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

[AndreaCristiano]

Yet that doesn't mean that nature is the reason that these evolutions happen why is it so hard to believe God is behind it

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Sheik Yerbouti]

You sound like a petulant child mad at daddy because he didn't show you what you want to see

You sound like an adult who has lost an argument.

So nature points to itself? It's like I see a sign on a highway that says "this sign points to itself, the sign" that makes sense.

Nature certainly points to God. Science is but a tool to understand the intricacies of God's creation.

A signpost is a well-known man-made object and we already know its purpose. The cause and purpose of nature is not known. You are simply inserting your god as the cause and the purpose of nature. God of the gaps. Your argument is invalid.

 

[Linebreak]

You're confused, theists are the ones who believe in invisible entities. Nature is just nature, the outcome of a long chain of events.

Even if you think it's a random chain of events, which it's not, where did it all start? What initiated the Big Bang. I'm sure you'll come up with a random (atheists favourite reasoning tool) reason to deny what it all points to but that's your prerogative.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Doesn't mean you have to be an asshole sheik. Act like a man and discuss it with maturity if not go away and gain composure

No, it means I can be whatever I want. That's the cost of free will.

Specifically, you're intimidated by the idea of monotheistic religion.

I'm not intimidated by fairy tales. Your argument is invalid.

Yet that doesn't mean that nature is the reason that these evolutions happen why is it so hard to believe God is behind it

Because god is a baseless and unnecessary assertion.

 

[AndreaCristiano]

You sound like an adult who has lost an argument.



A signpost is a well-known man-made object and we already know its purpose. The cause and purpose of nature is not known. You are simply inserting your god as the cause and the purpose of nature. God of the gaps. Your argument is invalid.

You know bro you're invalid with you're nonsense. No one else is mocking people or being aggressive like you.
Back on topic if the cause of nature is unknown how can you dismiss God because for you its not viable. Yet for many it is

 

[AndreaCristiano]

No, it means I can be whatever I want. That's the cost of free will.



I'm not intimidated by fairy tales. Your argument is invalid.



Because god is a baseless and unnecessary assertion.

So because I have free will to kill doesn't mean I should so please whose argument is invalid now

 

[Linebreak]

You sound like an adult who has lost an argument.



A signpost is a well-known man-made object and we already know its purpose. The cause and purpose of nature is not known. You are simply inserting your god as the cause and the purpose of nature. God of the gaps. Your argument is invalid.

Yet something infinitely more complex is a random result of nature, right.

 

[AndreaCristiano]

You sound like an adult who has lost an argument.



A signpost is a well-known man-made object and we already know its purpose. The cause and purpose of nature is not known. You are simply inserting your god as the cause and the purpose of nature. God of the gaps. Your argument is invalid.

Your assertion that I have lost and argument is only that your assertion

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Even if you think it's a random chain of events, which it's not, where did it all start? What initiated the Big Bang. I'm sure you'll come up with a random (atheists favourite reasoning tool) reason to deny what it all points to but that's your prerogative.

Where did it all start? What initiated god. I'm sure you'll come up with a fallacious answer (theists favourite reasoning tool) to deny that god needs an initiator just like the universe he supposedly created.

 

[acmilan]

Yet that doesn't mean that nature is the reason that these evolutions happen why is it so hard to believe God is behind it

because, apart from the warm feeling in your heart, there is absolutely no evidentiary support/scientific evidence for the existence of god in the first place, let alone him being responsible for nature the way it is.

I would be no more wrong or right in claiming that a big green creature from outer space created nature and the earth as I would have as much actual evidence to support that as you do i.e. none at all.

 

[AndreaCristiano]

because, apart from the warm feeling in your heart, there is absolutely no evidentiary support/scientific evidence for the existence of god in the first place, let alone him being responsible for nature the way it is.

I would be no more wrong or right in claiming that a big green creature from outer space created nature and the earth as I would have as much actual evidence to support that as you do i.e. none at all.

There is also no evidence to disprove God so discounting personal experience is foolish and counter productive. Millions have seen ghosts or better yet Bigfoot yet no evidence either way but people are experiencing what they are experiencing so something is there

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

There is also no evidence to disprove God so discounting personal experience is foolish and counter productive. Millions have seen ghosts or better yet Bigfoot yet no evidence either way but people are experiencing what they are experiencing so something is there

Yeah, that's his point. Without evidence, God is only as real as the green space creature, and like you say, ghosts and Bigfoot that other people have seen but not proven.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

You know bro you're invalid with you're nonsense. No one else is mocking people or being aggressive like you.

Says the guy who just called me a petulant child.

Back on topic if the cause of nature is unknown how can you dismiss God because for you its not viable. Yet for many it is

Because the definition of god is logically incoherent, and god is asserted without evidence. Like Hitches said: whatever is asserted without evidence is dismissed without evidence.

Yet something infinitely more complex is a random result of nature, right.

A random result is more believable than the result of a god who created it so that humans can marvel at his work and worship him and offer sacrifices and fight his (metaphorical)battles for him on earth.

Your assertion that I have lost and argument is only that your assertion

OK. Then tell me why god is an efficient communicator when almost all of his attempts to communicate his existence to me have failed.

 

[JuveJay]

Even if you think it's a random chain of events, which it's not, where did it all start? What initiated the Big Bang. I'm sure you'll come up with a random (atheists favourite reasoning tool) reason to deny what it all points to but that's your prerogative.

We don't know that, and probably never will, because of the distance and timelines involved. Even the age of the Earth is a piece of dust in the wind, the human age is a molecule in that dust.

This is basically the make or break point, which religion survives on and science comes hard up against. Even if you could prove it theists would not accept it, because belief over evidence is the order of the day. I don't particularly mind that, it stops the world from imploding.

No idea what the last line is supposed to mean. Reason points to God creating the Big Bang, because we cannot explain immensely complex reactions like that?

 

[Linebreak]

Where did it all start? What initiated god. I'm sure you'll come up with a fallacious answer (theists favourite reasoning tool) to deny that god needs an initiator just like the universe he supposedly created.

The question is where did this world come from. God existed as He was before the world existed and remains as He was since then.

True wisdom entails that one is humble enough to admit the human intellect is not able to understand absolutely everything.

- - - Updated - - -

We don't know that, and probably never will, because of the distance and timelines involved. Even the age of the Earth is a piece of dust in the wind, the human age is a molecule in that dust.

This is basically the make or break point, which religion survives on and science comes hard up against. Even if you could prove it theists would not accept it, because belief over evidence is the order of the day. I don't particularly mind that, it stops the world from imploding.

No idea what the last line is supposed to mean. Reason points to God creating the Big Bang, because we cannot explain immensely complex reactions like that?

The reactions still come after the initial act of creation.

 

[AndreaCristiano]

Yeah, that's his point. Without evidence, God is only as real as the green space creature, and like you say, ghosts and Bigfoot that other people have seen but not proven.

But to billions those things are real very real without evidence say in a scientific manner. A person who has dealt with a ghost and experienced it no matter of science saying well there isn't any real evidence will change that persons belief and or assertion that ghosts exist

 

[AndreaCristiano]

Says the guy who just called me a petulant child.



Because the definition of god is logically incoherent, and god is asserted without evidence. Like Hitches said: whatever is asserted without evidence is dismissed without evidence.



A random result is more believable than the result of a god who created it so that humans can marvel at his work and worship him and offer sacrifices and fight his (metaphorical)battles for him on earth.



OK. Then tell me why god is an efficient communicator when almost all of his attempts to communicate his existence to me have failed.

Calling you a petulant child because everyone else is acting mature and discussing this without resorting to tantrums and attitude

 

[Maddy]

There is also no evidence to disprove God so discounting personal experience is foolish and counter productive. Millions have seen ghosts or better yet Bigfoot yet no evidence either way but people are experiencing what they are experiencing so something is there

 

[JuveJay]

Millions have seen ghosts or better yet Bigfoot yet no evidence either way but people are experiencing what they are experiencing so something is there

The human brain is there.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

The question is where did this world come from. God existed as He was before the world existed and remains as He was since then.

Fallacious argument. Unsupported and untestable claim. Unbelievable proposition.

True wisdom entails that one is humble enough to admit the human intellect is not able to understand absolutely everything.

Yet you claim to understand god and the purpose he created the universe and us humans. Hypocrite!