Total Posts:55|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Theists. Does this do anything to you conscio

GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 1:43:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Theists. Does this do anything to you consciousness?

I direct this question more to literalists and fundamentals who read the Bible literally. Others of course are welcome to comment.
Let me point out that I think of the Bible as a book of wisdom that it is a consolidation of many of the older religions of that day and is a good book to help us seek God by analyzing the old myths. If read literally, the reader will miss out on the rather wonderful thinking stimulated by it and miss the purpose that the book was put together point to. I do not disrespect it but have little respect for literal readers for that reason. They end up idol worshiping a book of myths.

This scholar speaks to the archeology that is killing the historicity of the Bible.
http://video.google.com...#

This scholar is showing the plagiarizing and or forgeries of scriptures.

It is interesting to note that both of these prominent scholars came from fundamentalist religions before their research, as well as the scholars they quote, changed their overall views.

They, like myself do not want to dissuade the search for God but only want to point out that God may be bigger than the pigeon hole/Bible that theist have put him in. As a religionist, to me, God is big enough to be everyone's God. Not just a chosen few. Theists should like this notion because then, God, if real, remains now, as in the beginning, master of all and not just master of some.

Regards
DL
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2011 11:52:10 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
On Dawkins, I would guess no because there are theists on here who could literally destroy him in a debate regarding the existence of God. I like Dawkins but he really does straw-man beliefs in God in this video, and his treatment of the arguments in favour of God's existence are no more developed than a high school level paper. Both him and Atkins are honestly way out of their depth when discussing philosophy, and as bright as they may be in their relevant fields (Dawkins especially really is an excellent communicator of intriguing ideas), they make mistakes anyone studying undergrad philosophy would identify.

Ehrman's a little different. On the one hand, he does seem to use Hume's argument against miracles, which shows a little niaviety if this is the case (although to be fair, Ehrman denies that he does so). With regard to biblical scholarship, he's definitely one of the better debaters and more reasonable challengers to Christianity (others like Price and Carrier seem to be way out of the mainstream).
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 12:41:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Avalos is again somewhat of a mixed bag. When it comes to issues like Hitler and Darwin, I think he knows his stuff, and has certainly gotten the better of Weikhart, who proposes that the Holocaust was caused in large part by Darwinism.

As for a biblical scholar, again he seems to be way outside the mainstream. I've not read his book The end of Biblical studies, but from what I understand, he argues that biblical scholarship has become apologetics essentially. If this is the case, I find this incredibly difficult to reconcile this not only with the huge variety of scholarly opinion from the Jesus Seminar to conservative evangelicalism but also with the undeniable number of Christian scholars who do seem solely interested in history, with people like Mike Licona as examples of this.
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 3:12:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Thanks for this.
I tend to agree with him that many scholars are just making sure they have a job.
I would add that I believe this of most in the Church trade.
They are, to me, just a bunch of flim flam men.

Regards
DL
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 3:18:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/11/2011 11:52:10 AM, unitedandy wrote:
On Dawkins, I would guess no because there are theists on here who could literally destroy him in a debate regarding the existence of God. I like Dawkins but he really does straw-man beliefs in God in this video, and his treatment of the arguments in favour of God's existence are no more developed than a high school level paper. Both him and Atkins are honestly way out of their depth when discussing philosophy, and as bright as they may be in their relevant fields (Dawkins especially really is an excellent communicator of intriguing ideas), they make mistakes anyone studying undergrad philosophy would identify.

Ehrman's a little different. On the one hand, he does seem to use Hume's argument against miracles, which shows a little niaviety if this is the case (although to be fair, Ehrman denies that he does so). With regard to biblical scholarship, he's definitely one of the better debaters and more reasonable challengers to Christianity (others like Price and Carrier seem to be way out of the mainstream).

In fairness why should they be more developed then a high school paper, he is talking and writing a lot of the time to the average theist, whose beliefs, as shown on here time and time again, are about as mature and well thought out as a 8 year olds imaginary world.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 3:39:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/12/2011 3:18:15 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/11/2011 11:52:10 AM, unitedandy wrote:
On Dawkins, I would guess no because there are theists on here who could literally destroy him in a debate regarding the existence of God. I like Dawkins but he really does straw-man beliefs in God in this video, and his treatment of the arguments in favour of God's existence are no more developed than a high school level paper. Both him and Atkins are honestly way out of their depth when discussing philosophy, and as bright as they may be in their relevant fields (Dawkins especially really is an excellent communicator of intriguing ideas), they make mistakes anyone studying undergrad philosophy would identify.

Ehrman's a little different. On the one hand, he does seem to use Hume's argument against miracles, which shows a little niaviety if this is the case (although to be fair, Ehrman denies that he does so). With regard to biblical scholarship, he's definitely one of the better debaters and more reasonable challengers to Christianity (others like Price and Carrier seem to be way out of the mainstream).

In fairness why should they be more developed then a high school paper, he is talking and writing a lot of the time to the average theist, whose beliefs, as shown on here time and time again, are about as mature and well thought out as a 8 year olds imaginary world.

Yeah, stick with that. Let's see you've won 3 debates and have lost 12. Ha ha ha ha ha; mean ole' theists voting against you huh?
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 3:40:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/12/2011 3:18:15 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/11/2011 11:52:10 AM, unitedandy wrote:
On Dawkins, I would guess no because there are theists on here who could literally destroy him in a debate regarding the existence of God. I like Dawkins but he really does straw-man beliefs in God in this video, and his treatment of the arguments in favour of God's existence are no more developed than a high school level paper. Both him and Atkins are honestly way out of their depth when discussing philosophy, and as bright as they may be in their relevant fields (Dawkins especially really is an excellent communicator of intriguing ideas), they make mistakes anyone studying undergrad philosophy would identify.

Ehrman's a little different. On the one hand, he does seem to use Hume's argument against miracles, which shows a little niaviety if this is the case (although to be fair, Ehrman denies that he does so). With regard to biblical scholarship, he's definitely one of the better debaters and more reasonable challengers to Christianity (others like Price and Carrier seem to be way out of the mainstream).

In fairness why should they be more developed then a high school paper, he is talking and writing a lot of the time to the average theist, whose beliefs, as shown on here time and time again, are about as mature and well thought out as a 8 year olds imaginary world.

Obviously, we completely disagree here about theists in general, but to answer your question:

The first reason would be that if he really is concerned with Christianity, then he should identify and evaluate this on its firmest ground, both to gain a better understanding of the relevant issues and to engage with the very best Christianity has to offer. Secondly, because when he does eventually interact with a Bill Craig or Alvin Plantinga, his views or so naive, that it becomes embarrassing. Plantinga for one actually takes Dawkins own view of evolution, and the resulting naturalism, and produces a pretty convincing argument to show that Dawkins own position, if true, undermines rationality, a pretty serious charge and one I would actually agree with.

Lastly, his main argument (as presented in the God Delusion) is so inept, that it is logically invalid. That is to say that even if the Christian grants it in its entirety, it still doesn't provide an argument against the existence of God, simply because its conclusion does not follow from the premises.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 3:50:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/12/2011 3:40:46 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 8/12/2011 3:18:15 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/11/2011 11:52:10 AM, unitedandy wrote:
On Dawkins, I would guess no because there are theists on here who could literally destroy him in a debate regarding the existence of God. I like Dawkins but he really does straw-man beliefs in God in this video, and his treatment of the arguments in favour of God's existence are no more developed than a high school level paper. Both him and Atkins are honestly way out of their depth when discussing philosophy, and as bright as they may be in their relevant fields (Dawkins especially really is an excellent communicator of intriguing ideas), they make mistakes anyone studying undergrad philosophy would identify.

Ehrman's a little different. On the one hand, he does seem to use Hume's argument against miracles, which shows a little niaviety if this is the case (although to be fair, Ehrman denies that he does so). With regard to biblical scholarship, he's definitely one of the better debaters and more reasonable challengers to Christianity (others like Price and Carrier seem to be way out of the mainstream).

In fairness why should they be more developed then a high school paper, he is talking and writing a lot of the time to the average theist, whose beliefs, as shown on here time and time again, are about as mature and well thought out as a 8 year olds imaginary world.

Obviously, we completely disagree here about theists in general, but to answer your question:

The first reason would be that if he really is concerned with Christianity, then he should identify and evaluate this on its firmest ground, both to gain a better understanding of the relevant issues and to engage with the very best Christianity has to offer. Secondly, because when he does eventually interact with a Bill Craig or Alvin Plantinga, his views or so naive, that it becomes embarrassing. Plantinga for one actually takes Dawkins own view of evolution, and the resulting naturalism, and produces a pretty convincing argument to show that Dawkins own position, if true, undermines rationality, a pretty serious charge and one I would actually agree with.

Lastly, his main argument (as presented in the God Delusion) is so inept, that it is logically invalid. That is to say that even if the Christian grants it in its entirety, it still doesn't provide an argument against the existence of God, simply because its conclusion does not follow from the premises.

Yeah I don't see how you can think a 2000 year old religion that came out of a period of time is beyond an 8th graders imagination, come on it has zombies, magic, and the occasional talking animals. The arguments for god presented by most theists, barely provide any relevant ground for a deist to stand on, let alone a full blown christian. Craigs arguments when you actually listen to them are completely laughable, his debates are logical fallacy machine guns, one fallacy after another until they still. He has been using the same debunked arguments for years.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 4:23:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/12/2011 3:50:57 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/12/2011 3:40:46 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 8/12/2011 3:18:15 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/11/2011 11:52:10 AM, unitedandy wrote:
On Dawkins, I would guess no because there are theists on here who could literally destroy him in a debate regarding the existence of God. I like Dawkins but he really does straw-man beliefs in God in this video, and his treatment of the arguments in favour of God's existence are no more developed than a high school level paper. Both him and Atkins are honestly way out of their depth when discussing philosophy, and as bright as they may be in their relevant fields (Dawkins especially really is an excellent communicator of intriguing ideas), they make mistakes anyone studying undergrad philosophy would identify.

Ehrman's a little different. On the one hand, he does seem to use Hume's argument against miracles, which shows a little niaviety if this is the case (although to be fair, Ehrman denies that he does so). With regard to biblical scholarship, he's definitely one of the better debaters and more reasonable challengers to Christianity (others like Price and Carrier seem to be way out of the mainstream).

In fairness why should they be more developed then a high school paper, he is talking and writing a lot of the time to the average theist, whose beliefs, as shown on here time and time again, are about as mature and well thought out as a 8 year olds imaginary world.

Obviously, we completely disagree here about theists in general, but to answer your question:

The first reason would be that if he really is concerned with Christianity, then he should identify and evaluate this on its firmest ground, both to gain a better understanding of the relevant issues and to engage with the very best Christianity has to offer. Secondly, because when he does eventually interact with a Bill Craig or Alvin Plantinga, his views or so naive, that it becomes embarrassing. Plantinga for one actually takes Dawkins own view of evolution, and the resulting naturalism, and produces a pretty convincing argument to show that Dawkins own position, if true, undermines rationality, a pretty serious charge and one I would actually agree with.

Lastly, his main argument (as presented in the God Delusion) is so inept, that it is logically invalid. That is to say that even if the Christian grants it in its entirety, it still doesn't provide an argument against the existence of God, simply because its conclusion does not follow from the premises.


Yeah I don't see how you can think a 2000 year old religion that came out of a period of time is beyond an 8th graders imagination, come on it has zombies, magic, and the occasional talking animals. The arguments for god presented by most theists, barely provide any relevant ground for a deist to stand on, let alone a full blown christian. Craigs arguments when you actually listen to them are completely laughable, his debates are logical fallacy machine guns, one fallacy after another until they still. He has been using the same debunked arguments for years.

Craig as one example knows atheism better than 99% of atheists do, and can destroy ill-prepared arguments with ease, and has already done so with Dawkins. Also, to call a guy laughable who debates with professional cosmologists and holds his own, philosophers and regularly wins, historians, evolutionary biologists and the like is a little disrespectful. I'd submit that there is literally no atheist who is as versatile in so many disciplines as WLC, as well as the fact that he is a world-class debater.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 4:27:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/12/2011 3:40:46 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 8/12/2011 3:18:15 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/11/2011 11:52:10 AM, unitedandy wrote:
On Dawkins, I would guess no because there are theists on here who could literally destroy him in a debate regarding the existence of God. I like Dawkins but he really does straw-man beliefs in God in this video, and his treatment of the arguments in favour of God's existence are no more developed than a high school level paper. Both him and Atkins are honestly way out of their depth when discussing philosophy, and as bright as they may be in their relevant fields (Dawkins especially really is an excellent communicator of intriguing ideas), they make mistakes anyone studying undergrad philosophy would identify.

Ehrman's a little different. On the one hand, he does seem to use Hume's argument against miracles, which shows a little niaviety if this is the case (although to be fair, Ehrman denies that he does so). With regard to biblical scholarship, he's definitely one of the better debaters and more reasonable challengers to Christianity (others like Price and Carrier seem to be way out of the mainstream).

In fairness why should they be more developed then a high school paper, he is talking and writing a lot of the time to the average theist, whose beliefs, as shown on here time and time again, are about as mature and well thought out as a 8 year olds imaginary world.

Obviously, we completely disagree here about theists in general, but to answer your question:

The first reason would be that if he really is concerned with Christianity, then he should identify and evaluate this on its firmest ground, both to gain a better understanding of the relevant issues and to engage with the very best Christianity has to offer. Secondly, because when he does eventually interact with a Bill Craig or Alvin Plantinga, his views or so naive, that it becomes embarrassing. Plantinga for one actually takes Dawkins own view of evolution, and the resulting naturalism, and produces a pretty convincing argument to show that Dawkins own position, if true, undermines rationality, a pretty serious charge and one I would actually agree with.

Lastly, his main argument (as presented in the God Delusion) is so inept, that it is logically invalid. That is to say that even if the Christian grants it in its entirety, it still doesn't provide an argument against the existence of God, simply because its conclusion does not follow from the premises.

I would also say that Plantiga does exactly what i call out in previous post, he attacks an atheist with a question that is a lack of knowledge. It actually brings him no closer to god existing. His question is in materialism how can you be sure your cognitive abilities are functioning correctly. Ok great question, but I fail to see how asserting a god solves that problem. Hence, we are no closer to having evidence for a god then before. Even if a god exists, there is no reason to believe that our mental capacities are not tricking us into thinking god exists, so therefore there is no reason to think our cognitive abilities are functioning properly in any worldview. It comes down to which beliefs you hold as properly basic. I personally tend to use Occam's razor to keep mine to a minimum. God violates this precept hence I don't believe it.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 4:29:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Craigs greatest skill is making poor arguments sound good to the uneducated mind.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 4:30:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The biggest problem with debate is people conflate who sounded better with who actually made the better points, and in craigs case, who actually went more the 5 words without a fallacy.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 9:21:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/12/2011 4:27:26 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/12/2011 3:40:46 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 8/12/2011 3:18:15 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/11/2011 11:52:10 AM, unitedandy wrote:
On Dawkins, I would guess no because there are theists on here who could literally destroy him in a debate regarding the existence of God. I like Dawkins but he really does straw-man beliefs in God in this video, and his treatment of the arguments in favour of God's existence are no more developed than a high school level paper. Both him and Atkins are honestly way out of their depth when discussing philosophy, and as bright as they may be in their relevant fields (Dawkins especially really is an excellent communicator of intriguing ideas), they make mistakes anyone studying undergrad philosophy would identify.

Ehrman's a little different. On the one hand, he does seem to use Hume's argument against miracles, which shows a little niaviety if this is the case (although to be fair, Ehrman denies that he does so). With regard to biblical scholarship, he's definitely one of the better debaters and more reasonable challengers to Christianity (others like Price and Carrier seem to be way out of the mainstream).

In fairness why should they be more developed then a high school paper, he is talking and writing a lot of the time to the average theist, whose beliefs, as shown on here time and time again, are about as mature and well thought out as a 8 year olds imaginary world.

Obviously, we completely disagree here about theists in general, but to answer your question:

The first reason would be that if he really is concerned with Christianity, then he should identify and evaluate this on its firmest ground, both to gain a better understanding of the relevant issues and to engage with the very best Christianity has to offer. Secondly, because when he does eventually interact with a Bill Craig or Alvin Plantinga, his views or so naive, that it becomes embarrassing. Plantinga for one actually takes Dawkins own view of evolution, and the resulting naturalism, and produces a pretty convincing argument to show that Dawkins own position, if true, undermines rationality, a pretty serious charge and one I would actually agree with.

Lastly, his main argument (as presented in the God Delusion) is so inept, that it is logically invalid. That is to say that even if the Christian grants it in its entirety, it still doesn't provide an argument against the existence of God, simply because its conclusion does not follow from the premises.


I would also say that Plantiga does exactly what i call out in previous post, he attacks an atheist with a question that is a lack of knowledge. It actually brings him no closer to god existing. His question is in materialism how can you be sure your cognitive abilities are functioning correctly. Ok great question, but I fail to see how asserting a god solves that problem. Hence, we are no closer to having evidence for a god then before. Even if a god exists, there is no reason to believe that our mental capacities are not tricking us into thinking god exists, so therefore there is no reason to think our cognitive abilities are functioning properly in any worldview. It comes down to which beliefs you hold as properly basic. I personally tend to use Occam's razor to keep mine to a minimum. God violates this precept hence I don't believe it.

Well, if all Plantinga does is make naturalism/materialism self-defeating, then this would be a huge achievement, and given Dawkins' reliance on memes and so forth, this is exactly what happens. His atheism, for all his writings, his beliefs in evolution and so forth is meaningful if the argument is correct, and Plantinga knows that the biggest asset here is Dawkins himself.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 9:23:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/12/2011 9:21:29 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 8/12/2011 4:27:26 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/12/2011 3:40:46 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 8/12/2011 3:18:15 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/11/2011 11:52:10 AM, unitedandy wrote:
On Dawkins, I would guess no because there are theists on here who could literally destroy him in a debate regarding the existence of God. I like Dawkins but he really does straw-man beliefs in God in this video, and his treatment of the arguments in favour of God's existence are no more developed than a high school level paper. Both him and Atkins are honestly way out of their depth when discussing philosophy, and as bright as they may be in their relevant fields (Dawkins especially really is an excellent communicator of intriguing ideas), they make mistakes anyone studying undergrad philosophy would identify.

Ehrman's a little different. On the one hand, he does seem to use Hume's argument against miracles, which shows a little niaviety if this is the case (although to be fair, Ehrman denies that he does so). With regard to biblical scholarship, he's definitely one of the better debaters and more reasonable challengers to Christianity (others like Price and Carrier seem to be way out of the mainstream).

In fairness why should they be more developed then a high school paper, he is talking and writing a lot of the time to the average theist, whose beliefs, as shown on here time and time again, are about as mature and well thought out as a 8 year olds imaginary world.

Obviously, we completely disagree here about theists in general, but to answer your question:

The first reason would be that if he really is concerned with Christianity, then he should identify and evaluate this on its firmest ground, both to gain a better understanding of the relevant issues and to engage with the very best Christianity has to offer. Secondly, because when he does eventually interact with a Bill Craig or Alvin Plantinga, his views or so naive, that it becomes embarrassing. Plantinga for one actually takes Dawkins own view of evolution, and the resulting naturalism, and produces a pretty convincing argument to show that Dawkins own position, if true, undermines rationality, a pretty serious charge and one I would actually agree with.

Lastly, his main argument (as presented in the God Delusion) is so inept, that it is logically invalid. That is to say that even if the Christian grants it in its entirety, it still doesn't provide an argument against the existence of God, simply because its conclusion does not follow from the premises.


I would also say that Plantiga does exactly what i call out in previous post, he attacks an atheist with a question that is a lack of knowledge. It actually brings him no closer to god existing. His question is in materialism how can you be sure your cognitive abilities are functioning correctly. Ok great question, but I fail to see how asserting a god solves that problem. Hence, we are no closer to having evidence for a god then before. Even if a god exists, there is no reason to believe that our mental capacities are not tricking us into thinking god exists, so therefore there is no reason to think our cognitive abilities are functioning properly in any worldview. It comes down to which beliefs you hold as properly basic. I personally tend to use Occam's razor to keep mine to a minimum. God violates this precept hence I don't believe it.

Well, if all Plantinga does is make naturalism/materialism self-defeating, then this would be a huge achievement, and given Dawkins' reliance on memes and so forth, this is exactly what happens. His atheism, for all his writings, his beliefs in evolution and so forth is meaningful if the argument is correct, and Plantinga knows that the biggest asset here is Dawkins himself.

But, Plantiga does no such thing, unless of course you think he makes every worldview self defeating. The fact that a worldview must have properly basic beliefs does not defeat a worldview. Ridiculous unnecessary beliefs that make no sense what so ever do though.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 9:24:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/12/2011 4:29:38 PM, izbo10 wrote:
Craigs greatest skill is making poor arguments sound good to the uneducated mind.

He's written journal articles on history, philosophy, has written a whole book defending the A-theory of time, has debated intellectuals all over the world and beaten them in their own field. Call him what you will, but criticisng a guy with 2 Phds, and a worldwide reputation as an academic seems far-fetched to me.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 9:26:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/12/2011 9:24:55 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 8/12/2011 4:29:38 PM, izbo10 wrote:
Craigs greatest skill is making poor arguments sound good to the uneducated mind.

He's written journal articles on history, philosophy, has written a whole book defending the A-theory of time, has debated intellectuals all over the world and beaten them in their own field. Call him what you will, but criticisng a guy with 2 Phds, and a worldwide reputation as an academic seems far-fetched to me.
give me one good argument the moron has made for the existence of god that is not a blatant logical fallacy.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 9:47:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/12/2011 9:41:16 PM, unitedandy wrote:
Okay. How about kalam:

Whatever begins to exist has a cause

the universe began to exist

Therefore, the universe has a cause

Basic fallacy of composition, the universe is actually the sum of all matter, to assume that all matter has cause, means the set of all matter has a cause is the exact definition of this fallacy. Lets assume for just a brief moment, though we don't need to, that that is not a fallacy. It becomes a argument from ignorance or god of the gaps fallacy to assert that cause as god. Fallacy machine gun.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 9:51:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If you want to read more on this read Victor Stenger God: The failed Hypothesis. It goes into detail about why this argument fails.

By the way here is a link to the fallacy of composition:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 9:55:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If you want to try again go ahead, but please google it ahead of time to make sure it doesn't have pages upon pages of it being debunked like the last one.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 9:58:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
That is one of the arguments that first came to mind when I think of how laughable Craigs arguments really are. You can not be a phd in philosophy and not have a simple understanding of argument from ignorance. He has to be intellectually dishonest.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 10:16:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
"Note that even if the kalâm conclusion were sound and the
universe had a cause, why could that cause itself not be natural?
As it is, the kalâm argument fails both empirically and theoretically
without ever having to bring up the second premise about
the universe having a beginning" V Stenger God: The Failed Hypothesis.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 10:24:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/12/2011 9:55:57 PM, izbo10 wrote:
If you want to try again go ahead, but please google it ahead of time to make sure it doesn't have pages upon pages of it being debunked like the last one.

I knew it would get to the stage of me defending an argument I don't agree with. First things first. The argument from ignorance point. If Craig is right about both premises, the conclusion follows necessarily. To get to God, he makes a number of sub-points, regarding the nature of the cause (such as it has to be personal, timeless and so on), and this we call God.

As far as the fallacy of composition, this is a bit more tricky, because I kind of see this is as well. But Craig, I assume would make the following points. First, the composition fallacy is not always applicable. For instance, if every part of a ball is green it is true to say that the whole ball is green. With this in mind, coupled with the fact that Craig gives scientific (Big Bang, failure of cyclical models, etc) and philosophical arguments (Hilbert's hotel, absurdity of nothingness), he would say that one must accept P2.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 10:35:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/12/2011 10:24:14 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 8/12/2011 9:55:57 PM, izbo10 wrote:
If you want to try again go ahead, but please google it ahead of time to make sure it doesn't have pages upon pages of it being debunked like the last one.

I knew it would get to the stage of me defending an argument I don't agree with. First things first. The argument from ignorance point. If Craig is right about both premises, the conclusion follows necessarily. To get to God, he makes a number of sub-points, regarding the nature of the cause (such as it has to be personal, timeless and so on), and this we call God.

As far as the fallacy of composition, this is a bit more tricky, because I kind of see this is as well. But Craig, I assume would make the following points. First, the composition fallacy is not always applicable. For instance, if every part of a ball is green it is true to say that the whole ball is green. With this in mind, coupled with the fact that Craig gives scientific (Big Bang, failure of cyclical models, etc) and philosophical arguments (Hilbert's hotel, absurdity of nothingness), he would say that one must accept P2.
Premise 1: Everything that begins to exists has a cause
This is based on the fallacy of composition, the universe is the set of everything that exists or the set of all matter, so therefore attributing the attributes of those things to the entire set is a fallacy.
Premise 2: The universe began to exist.
"Nevertheless, another nail in the coffin of the kalâm argument is
provided by the fact that the second premise also fails. As we saw
above, the claim that the universe began with the big bang has no
basis in current physical and cosmological knowledge."V stenger. God: the failed....
Conclusion: The universe has a cause
"Note that even if the kalâm conclusion were sound and the
universe had a cause, why could that cause itself not be natural?"- V stenger, so where is god in this conclusion exactly?

Kalams is a failure of epic proportions.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 10:39:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/12/2011 10:16:37 PM, izbo10 wrote:
"Note that even if the kalâm conclusion were sound and the
universe had a cause, why could that cause itself not be natural?
As it is, the kalâm argument fails both empirically and theoretically
without ever having to bring up the second premise about
the universe having a beginning" V Stenger God: The Failed Hypothesis.

See, this is precisely my point. Craig debated Stenger, going toe to toe with him, using 2 or 3 arguments for the existence of God using physics against someone who is a trained physicist. He has done the same with other scientists as well. Just compare this for a second to Dawkins leap into philosophy. Dawkins shows himself to be a complete layman, even to the vast majority of atheist philosophers. Atkins is 10 times worse. But Craig has done this with numerous experts: other scientists such as Ayala, numerous biblical scholars, experts in various philosophical fields. The guy is a smart guy. No doubt.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 10:40:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/12/2011 10:24:14 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 8/12/2011 9:55:57 PM, izbo10 wrote:
If you want to try again go ahead, but please google it ahead of time to make sure it doesn't have pages upon pages of it being debunked like the last one.

I knew it would get to the stage of me defending an argument I don't agree with. First things first. The argument from ignorance point. If Craig is right about both premises, the conclusion follows necessarily. To get to God, he makes a number of sub-points, regarding the nature of the cause (such as it has to be personal, timeless and so on), and this we call God.

As far as the fallacy of composition, this is a bit more tricky, because I kind of see this is as well. But Craig, I assume would make the following points. First, the composition fallacy is not always applicable. For instance, if every part of a ball is green it is true to say that the whole ball is green. With this in mind, coupled with the fact that Craig gives scientific (Big Bang, failure of cyclical models, etc) and philosophical arguments (Hilbert's hotel, absurdity of nothingness), he would say that one must accept P2.

To take out the ball example, imagine this scenario, imagine you put 4 yellow liguid chemicals in a bowl, does that mean the result is a yellow liquid in the bowl. No it could be completely different due to reaction, the product does not have the attributes of the parts making it. That is why it is a fallacy.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 10:50:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/12/2011 10:35:26 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/12/2011 10:24:14 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 8/12/2011 9:55:57 PM, izbo10 wrote:
If you want to try again go ahead, but please google it ahead of time to make sure it doesn't have pages upon pages of it being debunked like the last one.

I knew it would get to the stage of me defending an argument I don't agree with. First things first. The argument from ignorance point. If Craig is right about both premises, the conclusion follows necessarily. To get to God, he makes a number of sub-points, regarding the nature of the cause (such as it has to be personal, timeless and so on), and this we call God.

As far as the fallacy of composition, this is a bit more tricky, because I kind of see this is as well. But Craig, I assume would make the following points. First, the composition fallacy is not always applicable. For instance, if every part of a ball is green it is true to say that the whole ball is green. With this in mind, coupled with the fact that Craig gives scientific (Big Bang, failure of cyclical models, etc) and philosophical arguments (Hilbert's hotel, absurdity of nothingness), he would say that one must accept P2.
Premise 1: Everything that begins to exists has a cause
This is based on the fallacy of composition, the universe is the set of everything that exists or the set of all matter, so therefore attributing the attributes of those things to the entire set is a fallacy.

Like I said, this doesn't always apply, and Craig gives the arguments I mentioned to support his case.
Premise 2: The universe began to exist.
"Nevertheless, another nail in the coffin of the kalâm argument is
provided by the fact that the second premise also fails. As we saw
above, the claim that the universe began with the big bang has no
basis in current physical and cosmological knowledge."V stenger. God: the failed....

Even if this where true (which Craig gives us empirical reasons to doubt), the philosophical problems of infinity give us some a priori grounds for accepting p2 must be the case.
Conclusion: The universe has a cause
"Note that even if the kalâm conclusion were sound and the
universe had a cause, why could that cause itself not be natural?"- V stenger, so where is god in this conclusion exactly?

Like I said, Craig infers the nature of the cause once establishing the 2 premises above, to the point where we get a powerful, timeless, personal cause of the universe.

Kalams is a failure of epic proportions.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 10:54:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/12/2011 10:40:04 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/12/2011 10:24:14 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 8/12/2011 9:55:57 PM, izbo10 wrote:
If you want to try again go ahead, but please google it ahead of time to make sure it doesn't have pages upon pages of it being debunked like the last one.

I knew it would get to the stage of me defending an argument I don't agree with. First things first. The argument from ignorance point. If Craig is right about both premises, the conclusion follows necessarily. To get to God, he makes a number of sub-points, regarding the nature of the cause (such as it has to be personal, timeless and so on), and this we call God.

As far as the fallacy of composition, this is a bit more tricky, because I kind of see this is as well. But Craig, I assume would make the following points. First, the composition fallacy is not always applicable. For instance, if every part of a ball is green it is true to say that the whole ball is green. With this in mind, coupled with the fact that Craig gives scientific (Big Bang, failure of cyclical models, etc) and philosophical arguments (Hilbert's hotel, absurdity of nothingness), he would say that one must accept P2.

To take out the ball example, imagine this scenario, imagine you put 4 yellow liguid chemicals in a bowl, does that mean the result is a yellow liquid in the bowl. No it could be completely different due to reaction, the product does not have the attributes of the parts making it. That is why it is a fallacy.

Well, Craig gives reasons to think that P1 is true not just of whatever does exist, but of whatever could exist, so it again he answers this objection.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 8:37:24 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
The point of fallacy of composition is that it doesn't necessarily follow that the sum will be the same showing an example that it does, does not undermine the fact. If something is logically valid it must follow in every circumstance.

n logic, an argument is valid if and only if its conclusion is entailed by its premises, a formula is valid if and only if it is true under every interpretation, and an argument form (or schema) is valid if and only if every argument of that logical form is valid.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

You can use fallacious reasoning to stumble upon a right answer, but it doesn't mean the reasoning is valid.

Second point is easy asserting a god just moves the goal posts back. If nothing can be infinite and then he asserts a god must have created he is special pleading. Where did his god come from. If god is infinite he has to prove the universe can't be.

"Like I said, Craig infers the nature of the cause once establishing the 2 premises above, to the point where we get a powerful, timeless, personal cause of the universe."

Blatant assertion that does not follow, he just says the word must very strongly. I can say his premises and say the conclusion is it must come from a powerful, timeless, impersonal cause. Does it make it valid. How does he jump to this conclusion. Love to see the syllogism he ever shows to get to this point. I have yet to see him do a full syllogism to prove the point. In logic you can not just throw added baggage in at the end.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.