Maxeo
Registered: 06/13/09
Posts: 1,718
|
| | 08/27/09 at 04:26 PM | Reply with quote | #46 |
|
^ HAHA Black Knight pwnage nice call fanofdrcraig.
__________________
The first to present his case seems right until
another comes forward and questions him. -Prov. 18.17
twitter.com/maxeoa |
| Loading... | |
Maxeo
Registered: 06/13/09
Posts: 1,718
|
| | 08/27/09 at 04:27 PM | Reply with quote | #47 |
|
: verhead PA commentator:: and now Craig comes in with another pwning cartoon!
__________________
The first to present his case seems right until
another comes forward and questions him. -Prov. 18.17
twitter.com/maxeoa |
| Loading... | |
Fanofdrcraig
Registered: 02/27/09
Posts: 298
|
| | 08/27/09 at 04:30 PM | Reply with quote | #48 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Maxeo
^ HAHA Black Knight pwnage nice call fanofdrcraig.
Thank you, Maxeo! Monty Python is a great show. I wonder if Dr. Craig watches the movies.
|
| Loading... | |
Fanofdrcraig
Registered: 02/27/09
Posts: 298
|
| | 08/27/09 at 06:26 PM | Reply with quote | #49 |
|
Again, Diesal gives us his infamous shallow replies. I'm beginning to think there's a trend here. Anyway...
Quote: Originally Posted by Diesal
Seen the movie, you must be the black knight.
Oooohh! That's a nice comeback, Diesal. That just about took a load off my conscience. But that's the most you ever gave in a reply. Congratulations.
Quote: Well when I get into a controlled debate rather than constant ridiculous attacks, I'll be back.
But you think every rational reply constitutes as a "constant ridiculous attacks" (funny how you can say that when I never ad hominem'd you). Does that mean you'll never come back then? Not have you only dodged refutations, but now you're quitting? Typical.
|
| Loading... | |
Maxeo
Registered: 06/13/09
Posts: 1,718
|
| | 08/27/09 at 06:38 PM | Reply with quote | #50 |
|
^Yeah, I've noticed too fanofdrcraig...
__________________
The first to present his case seems right until
another comes forward and questions him. -Prov. 18.17
twitter.com/maxeoa |
| Loading... | |
rsmartin
Registered: 07/09/08
Posts: 2,475
|
| | 08/27/09 at 09:24 PM | Reply with quote | #51 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Craig
Whose giving God all these scientific labels? God is a philosophical proposition
Oh my! God is nothing but a philosophical proposition. This is getting worse by the second. 
If you read 1 Tim. 6:20, you will see the NT writer calls philosophy "science falsely so called." If you match the condemned authors mentioned in the NT (false teachers, etc.) with the extant philosophers and literature of the time, you will see that it was philosophy that was condemned by the Timothy writer. Anyone familiar with the history of Western thought of the past thousand years (since about 1100) knows that science as it is known today grew out of philosophy and theology.
Quote: that can explain the scientific realm of existence...not necessarily the scientific phenomena (big bang, evolution, etc.) God doesnt explain the big bang nor evolution..they happened natural..BUT God is the reason or cause of their existence. That is quite a difference imo.
This reeks of desperation. God is a philosophical proposition that can explain the scientific realm of existence. That is just plain wrong. I don't know about evangelical schools, but in mainstream academia no one but philosophers bothers discussing such vague and exotic topics such as existence. If you wish to gain respect across disciplines, you will not:
- waste any more time and energy trying to convince atheists that the shifting theories of philosophical opinion are more credible than the tangible results of science, or
- blow any more hot air about worshiping a philosophical proposition.
This is truly "science falsely so called."
Quote: So when we use God as an explanation..we do not mean that God just "did it" rather we mean God is the best explanation for its existence. God doesnt make thunderstorms, earthquakes, new planets, cancer, etc...they happen naturally. However, God did cause the whole existence of the universe with conditions to develop these natural phenomena to come into being from non-being a finite time in the past.
You need to do so much explaining to define the difference between "cause [the universe] to come into being" and "make [the big bang] happen" that...well...I don't know what. It's basically gibberish. There is no difference. The difference is phonetic more than anything else; it sounds different to the ears--different sound waves are activated. Not to mention that your theology apparently rises or falls on these sound waves. One more good reason not to believe the stuff.
Quote:
Please read that wiki link I posted about a "theory"
I'm reading it. I find:
In the scientific or empirical tradition, the term "theory" is reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains. These requirements vary across different scientific fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena.
When I use the simplest tool to address the origins of the universe, I use science because it is tangible and requires no abstract conceptualizing about invisible and imperceptible entities and their possible feelings, wishes, and desires. Religion automatically appeals to these imperceptible entities and is unable to provide any evidence for the existence of these entities whatsoever, despite a special thread in which to do so. In addition, religious people (at least Christians) produce no excuse as to why they should not provide a reason for this behaviour.
Quote: ...it explains how to disprove a theory and how to test one..even in the philosophical paradigm where hard evidence is replaced with premises that can stand or fall based on reason. God is a falsifiable hypothesis.
Whatever "God" supposedly is, he has been proven not to exist. More specifically, he has been proven totally incompetent or ineffectual in certain claims such as the ability to answer prayer and/or to be present and helpful during time of calamity and need. A "God" that is present and helpful in the exact amount of events as would be expected if there were no God (as would happen randomly) is indiscernible from "no-God" and need be taken just as seriously. In other words, he need not be heeded or taken seriously at all because he does not exist.
I am looking for a God of far more substance than some philosophical proposition because that is what the Bible promises. The Bible promises a God that will provide food in time of drought, protect his people from their enemies, heal his children from deadly disease, and keep their clothing from wearing out. The God of the Bible provides strength during time of trial, cheers during time of discouragement, leads from defeat to victory. Most of all, the God of the Bible answers prayer and does not forsake his own. On top of all that, he promises to accept all who seek him sincerely and in faith.
In reality, the God of the Bible is the God of the broken promise. I say that of a God who supposedly cannot lie. So yes, he definitely is falsifiable if you wish to reduce the so-called creator of the universe to a proposition.
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. –Carl Sagan, Demon-Haunted World, p. 12 |
| Loading... | |
ubi2002
Registered: 11/30/08
Posts: 486
|
| | 08/27/09 at 10:40 PM | Reply with quote | #52 |
|
Diesel is doing what most young teens do when they are only driven by passion. When someone challenges your beliefs, it feels like a punch in the face and your knee jerk reaction is to blurt out whatever you can formulate in your head. The price of this passion is rationality, and you usually end up making weak arguments.
I'm not just saying this... I know this because this was me a few years back. unable to control my passion for my beliefs, I spurted out very weak arguments and never admitted i was wrong. Everyone is very passionate about their worldview, whether atheism and theism. But unless controled, passion takes you over, and you lose your rationality and humility. I have decided to look into these topics more deeply after I realized I did not know as much as I should. When I learned more things regarding these topics, I became more knowledgable, and I became able to control my emotions, so that it does not get in the way of my rationality.
In the same way, I suggest that you just take time and read into these topics. Watch more debates, and actually read articles and books regarding these topics. And importantly, challenge yourself and start to criticize your side too. See what atheistic arguments are strong and weak, try to spot things that you think just does not help atheism at all. And look INTENSIVELY into the other side's arguments, instead of dismissing them after a quick glance. See which ones you can sympathize with.
These are the things I did, and it helped me to be a more knowledgable and controlled thinker. All in all, instead of posting right after your first encounter with these stuff, lurk around different forums, and get to know more about these topics. You'll find that this will help you become a stronger defender of atheism (or hopefully, be convinced into theism  ).
|
| Loading... | |
Normajean
Registered: 03/31/09
Posts: 79
|
| | 08/28/09 at 09:16 AM | Reply with quote | #53 |
|
Rs,
I've been reading your posts for a while now, why do you dislike Christianity so much? Everyone knows God isn't a proposition, but there is propositional knowledge about God though.
__________________
"it's a suddency, and suddenly people know to lay your armor down." |
| Loading... | |
hawke123
Registered: 01/29/09
Posts: 669
|
| | 08/28/09 at 12:12 PM | Reply with quote | #54 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by parklife
I'm not sure what you mean by "successful", but here's a perfectly reasonable natural explanation:
Some elements of the Gospels are fictional, including the empty tomb and the resurrection.
Clearly, you are not read in this area very much. I second Maxeo's book recommendation: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus.
It's an excellent, easy to follow book that lays everything out clearly and in an organized fashion.
__________________
"Ultimately, the problem with man is not the absence of evidence, it is the suppression of it." - Ravi Zacharias
“Truth is so obscured nowadays and lies [are] so well established that unless we love the truth we shall never recognize it.” - Blaise Pascal |
| Loading... | |
SecretAsianMan
Registered: 03/10/09
Posts: 126
|
| | 08/28/09 at 10:15 PM | Reply with quote | #55 |
|
Hi Diesel. I'm not really sure why you kept demanding scientific evidences for God as a prerequisite for believing in God. None of us here are trying to defend a material God, instead, the Christian God is immaterial. So even if I grant you the premise that there are no good scientific evidences for God, all we can really say is that there are no material evidence for the existence of something non-material...and you obviously see how ridiculous to infer God doesn't exist from that. Therefore, philosophy MUST be used to determined if God exist.
So we do provide scientific evidences, they are used to supplement our philosophical premises (for example, using the Big Bang to prove the universe began to exist). So I don't really see this as a God of the Gaps argument, because we're not using God to explain scientific phenomenons, instead, we're using science to support our premises.
|
| Loading... | |
SecretAsianMan
Registered: 03/10/09
Posts: 126
|
| | 08/28/09 at 10:18 PM | Reply with quote | #56 |
|
and honestly, rsmartin, did you priest abuse you when you were a little kid?
Quote: I am looking for a God of far more substance than some philosophical proposition because that is what the Bible promises. The Bible promises a God that will provide food in time of drought, protect his people from their enemies, heal his children from deadly disease, and keep their clothing from wearing out. The God of the Bible provides strength during time of trial, cheers during time of discouragement, leads from defeat to victory. Most of all, the God of the Bible answers prayer and does not forsake his own. On top of all that, he promises to accept all who seek him sincerely and in faith.
God has answered all those promises for me and many other sincere Christians I know. Can you honestly claim to be seeking God earnestly and sincerely? From the post I've seen from you, it's clear that you've got no interested in seeking God.
|
| Loading... | |
parklife
Registered: 04/17/08
Posts: 643
|
| | 08/28/09 at 10:41 PM | Reply with quote | #57 |
|
Quote: Clearly, you are not read in this area very much. I second Maxeo's book recommendation: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus.
It's an excellent, easy to follow book that lays everything out clearly and in an organized fashion.
Hum, what.
__________________
I can sum it all up in three words: Evolution is a lie. |
| Loading... | |
etiainen
Registered: 07/15/08
Posts: 531
|
| | 08/29/09 at 11:36 AM | Reply with quote | #58 |
|
SecretAsianMan - it's true to say that some of the testimonies of God's provision are INCREDIBLE! So often you hear of God calling people to set up businesses and events that are far above any sort realistic financial targets, you hear about people being obedient to these callings with no money from week to week and every time it looks really bad, something shows up from somewhere completely out of the blue. Its just incredible... |
| Loading... | |
Craig
Registered: 12/03/07
Posts: 2,658
|
| | 08/29/09 at 12:16 PM | Reply with quote | #59 |
|
Quote: SecretAsianMan - it's true to say that some of the testimonies of God's provision are INCREDIBLE! So often you hear of God calling people to set up businesses and events that are far above any sort realistic financial targets, you hear about people being obedient to these callings with no money from week to week and every time it looks really bad, something shows up from somewhere completely out of the blue. Its just incredible...
And more times than not I think its pure luck. You always hear of this "good" stories from people's testimonies. However, how many of the "bad" ones do you hear? Where people heard this "call" or "inward impression" and acted on it only to find out they ended up in a disaster! I really think all of these stories are PURELY subjective and serve no real substance in proving there is a God or that God is experiential.
I personally believe that God speaks through the Bible by giving us wisdom and principles to follow and abide by. I do not believe God tells people to "go here and set up this business..and then etc" . I think mostly that is people's own thoughts who mistake it for being God's spirit..and they deify their thoughts and feelings.
As far as events for the Gospel's sake..that is Biblical.. God does offer promises for those who leave all behind to follow him and preach the Gospel. So you can expect people who do will tell you "God called them or said this or this" but in all honesty...the principle was in the Bible. If you preach the Gospel, you shall live by it. And we are command to go out and preach it..so nothing such as "calling or inward voice" is needed to know that its a good thing to start an event that will be furthering the Gospel..You dont need a confirmation for it. Just know that if you do, it will be blessed.
__________________
"You'll never stop at one. Ill take you all on!" - Optimus Prime |
| Loading... | |
Xequals17
Registered: 08/30/09
Posts: 13
|
| | 08/30/09 at 08:56 PM | Reply with quote | #60 |
|
I think the whole debate about the "proof" of God is a hopeless exercise because no matter who is right, there will never be any conclusive information on either side.
1. If God did not exist, no evidence will prove his existence [assuming the evidence is correctly interpreted].
2. If God did exist, he would specifically not want their to be proof [I am speaking of absolute, scientific proof] of his existence. That would preclude faith. (See question 115 near the bottom). God does not want anyone to have propositional knowledge of him without personal knowledge of him.
__________________
"We crave clarity so we can avoid trust" -Bill Tell |
| Loading... | |
