Does God exist? (William Lane Craig vs Peter Atkins debate) (24 Viewers)

[Nzoric]

Absolutely, someone saying that the earth is a few thousand years old because he read it in the Bible should not be taken seriously, as opposed to someone saying that the earth is 4.2 billion years old according to scientific findings. In these matters, I believe you are right. However, I do think that some questions should not include science or theology at all. These would include the existence of God, the existence of souls, and questions of morality, to name a few.

It's hard to separate one from the other. Take the question of morality as an example. Depends if you are a moral relativist or if you believe in common moral guidelines. The majority of people today steer away from moral relativism because of the problems it causes (some argue that it could cause indifference). The majority who accept common moral guidelines in the Western World, accept common Christian moral guidelines. Whether we like it or not, Europe has been under strict churchly control since the Western Roman Empire collapsed, through the Dark Ages till the Renaissance. Which brings us up to the question in focus here, if I believe in morality as it's known in Europe - am I accepting Christian morality or am I simply accepting something which in my eyes has become common? It's insanely hard to separate religion from these questions. And this goes for pretty much every philosophical point of discussion. If you have an alternative way of discussing morality without mentioning Christianity or religion all together, I'm all ears.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[rounder]

It's hard to separate one from the other. Take the question of morality as an example. Depends if you are a moral relativist or if you believe in common moral guidelines. The majority of people today steer away from moral relativism because of the problems it causes (some argue that it could cause indifference). The majority who accept common moral guidelines in the Western World, accept common Christian moral guidelines. Whether we like it or not, Europe has been under strict churchly control since the Western Roman Empire collapsed, through the Dark Ages till the Renaissance. Which brings us up to the question in focus here, if I believe in morality as it's known in Europe - am I accepting Christian morality or am I simply accepting something which in my eyes has become common? It's insanely hard to separate religion from these questions. And this goes for pretty much every philosophical point of discussion. If you have an alternative way of discussing morality without mentioni
ng Christianity or religion all together, I'm all ears.

If your challenge is to develop a way of moral thinking that does not include religion in any way; then it is certainly a trivial one. Take consequentialism and Kant's categorical imperative, for example. The two moral theories follow philosophical premises that do not rely at all on religious authority or influence. To simplify, Consequentialism (Utilitarianism) relies on the premise that an action is considered morally right if it causes a greater amount of happiness than sadness in the world; while holding that each human life is equally valuable. The Categorical Imperative states that an action is considered morally right if it is a duty( you do it not because of selfish incentives, but because it is right), or if you choose to follow moral rule A and everyone else did the same, the world would be better. This is an oversimplification, but you get the point.

I hope that answers your question if I understood you correctly.


Utilitarianism, ca

 

[Nzoric]

If your challenge is to develop a way of moral thinking that does not include religion in any way; then it is certainly a trivial one. Take consequentialism and Kant's categorical imperative, for example. The two moral theories follow philosophical premises that do not rely at all on religious authority or influence. To simplify, Consequentialism (Utilitarianism) relies on the premise that an action is considered morally right if it causes a greater amount of happiness than sadness in the world; while holding that each human life is equally valuable. The Categorical Imperative states that an action is considered morally right if it is a duty( you do it not because of selfish incentives, but because it is right), or if you choose to follow moral rule A and everyone else did the same, the world would be better. This is an oversimplification, but you get the point.

I hope that answers your question if I understood you correctly.


Utilitarianism, ca

Im not that familiar with Utilitarianism, but I'll definitely look into it. I tried reading Critique of Practical Reason, but pretty quick I felt like bludgeoning someone to death with the book.

 

[Ford Prefect]

The point isn't to prove or disprove God's existence, but rather to claim which position is more logically sound, or plausible. In fact, anyone who claims that he does have proof for either case clearly doesn't understand the definition of proof.

You have answered that in the question.

Non theists refuse to believe without proof, theists believe without proof. If you can't see which of the two is more 'logically sound, or plausible' then it is debatable as to the extent to which you understand logic.

 

[Nzoric]

You have answered that in the question.

Non theists refuse to believe without proof, theists believe without proof. If you can't see which of the two is more 'logically sound, or plausible' then it is debatable as to the extent to which you understand logic.

The reason it's called a theory is because it's not a fact. We use theories to describe whats occurring around us. Evolution is a fact, the theory of Evolution is our flawed way of describing the process. Thats where the element of faith enters in science.

 

[Ford Prefect]

The reason it's called a theory is because it's not a fact. We use theories to describe whats occurring around us. Evolution is a fact, the theory of Evolution is our flawed way of describing the process. Thats where the element of faith enters in science.

I wasn't talking about evolution, you also don't understand scientific theory against theory.

 

[rounder]

You have answered that in the question.

Non theists refuse to believe without proof, theists believe without proof. If you can't see which of the two is more 'logically sound, or plausible' then it is debatable as to the extent to which you understand logic.

No, both theists and atheists believe without proof. The difference here is the type of evidence, and what they infer from it. Theists might consider the complexity of human life evidence for the existence of God, while atheists accept scientific theories contingent on evidence we have. Here's the thing, if you have evidence and you infer from it a conclusion; your conclusion may ultimately be right or wrong. Proof on the other hand cannot be wrong. Mathematical theorems are not based on empirical evidence, they are based on logical proof that is infallible. Philosophy is similar in many respects. Science is not. Science relies on emprical data collected by scientists that may, or may not be sufficient, and conclusions are consequently reached that may or may not be entirely true. This isn't to undermine science at all, my point is to show that science is not meant to give proof for anything, but merely evidence.

 

[Elvin]

God created man, man created religion.

IMO God is that initial energy that fed the Big Bang, it's up for debate if that energy had any intelligence.

 

[Ford Prefect]

 

[Nzoric]

I wasn't talking about evolution, you also don't understand scientific theory against theory.

Care to elaborate because that made no sense.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

God created man, man created religion.

IMO God is that initial energy that fed the Big Bang, it's up for debate if that energy had any intelligence.

What evidence so you have to even assert that this energy has intelligence? Also, why do you want to call it "god"? Why can't you just call it "initial energy" or "potential energy"?

 

[Elvin]

What evidence so you have to even assert that this energy has intelligence? Also, why do you want to call it "god"? Why can't you just call it "initial energy" or "potential energy"?

I don't assert anything, that's why I say it's up for debate.
You can call it anything you like. I also feel that our pre-organized religion ancestors knew more about the nature of 'God' than us.

 

[Kasaki]

I don't assert anything, that's why I say it's up for debate.
You can call it anything you like. I also feel that our pre-organized religion ancestors knew more about the nature of 'God' than us.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I don't assert anything, that's why I say it's up for debate.
You can call it anything you like. I also feel that our pre-organized religion ancestors knew more about the nature of 'God' than us.

By bringing that topic into the debate, you are asserting it.

Also, I don't think our ancestors knew more than us. I refuse to give them that lee way. I think people of this age have a far better understanding of nature, space, and god.

 

[Elvin]

Honestly, we don't know shit about the 'behind curtains' of the universe. And probably never will.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Honestly, we don't know shit about the 'behind curtains' of the universe. And probably never will.

The learning never stops.

 

[Hængebøffer]

Honestly, we don't know shit about the 'behind curtains' of the universe. And probably never will.

I've been there.

 

[Elvin]

Were you able to get God's autograph?

 

[Hængebøffer]

Were you able to get God's autograph?

He's an arrogant prick!

 

[Martin]

He's an arrogant prick!

Indeed, the bible teaches us that.