Does God exist? (William Lane Craig vs Peter Atkins debate) (14 Viewers)

[AndreaCristiano]

what did i do this time

Nothing you were giving some good stuff so I didn't feel the need to add

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[AndreaCristiano]

There is one thing that I find quite interesting about some theists is that they believe so much that their beliefs are true that they will never recognize that their arguments are fallacious when an atheist clearly points it out.

Oh, and the theists' favorite tool: Circular reasoning.

You say this as your reasoning has been evasive

 

[Trequartista]

You say this as your reasoning has been evasive

Really? May you point how it has been evasive?

 

[GordoDeCentral]

Nothing you were giving some good stuff so I didn't feel the need to add

oh that, i must have been really bored that day

 

[AndreaCristiano]

Really? May you point how it has been evasive?

Well atheists always point to one or two "facts " and then ignore questions posed by believers or act like the questions are irrelevant. For instance atheists here were stating how its ok for a theist to believe God came from nothing but not ok to believe the universe sprang from nothing. well scientific theory doesn't allow for something from nothing. In the realm of the natural that is against all natural laws. God on the other hand lives outside the laws of nature so it doesn't apply

 

[Trequartista]

Well atheists always point to one or two "facts " and then ignore questions posed by believers or act like the questions are irrelevant. For instance atheists here were stating how its ok for a theist to believe God came from nothing but not ok to believe the universe sprang from nothing. well scientific theory doesn't allow for something from nothing. In the realm of the natural that is against all natural laws. God on the other hand lives outside the laws of nature so it doesn't apply

The thing is, saying that it came out of nothing doesn't help as we just don't know what it was. A good analogy would be that before the big bang, the universe was compressed in a suitcase. The thing is, what was outside of the suitcase?

We just don't know what happened. If I can sum up the theistic position:

-The Big Bang happened out of nothing.
-Something can't come out of nothing.
-Therefore, God caused the Big Bang.

We don't know if it was nothing, scientists like Hawking and Krauss have recently argued that the laws of physics and quantum mechanics could explain the Big Bang. It's only a theory and they don't know yet but I find that approach much more rational then creating a false dilemma and using an argument from ignorance. Was the big bang a singularity? Sure. Nevertheless, we don't know how it happened.

Furthermore, using that theistic approach serves nothing as you would have then to explain how God came into existence and as I said, special pleading doesn't work.

 

[AndreaCristiano]

Your argument is all in supposition that man's limited knowledge is the be all and end all. Also the supposition that because we dot know or understand it in our realm of reality/ understanding then it can not be. We look to men and their theories and laud them as the pinnacle of thought and understanding yet in reality we know minuscule amounts and most is just theory and not truth

 

[Trequartista]

We don't know yet how it happened, like Darwin's theory of evolution had massive holes at its beginning, which were well filed after more than a century of archaeological and biological research.

We may well be able to understand the Big Bang theory better in a few decades and the increasing understanding of quantum mechanics might well help a lot to come to that point where we know how it happened.

I'd rather accept that than use the fallacious Kalam cosmological argument that utilizes special pleading to justify the existence of a god that is unsupported by evidence.

 

[AndreaCristiano]

We don't know yet how it happened, like Darwin's theory of evolution had massive holes at its beginning, which were well filed after more than a century of archaeological and biological research.

We may well be able to understand the Big Bang theory better in a few decades and the increasing understanding of quantum mechanics might well help a lot to come to that point where we know how it happened.

In the end we will never know all and some day science will point towards God I mean I already believe it does its just a matter of when others come to see it

 

[Trequartista]

In the end we will never know all and some day science will point towards God I mean I already believe it does its just a matter of when others come to see it

Well, that's your point of view, which I am glad to not share.

 

[AndreaCristiano]

Well, that's your point of view, which I am glad to not share.

That's fine you can be elitist and " be glad you don't share " my point of view like its below you but billions of people share my point of few just a smattering share yours

 

[Trequartista]

That's fine you can be elitist and " be glad you don't share " my point of view like its below you but billions of people share my point of few just a smattering share yours

You're now appealing to popularity. Great.

 

[ALC]

80-20 rule.

 

[AndreaCristiano]

You're now appealing to popularity. Great.

Not about being popularity its that you say as though my belief in this is beneath you and your suppossed intelligence so in summation you basically called billions ignorant with your arrogance

 

[Trequartista]

Not about being popularity its that you say as though my belief in this is beneath you and your suppossed intelligence so in summation you basically called billions ignorant with your arrogance

I am glad to not share your point of view as I think that basing one's belief on evidence and logical arguments is more rational than basing it on faith and logical fallacies.

I didn't imply that billions are ignorant, as a matter of fact, millions of theists are probably more knowledgeable than I am. I don't think that belief in theism is stupid or ignorant, I just find it irrational, which is different.

 

[AndreaCristiano]

I am glad to not share your point of view as I think that basing one's belief on evidence and logical arguments is more rational than basing it on faith and logical fallacies.

I didn't imply that billions are ignorant, as a matter of fact, millions of theists are probably more knowledgeable than I am. I don't think that belief in theism is stupid or ignorant, I just find it irrational, which is different.

Why do you find it irrational? that implys that all believers are irrational. what is so irrational about believing in something greater than one self ? Believing that man doesn't have the market cornered on knowledge and understanding. 50 years ago people would say this cellphone m typing this on was fiction and irrational but now its reality. just because at this time you do not see it doesn't mean its not true or possible

 

[Trequartista]

Why do you find it irrational? that implys that all believers are irrational. what is so irrational about believing in something greater than one self ?

It would be rational if it was supported by evidence and not innately contradictory(omnipotent, benevolent, omniscient, etc.).

 

[AndreaCristiano]

It would be rational if it was supported by evidence and not contradictory by nature.

Evidence ? You mean the s scientific evidence that in the 70s said there was global cooling and now global warming. that rock solid evidence that never changes? Like that evidence?

 

[Trequartista]

Evidence ? You mean the s scientific evidence that in the 70s said there was global cooling and now global warming. that rock solid evidence that never changes? Like that evidence?

Evidences don't change, interpretations and theories do.

 

[AndreaCristiano]

Evidence don't change, theories do.

Umm what? In the 1970 all the " prominent " scientist had evidence pointing to a cooling and possible new ice age. now they have evidence which points to a massive heating and melting. how didn't it change ?