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

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Well just so you know, here's my belief system: believe in anything that has material evidence and a logical explanation supporting it, even if this system leads me to believe in something I didn't believe in a day ago, or abandon what I believe in right now. Thus I keep my mind open for new evidence, explanations and facts.

I'm not sure of you answered my question, but how do you define 'spirituality'?

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Raz]

to put it simply - as in there is more than only material world.

IMO one should not abandon that side, because like muscle dies when not used spirituality dies too if not practiced.

But you are not keeping your mind open since only truth or reality to you is something that is proven, but I think you will agree that there are many things that are not yet proven but are very much real. Wouldn't that mean that for something to be real it doesn't need proof?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Nope. For something to be real, there definitely has to be proof(I think evidence is the right word here though). If there is no proof for something, how do you know it is there? How do you know there's a snake on the table you're sitting in front of right now? You're table may be empty and show no signs of a snake being there. But would you still believe that there's a snake there? Would you believe that there's an elf in your computer that actually is responsible for displaying the things you see on your monitor? If you opened your computer and found no evidence of such an elf, would you still believe that there's an elf there?

For something to be real, there has to be evidence.

 

[Raz]

So until the point where evidence is discovered object doesn't exist?

Edit: anyway, you don't look for questions which go beyond the physical world with techniques that is meant to find evidence in the physical word. That is why there is such things as philosophy religions and etc. You need mind to try to answer those questions not some some magnifying glasses.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

So until the point where evidence is discovered object doesn't exist?

Edit: anyway, you won't look for questions which go beyond the physical world with techniques that is meant to find evidence in the physical word. That is why there is such things as philosophy religions and etc. You need mind to try to answer those questions not some some magnifying glasses.

To our knowledge, yes.

EDIT: You need your mind to answer evidence found in the physical world too. It's not like the theory of evolution was found through a magnifying glass. It had to be observed for a long time and enough thought had to be put into it.

Crap, got a meeting. Hang on.

 

[Raz]

But surely you can understand that by identifying evidence of some objects existence you don't create that object, because that object was there way before we even began searching for it.

Once we found evidence that sun goes around earth we agreed that it was doing this way before we found evidence of this. And what you say would mean that it wasn't true, and that the earth orbit was adapting to scientific progress along with our found evidence.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

But surely you can understand that by identifying evidence of some objects existence you don't create that object, because that object was there way before we even began searching for it.

Once we found evidence that sun goes around earth we agreed that it was doing this way before we found evidence of this. And what you say would mean that it wasn't true, and that the earth orbit was adapting to scientific progress along with our found evidence.

But if the object does not reveal its existence, or if we do not find it, then how do we know it exists? Did people know that dinosaurs existed before the first dinosaur fossil was found? I don't think so. Cos they had no evidence to believe that such a creature existed. And then when they found the fossils, it opened up the possibility that a creature like this could exist. Later, with more fossil evidence, and dating technologies, we found that they did exist and they died out millions of years ago.

Now any person could've imagined that such a creature could exist even before the first fossil was found. But just because he thought of it and came to the conclusion that it is possible, doesn't mean that it's true at that point cos there is no evidence supporting its existence at that point. It's certainly possible, but until proven, it does not officially exist. I can keep open the possibility of someone presenting proper evidence for it in the future, but until then, I am not gonna believe in it in the same way I believe that Buffon is a Juventus player.

 

[Raz]

But those creatures existed even though that we didn't knew about them, I mean they weren't created out of thin air when we discovered about them, that means they were always there just that we didn't knew about them.

So us not knowing stuff means just that, that we do not know if the stuff is there, not that there is no stuff altogether.

And what do you mean officialy? like officilay the earth was flat while some said it wasn't?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

But those creatures existed even though that we didn't knew about them, I mean they weren't created out of thin air when we discovered about them, that means they were always there just that we didn't knew about them.

So us not knowing stuff means just that, that we do not know if the stuff is there, not that there is no stuff altogether.

You're only able to say this cos you have the advantage of hindsight. If you asked the same question in a time when there was no knowledge of dinosaur fossils, what reaction would you get? Would they believe you? Would they believe it just because you claimed to know that they exist? They would call you crazy to believe in something like that. And that is what is happening right now. You're making claims about things for which you have no evidence of, but only a reasoning of probability.

This is the problem if you believe in things despite the lack of evidence. We'll have such pointless arguments while getting nowhere cos there simply is no evidence using which we can come to a conclusion. All you'll ever give is a reason that it could or should exist, but nothing to prove that it DOES exist.

 

[Raz]

But that doesn't mean that the dinosaurs were non existent until proven, they have existed regardless of our knowledge about them. We didn't impact their existence. Because what you say means we impacted and in fact created dinosaurs.

They were in existence regardless of our knowledge about them. It's like saying gravity didn't exists until we knew about it.

 

[Raz]

Anyway I'm off to bed, good night.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

But that doesn't mean that the dinosaurs were non existent until proven, they have existed regardless of our knowledge about them. We didn't impact their existence. Because what you say means we impacted and in fact created dinosaurs.

They were in existence regardless of our knowledge about them. It's like saying gravity didn't exists until we knew about it.

Your logic is flawed. I know what you're trying to say, but it is flawed. If we apply the same logic, then everything we've ever heard of or read of, no matter how improbable it is, does exist but we're just yet to find evidence for it. But it does exist.

And good night.

 

[Raz]

Your logic is flawed. I know what you're trying to say, but it is flawed. If we apply the same logic, then everything we've ever heard of or read of, no matter how improbable it is, does exist but we're just yet to find evidence for it. But it does exist.

And good night.

Good morning

Lets take two sets of people living far apart from each, one are very advanced and the others are not, one side knows about the other while the other have no idea. Now imagine one of them is you the one with the knowledge, so this would mean you know about them and they exist, but on the other hand these village people don't have any evidence that you exist, would that make you non existent?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that stuff is very much real independintly of us knowing about it. We don't know a lot about our universe and forces shaping it, yet those forces are very much real and I think they are influencing us in our daily lives without any difference if we know about them or not.

Or would you like to say that we are not influenced by forces that we cannot explain don't have proof or even don't know about? Or the forces are kicking in action only when we have discovered proof of their existence? That can't be true.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Why are you so obsessed with ethereal forces? could it be possible that an invisible pink unicorn is what drives us rather than this "force"? If we go by your logic, ANYTHING can be this force. It's too arbitrary. Any person could come up with a story like this with a different definition of this force, and we'd have to accept it cos we're yet to find it's evidence. This is why your logic is flawed. It's a self-fulfilling logic that cannot be applied in the real world.

 

[Raz]

But you will see that throughout time people no matter when and where they lived somehow agreed that there is some kind of force. So this is not something some dude just said out of context. Somehow every era of our known man always looked for it, why does that happen if such forces are non existent? I mean how can non existing force be such a constant throughout our time?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Just because a lot of people believe in something does not make it true.

 

[Raz]

Do you believe in big bang theory? Can we question that on the same grounds too?

Things that are false would not stand the test of time? How many buildings with bad foundations do you know that really stood for long?

But we are not going anywhere with this, at least in the near future

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I believe in the BBT. While it is not a perfect theory and that answers all questions raised, it considers material evidence and gives the best possible explanation based on our current knowledge. And I will believe in this until there is a newer theory than does a better job than BBT. And I do think that the BBT will not stand the test of time. Cos when our understanding of the universe increases, we will find better ways to explain it and how it was created. I say it again: I do not expect humans to get the theory of the universe's creation right the first time.

 

[Nedvěd]

God loves his virgins.

 

[Mohad]

When an atheist argue a lot and say that there is no God, to me that's an evidence that God is pursuing them. Why would they argue about God existence if He's not pursuing them?

I didn't ask to be a Muslim, I'm just lucky. ALLAH O AKBAR!!!