Does God exist? (William Lane Craig vs Peter Atkins debate) (30 Viewers)
- Thread starter Dinsdale
- Start date
Yeah. But there's a lot of wisdom to be gained through the stories depicted in them. From my POV, it's sad to see all these people following Abrahamic religions ignoring the Eastern religions due to their dogmatic monotheism.
Raz' mom >>> Raz
Oh bloody hell, not this technocratic bullshit again! 
But that's the harsh reality we live in. Crimes are committed all the time. If there is no one raising accusations against the perpetrator, then he walks free. I've broken my share of laws. I've driven under the influence, drunk when I was underage, jumped traffic signals and driven without a license. But since there was no one to complain that I broke those laws, I walked free. It doesn't change the fact that I've broken the laws. But when it comes to accusations and proving them, evidence is vital.
I understand belief. We all have one or the other. What matters is the basis for belief and the significance of the thing you're believing in.
No. Then he isn't guilty of committing that murder. But for the court to declare him innocent, then they'd have to scrutinise each and every detail of his life and ensure that he's not committed any crimes throughout his life. Practically, this is very difficult if not impossible.
In the same way, to prove that god does not exist, we have first prove everything that exists and then show that god is not one of them. Clearly this is impossible. To make matters worse, if you define god as a deity that exists outside of time and space, then your god is a pseudo-scientific claim.
"Not guilty" means not guilty of the specific crime he's accused of committing.
The problem here is that you want to deal with absolutes. Either he's absolutely guilty of a crime or absolutely innocent. It's not like that. There's always a degree of uncertainty. It's fantasy to think that you can answer such questions with 100% certainty.
It doesn't make him innocent. It makes him 'not guilty' of the crime you're accusing him of committing. Learn the difference.
You can't do it. Because the concept of god is pseudo-scientific. Its validity is unprovable.
I won't rule out the possibility.
Vedas.... damn those, my mother ir crazy about them. I tend to dislike them the same as arsenal 
Still most of you are technocratic
But that's the harsh reality we live in. Crimes are committed all the time. If there is no one raising accusations against the perpetrator, then he walks free. I've broken my share of laws. I've driven under the influence, drunk when I was underage, jumped traffic signals and driven without a license. But since there was no one to complain that I broke those laws, I walked free. It doesn't change the fact that I've broken the laws. But when it comes to accusations and proving them, evidence is vital.
I understand belief. We all have one or the other. What matters is the basis for belief and the significance of the thing you're believing in.
No. Then he isn't guilty of committing that murder. But for the court to declare him innocent, then they'd have to scrutinise each and every detail of his life and ensure that he's not committed any crimes throughout his life. Practically, this is very difficult if not impossible.
In the same way, to prove that god does not exist, we have first prove everything that exists and then show that god is not one of them. Clearly this is impossible. To make matters worse, if you define god as a deity that exists outside of time and space, then your god is a pseudo-scientific claim.
"Not guilty" means not guilty of the specific crime he's accused of committing.
The problem here is that you want to deal with absolutes. Either he's absolutely guilty of a crime or absolutely innocent. It's not like that. There's always a degree of uncertainty. It's fantasy to think that you can answer such questions with 100% certainty.
It doesn't make him innocent. It makes him 'not guilty' of the crime you're accusing him of committing. Learn the difference.
You can't do it. Because the concept of god is pseudo-scientific. Its validity is unprovable.
I won't rule out the possibility.
That's because people can't handle the truth! And I don't mean the ones in the asylums