Does God exist? (William Lane Craig vs Peter Atkins debate) (19 Viewers)

[Linebreak]

Zizinho just listed to you several points that were cited in the Quran 1400 years ago and they are just being discoverd now with the modern technology and there is plenty of other examples like that.

I think if one is to use scripture to prove scientific facts, they are running on very thin ice. It's very easy to break one's faith if this person relies in scientific "miracles" in their scripture to have that faith, even the Quran. Scripture was sent, first and foremost, to change people's hearts, not prove scientific facts. God has given us the tools required to explore and learn scientific phenomenon.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Martin]

@Soren:

Zizinho just listed to you several points that were cited in the Quran 1400 years ago and they are just being discoverd now with the modern technology and there is plenty of other examples like that.

oh man not this stuff again

 

[Linebreak]

Try again. On the other hand, we don't even have to look to science for an explanation on why people believe in a higher deity.

There are many reasons to why people may believe in a deity, from feeling safe, to being rational, to trying to fit in, or whatever. If, as Marx claims, religion is the opium of the masses, then modern Godless culture is a much more severe opium. Everyone is just into music, watching sports, wasting their lives, never thinking about anything at a deeper level. If that's not an extreme opium then I don't know what is.

 

[Martin]

There are many reasons to why people may believe in a deity, from feeling safe, to being rational, to trying to fit in, or whatever. If, as Marx claims, religion is the opium of the masses, then modern Godless culture is a much more severe opium. Everyone is just into music, watching sports, wasting their lives, never thinking about anything at a deeper level. If that's not an extreme opium then I don't know what is.

if football isn't opium then i don't know what is

 

[Ocelot]

Yeah the fundamental problem with this cosomological theory (even if we accept the second premise, that the universe has a clear point of beginning, which as far as I know is by far not as univoqually agreed upon as the video makes it seem) is that it does not solve our problem of determining the beginning of such a long chain of causations.

More simply put, why would this cause of the universe be itself beginningless?

 

[Cheesio]

oh man not this stuff again

I know, we had this debate before and i ve stayed out of any discussion about religion after that

 

[Ocelot]

if football isn't opium then i don't know what is

Opium?

 

[Linebreak]

if football isn't opium then i don't know what is

you're right.

Look at the world today, politicians have no more power, everything is run by the big corporations, but we're all busy watching our sports and buying our latest iPhones, while the rich get richer, and our tax money is used to fund one war after another; All the while we our completely destroying mother earth due to our economic greed.

 

[Maddy]

if football isn't opium then i don't know what is

Stop being such a shallow person, you godless filth!

 

[Linebreak]

Yeah the fundamental problem with this cosomological theory (even if we accept the second premise, that the universe has a clear point of beginning, which as far as I know is by far not as univoqually agreed upon as the video makes it seem) is that it does not solve our problem of determining the beginning of such a long chain of causations.

More simply put, why would this cause of the universe be itself beginningless?

The logical implication is that there must have been something that is of a beginning-less nature that started it all, a super-intelligent being. That is what religionists will argue is God. Otherwise you'll always fall in to infinite regression.
Where did this being come from? From nowhere, the being was "always" there. Could we truly deeply understand this being? Never, the finite (us), can never truly understand the infinite (God).

 

[Ocelot]

There are many reasons to why people may believe in a deity, from feeling safe, to being rational, to trying to fit in, or whatever. If, as Marx claims, religion is the opium of the masses, then modern Godless culture is a much more severe opium. Everyone is just into music, watching sports, wasting their lives, never thinking about anything at a deeper level. If that's not an extreme opium then I don't know what is.

I don't think one can claim that it is the godless, secular aspect of modern culture that acts as "opium". Sure, you could argue that different movements or phenomena position themselves as a substitute for religous communal practices - as you have listed following sports, music, whatever. Perhaps a very radical, almost fanatical variant of atheism as most famously practised by Dawkins can fall into that category, but to me it doesn't seem as if the portion of the population acting that way would be in any way significant to the society as a whole numerically.

 

[Hængebøffer]

And, once again, the discussion is about philosophy. Which I think should be taught in school.

 

[Ocelot]

The logical implication is that there must have been something that is of a beginning-less nature that started it all, a super-intelligent being. That is what religionists will argue is God. Otherwise you'll always fall in to infinite regression.
Where did this being come from? From nowhere, the being was "always" there. Could we truly deeply understand this being? Never, the finite (us), can never truly understand the infinite (God).

Well yeah exactly.

The assumption that something exists that has not been caused by anything else is either defied by the first premise of the theory if it has a beginning, and even if it does not there is no indication that it would be an entity or being of some sort, not even to speak of any sentience it might posess. It is just as possible that this hypothetical something without beginning would virtually be everything else, including something not completly unlike a universe.


Don't get me wrong, I think it is a very interesting and intelligent theory, and certainly offers new perspectives much more in unison with modern scientific findings on the question of the existence of god, but in the end it still comes down to faith and belief. So basically what Trequartista said two pages ago

- - - Updated - - -

And, once again, the discussion is about philosophy. Which I think should be taught in school.

It is over here actually, but only on a very banal manner. You basically just study the lives and works of famous past philosophers, which is interesting in its own way as well, but normally there is not much discussion about the questions and theories you deal with. It's not bad, at least people come into contact with these sort of ideas, but not really what philosophy should be either.

 

[IliveForJuve]

Why doesn't God heal amputees?

 

[Linebreak]

I don't think one can claim that it is the godless, secular aspect of modern culture that acts as "opium". Sure, you could argue that different movements or phenomena position themselves as a substitute for religous communal practices - as you have listed following sports, music, whatever. Perhaps a very radical, almost fanatical variant of atheism as most famously practised by Dawkins can fall into that category, but to me it doesn't seem as if the portion of the population acting that way would be in any way significant to the society as a whole numerically.

I would argue that it is, but fair enough if you disagree.

- - - Updated - - -

Why doesn't God heal amputees?

Why didn't got save his Prophets when they were about to be killed?

- - - Updated - - -

Well yeah exactly.

The assumption that something exists that has not been caused by anything else is either defied by the first premise of the theory if it has a beginning, and even if it does not there is no indication that it would be an entity or being of some sort, not even to speak of any sentience it might posess. It is just as possible that this hypothetical something without beginning would virtually be everything else, including something not completly unlike a universe.


Don't get me wrong, I think it is a very interesting and intelligent theory, and certainly offers new perspectives much more in unison with modern scientific findings on the question of the existence of god, but in the end it still comes down to faith and belief. So basically what Trequartista said two pages ago

- - - Updated - - -



It is over here actually, but only on a very banal manner. You basically just study the lives and works of famous past philosophers, which is interesting in its own way as well, but normally there is not much discussion about the questions and theories you deal with. It's not bad, at least people come into contact with these sort of ideas, but not really what philosophy should be either.

Agree completely.

 

[IliveForJuve]

Because he doesn't exist.

 

[Linebreak]

Because he doesn't exist.

That's what you believe

 

[Ocelot]

Why doesn't God heal amputees?

These questions can be relatively easy answered within religious frameworks, mostly having to do with testing the faith of people involved and compensation in the afterlife.

 

[IliveForJuve]

These questions can be relatively easy answered within religious frameworks, mostly having to do with testing the faith of people involved and compensation in the afterlife.

Which translates to bullshit excuses to justify the existence of God.

 

[Linebreak]

Which translates to bull$#@! excuses to justify the existence of God.

The coin can be flipped and the same reasoning can be used to justify disbelief in God.

"God didn't heal my friend from cancer. This means God doesn't exist. This means I'm free to go root as many girls as possible, guilt free" - a few STD's later and the disbelief in God becomes even stronger