everything that is not yet proven by science.

Don't get me wrong I have any proof that would satisfy you that we are not just material beings, because for that you should search within yourself, no other way it will be proven I think.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Well the stories are there for ordinary people to understand, so that they could relate to them. And you should remember that those stories are told for people who lived many years before us, so even though the stories themself may be obsolete so to speak, but the core ideas behind them is till very muhc true today as it was then.

Fine. I'll give you that. Now can you tell me what an ordinary person should make of the story of Noah? And what underlying meaning we should take from it considering that a man can't possibly fit 2 animals of each species on a boat?

What I said is dangerous about in science is not believing that water = h2o, but that you start denying everything that is not yet proven by science.

What unproven things are you referring to here?

Don't get me wrong I have any proof that would satisfy you that we are not just material beings, because for that you should search within yourself, no other way it will be proven I think.

Can you tell me how I go about searching myself for the answers to any of those questions I asked? Better yet, can you tell me what you did to find the "proof" for this within yourself?

 

[Raz]

I don't know I'm no expert and yet you expect me to answer everything for you

Boat thing, don't know maybe that we need veriaty of species to survive? Who knows maybe there was some flood many many years ago. This is such a non essential thing to be focused on.

I was talking about todays theorys being obsolete tomrorow (I think there is abundence of examples throughout history of this)

I think this search is life long one and i'm still searching.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I don't know I'm no expert and yet you expect me to answer everything for you

Boat thing, don't know maybe that we need veriaty of species to survive? Who knows maybe there was some flood many many years ago. This is such a non essential thing to be focused on.

I was talking about todays theorys being obsolete tomrorow (I think there is abundence of examples throughout history of this)

I think this search is life long one and i'm still searching.

Yup, trying to find invisible stuff is quite useless and won't lead us anywhere.

Seriously, what is so wrong about a theory being obsolete? Why don't you wanna accept a better theory? Why do you wanna stick to old theories just because they came first? Why does this have to be constant and binding? In this world, nothing lasts forever but the certainty of change. This is true for almost everything. Why can't you accept this? Why can't you accept reality for what it is?

 

[Raz]

Who said I don't want to accept new theory? I just said that you on one hand you have stuff changing and stuff that today was true tomorrow is not and on the other you have things that were and are true for a long long time.

Basicaly I accept new theories and etc, but I don't base my belief system around it. Science can only show you material world, but that doesn't mean that there is nothing besides material things just because you only look through science glasses.

You know what reality is? It would be interesting to hear about it?

 

[Fred]

@Ghaith, since when have you changed your beliefs? if you don't mind me asking. and why exactly?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I'm asking you again: would you not believe in a theory that has evidence to support it? Would you not believe in evidence? Yes or no?

Reality to me is the material world I live in and see and experience till I die.

 

[Raz]

I think I answered that already. I don't dismiss current scientific facts, but I don't base my beliefs system around them, because I know that in science what is truth today may not be tommorrow.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Incredible! So you're belief system has not changed since the day you were capable of thinking. Man, that's quite an achievement. Congratulations.

 

[Fred]

Sheikh, you were the last one i expected to get involved in these kind of debates. Have you always been interested in these kind of topics, but didn't get involved, or is it a new thing?

I like the new you, almost like the Asian version of Martin

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Sheikh, you were the last one i expected to get involved in these kind of debates. Have you always been interested in these kind of topics, but didn't get involved, or is it a new thing?

I like the new you, almost like the Asian version of Martin

I started doubting God and his powers at about the age of 19-20. Till then, I used to go to temples, offer my prayers, throw some coins into the donation boxes in the temples, and perform all the religious rituals during festivals, holy days, etc. Between then and till a year ago, I slowly stopped doing these things. Stopped visiting temples, bow and pray to God, asking him to take care of me, eating prasad, and doing what religious people here normally do. It's only after I got into my new job a year ago, that I got more time to focus my attention towards it and seek more info about it to support my opinion. I must admit that I rarely visited or even posted in this Religion sub-forum until a few months ago. It was a slow process. One starting from being religious, to casually religious, to deism, and then agnosticism. I'm still lingering somewhere between agnosticism and atheism.

I'm proud to be associated with Martin here.

 

[Fred]

I started doubting God and his powers at about the age of 19-20. Till then, I used to go to temples, offer my prayers, throw some coins into the donation boxes in the temples, and perform all the religious rituals during festivals, holy days, etc. Between then and till a year ago, I slowly stopped doing these things. Stopped visiting temples, bow and pray to God, asking him to take care of me, eating prasad, and doing what religious people here normally do. It's only after I got into my new job a year ago, that I got more time to focus my attention towards it and seek more info about it to support my opinion. I must admit that I rarely visited or even posted in this Religion sub-forum until a few months ago. It was a slow process. One starting from being religious, to casually religious, to deism, and then agnosticism. I'm still lingering somewhere between agnosticism and atheism.

I'm proud to be associated with Martin here.

Groupie

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Groupie

I believe 'geek' is the appropriate terminology!

 

[Fred]

The two are not mutually exclusive

 

[Raz]

Incredible! So you're belief system has not changed since the day you were capable of thinking. Man, that's quite an achievement. Congratulations.

Lol no need to congratulate me, I did said that these questions needs a liftetime to answer and you think i have didn't change my beliefs or altered in someway or the other when presented with new information?

For me at least in the past it was constantly moving to the both sides, but for some time now science is loosing the battle in me, and I'm starting to feel more and more that science is fighting a loosing battle, because it cannot answer the most important and deepest questions, not how questions but why.

Somehow I feel that you think that I claim or try to argue that my view is the right one, that is not the case here, i'm just saying my opinion without any intention to convert you or to prove anything.

Though it is sad that somethign like evolution theory convinced someone to abondon their spiritual trainings.