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

Dr. Craig Contradiction

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2013 1:24:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Well, I think it is clear to anybody who has studied Dr. Craig that he contradicts himself to know end. Not to my surprise, I found another contradiction in Dr. Craig's view.

"They (animals) have pain awareness." - Dr. Craig

"Even though animals are in pain, they aren't aware of it." - Dr. Craig

I have seen Craig try to slither out of contradictions and other absurdities before, but how does he slide out of this one?
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2013 2:13:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't defend him, but the two statements you put are not necessarily in contradiction we need to know the context of each one.

I didn't see the video yet.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2013 3:00:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/10/2013 2:13:51 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
I don't defend him, but the two statements you put are not necessarily in contradiction we need to know the context of each one.

I didn't see the video yet.

In a podcast he says that animals have pain awareness, but in a lecture, he says animals feel pain but they aren't aware of it. That's necessarily a contradiction.
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2013 2:56:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The most simple/obvious/plausible explanation, would be that he simply -- misspoke! *gasp*, *screams in horror*, *faints*.
But did you hear (even part of) the podcast, or just that tiny little sound byte the YT clip?
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2013 4:40:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/10/2013 1:24:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Well, I think it is clear to anybody who has studied Dr. Craig that he contradicts himself to know end. Not to my surprise, I found another contradiction in Dr. Craig's view.

"They (animals) have pain awareness." - Dr. Craig

"Even though animals are in pain, they aren't aware of it." - Dr. Craig

I have seen Craig try to slither out of contradictions and other absurdities before, but how does he slide out of this one?

WLC is not an intellectual. He is not a worthwhile theologian. There is nothing he brings to the table which is valuable. But yes, in any case, a contradiction you have found.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2013 4:36:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/11/2013 4:40:34 AM, YYW wrote:
WLC is not an intellectual.
He certainly is. Whether or not he's intelligent is another thing.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2013 12:57:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/10/2013 1:24:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Well, I think it is clear to anybody who has studied Dr. Craig that he contradicts himself to know end. Not to my surprise, I found another contradiction in Dr. Craig's view.

"They (animals) have pain awareness." - Dr. Craig

"Even though animals are in pain, they aren't aware of it." - Dr. Craig

I have seen Craig try to slither out of contradictions and other absurdities before, but how does he slide out of this one?

As ridiculous as I have ever found Craig's arguments, the argument that animals do not feel pain is the most ridiculous of all, Any fool can tell when animals genuinely feels pain, and his argument is nothing more than a defence for the church to keep slaughtering and killing billions of innocent animal so we can consume their flesh

The original biblical commandment is thou shalt not Kill, which applies to all living things, but to no astonishment the newer translations translate the commandment as thou shalt not Murder, where which the word murder only applies to man......

As Gandhi stated "I like you Christ but I do not like your Christians".
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2013 7:35:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/13/2013 12:57:46 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 11/10/2013 1:24:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Well, I think it is clear to anybody who has studied Dr. Craig that he contradicts himself to know end. Not to my surprise, I found another contradiction in Dr. Craig's view.

"They (animals) have pain awareness." - Dr. Craig

"Even though animals are in pain, they aren't aware of it." - Dr. Craig

I have seen Craig try to slither out of contradictions and other absurdities before, but how does he slide out of this one?

As ridiculous as I have ever found Craig's arguments, the argument that animals do not feel pain is the most ridiculous of all, Any fool can tell when animals genuinely feels pain, and his argument is nothing more than a defence for the church to keep slaughtering and killing billions of innocent animal so we can consume their flesh

Did you even listen to/comprehend what WLC said? He made it very clear that animals do feel pain.

The original biblical commandment is thou shalt not Kill, which applies to all living things, but to no astonishment the newer translations translate the commandment as thou shalt not Murder, where which the word murder only applies to man......

Where did you get that from? Would you be willing to defend this contention in a debate?

As Gandhi stated "I like you Christ but I do not like your Christians".
I say to Gandhi "People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones & they also shouldn't sleep with little girls, I like the peaceful ideology which you preached, but I don't like the way you actually live". (If you don't know what I'm talking about, read a book by the former New York Times executive editor titled "Great Soul". See also http://www.independent.co.uk... http://www.telegraph.co.uk... http://diaryofahollywoodstreetking.com...)
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2013 12:45:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/15/2013 7:35:26 AM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
At 11/13/2013 12:57:46 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 11/10/2013 1:24:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Well, I think it is clear to anybody who has studied Dr. Craig that he contradicts himself to know end. Not to my surprise, I found another contradiction in Dr. Craig's view.

"They (animals) have pain awareness." - Dr. Craig

"Even though animals are in pain, they aren't aware of it." - Dr. Craig

I have seen Craig try to slither out of contradictions and other absurdities before, but how does he slide out of this one?

As ridiculous as I have ever found Craig's arguments, the argument that animals do not feel pain is the most ridiculous of all, Any fool can tell when animals genuinely feels pain, and his argument is nothing more than a defence for the church to keep slaughtering and killing billions of innocent animal so we can consume their flesh

Did you even listen to/comprehend what WLC said? He made it very clear that animals do feel pain.

How can you feel something if you are not aware of it. Another Contradiction.

The original biblical commandment is thou shalt not Kill, which applies to all living things, but to no astonishment the newer translations translate the commandment as thou shalt not Murder, where which the word murder only applies to man......

Where did you get that from? Would you be willing to defend this contention in a debate?

There is nothing to debate. Do some research, Thou shalt not kill has now become thou shalt not murder. Go figure. And I have already debated this as a contradiction in biblical translations. And I won with most of the votes begrudgingly coming from Christians.

As Gandhi stated "I like you Christ but I do not like your Christians".
I say to Gandhi "People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones & they also shouldn't sleep with little girls, I like the peaceful ideology which you preached, but I don't like the way you actually live". (If you don't know what I'm talking about, read a book by the former New York Times executive editor titled "Great Soul". See also http://www.independent.co.uk... http://www.telegraph.co.uk... http://diaryofahollywoodstreetking.com...)
dadman
Posts: 272
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2013 1:12:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
more on W L CRAIG http://dadmansabode.dailyforum.net...

thoughts worth considering
And he (God) gave some apostles .. and some prophets .. and some evangelists .. and some teaching pastors .. for the perfecting of the saints .. for the work of the ministry .. for the edifying of the body of Christ .. till we all come in the unity of the faith .. and of the knowledge of the Son of God .. to a perfect (complete) man .. to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ . . . . Ephesians 4:12 .. http://dadmansabode.com... .. come and learn
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2013 2:33:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/11/2013 4:40:34 AM, YYW wrote:
At 11/10/2013 1:24:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Well, I think it is clear to anybody who has studied Dr. Craig that he contradicts himself to know end. Not to my surprise, I found another contradiction in Dr. Craig's view.

"They (animals) have pain awareness." - Dr. Craig

"Even though animals are in pain, they aren't aware of it." - Dr. Craig

I have seen Craig try to slither out of contradictions and other absurdities before, but how does he slide out of this one?

WLC is not an intellectual. He is not a worthwhile theologian. There is nothing he brings to the table which is valuable. But yes, in any case, a contradiction you have found.

He's certainly a worthwhile theologian haha
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2013 2:46:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/15/2013 12:45:57 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 11/15/2013 7:35:26 AM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
At 11/13/2013 12:57:46 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 11/10/2013 1:24:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Well, I think it is clear to anybody who has studied Dr. Craig that he contradicts himself to know end. Not to my surprise, I found another contradiction in Dr. Craig's view.

"They (animals) have pain awareness." - Dr. Craig

"Even though animals are in pain, they aren't aware of it." - Dr. Craig

I have seen Craig try to slither out of contradictions and other absurdities before, but how does he slide out of this one?

As ridiculous as I have ever found Craig's arguments, the argument that animals do not feel pain is the most ridiculous of all, Any fool can tell when animals genuinely feels pain, and his argument is nothing more than a defence for the church to keep slaughtering and killing billions of innocent animal so we can consume their flesh

Did you even listen to/comprehend what WLC said? He made it very clear that animals do feel pain.

How can you feel something if you are not aware of it. Another Contradiction.

This is the subject of much debate, & there are 2 schools on the matter. There are those who say that humans who are unconscious can feel pain , but they are not aware that they are in pain http://www.newscientist.com.... It's a very subtle difference, but what is referred to as the highest level of pain requires "self awareness". http://www.sciencedaily.com...

http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
See also:
"Nature Red in Tooth and Claw", Michael Murray, Oxford University Press, 2011
"Feeling Pain and Being in Pain", Nikola Grahek, MIT Press, 2007.
The original biblical commandment is thou shalt not Kill, which applies to all living things, but to no astonishment the newer translations translate the commandment as thou shalt not Murder, where which the word murder only applies to man......

Where did you get that from? Would you be willing to defend this contention in a debate?

There is nothing to debate. Do some research, Thou shalt not kill has now become thou shalt not murder. Go figure. And I have already debated this as a contradiction in biblical translations. And I won with most of the votes begrudgingly coming from Christians.


I'm not sure what you're talking about, that debate was not about "The original biblical commandment is thou shalt not Kill, which applies to all living things", but rather "This debate is about two key words used in the Christian bible which is found in multiple translations and contradict each other. There is no other conclusion other than to deem at least some translations of the Bible as un-reliable." (which is rather silly to debate, since there are obviously multiple translations with many conflicting translations. I can actually argue that all translations (at least the english ones) contain mistranslations).

So are you willing defend your claim that "The original biblical commandment is thou shalt not Kill, which applies to all living things" in a debate, or not?

As Gandhi stated "I like you Christ but I do not like your Christians".
I say to Gandhi "People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones & they also shouldn't sleep with little girls, I like the peaceful ideology which you preached, but I don't like the way you actually live". (If you don't know what I'm talking about, read a book by the former New York Times executive editor titled "Great Soul". See also http://www.independent.co.uk... http://www.telegraph.co.uk... http://diaryofahollywoodstreetking.com...)
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2013 2:55:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/15/2013 2:46:56 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
At 11/15/2013 12:45:57 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 11/15/2013 7:35:26 AM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
At 11/13/2013 12:57:46 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 11/10/2013 1:24:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Well, I think it is clear to anybody who has studied Dr. Craig that he contradicts himself to know end. Not to my surprise, I found another contradiction in Dr. Craig's view.

"They (animals) have pain awareness." - Dr. Craig

"Even though animals are in pain, they aren't aware of it." - Dr. Craig

I have seen Craig try to slither out of contradictions and other absurdities before, but how does he slide out of this one?

As ridiculous as I have ever found Craig's arguments, the argument that animals do not feel pain is the most ridiculous of all, Any fool can tell when animals genuinely feels pain, and his argument is nothing more than a defence for the church to keep slaughtering and killing billions of innocent animal so we can consume their flesh

Did you even listen to/comprehend what WLC said? He made it very clear that animals do feel pain.

How can you feel something if you are not aware of it. Another Contradiction.

This is the subject of much debate, & there are 2 schools on the matter. There are those who say that humans who are unconscious can feel pain , but they are not aware that they are in pain http://www.newscientist.com.... It's a very subtle difference, but what is referred to as the highest level of pain requires "self awareness". http://www.sciencedaily.com...

http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
See also:
"Nature Red in Tooth and Claw", Michael Murray, Oxford University Press, 2011
"Feeling Pain and Being in Pain", Nikola Grahek, MIT Press, 2007.
The original biblical commandment is thou shalt not Kill, which applies to all living things, but to no astonishment the newer translations translate the commandment as thou shalt not Murder, where which the word murder only applies to man......

Where did you get that from? Would you be willing to defend this contention in a debate?

There is nothing to debate. Do some research, Thou shalt not kill has now become thou shalt not murder. Go figure. And I have already debated this as a contradiction in biblical translations. And I won with most of the votes begrudgingly coming from Christians.


I'm not sure what you're talking about, that debate was not about "The original biblical commandment is thou shalt not Kill, which applies to all living things", but rather "This debate is about two key words used in the Christian bible which is found in multiple translations and contradict each other. There is no other conclusion other than to deem at least some translations of the Bible as un-reliable." (which is rather silly to debate, since there are obviously multiple translations with many conflicting translations. I can actually argue that all translations (at least the english ones) contain mistranslations).

So are you willing defend your claim that "The original biblical commandment is thou shalt not Kill, which applies to all living things" in a debate, or not?

As Gandhi stated "I like you Christ but I do not like your Christians".
I say to Gandhi "People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones & they also shouldn't sleep with little girls, I like the peaceful ideology which you preached, but I don't like the way you actually live". (If you don't know what I'm talking about, read a book by the former New York Times executive editor titled "Great Soul". See also http://www.independent.co.uk... http://www.telegraph.co.uk... http://diaryofahollywoodstreetking.com...)

What does any of that have to do with Dr. Craig's contradiction?
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2013 3:03:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/15/2013 2:55:20 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/15/2013 2:46:56 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
At 11/15/2013 12:45:57 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 11/15/2013 7:35:26 AM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
At 11/13/2013 12:57:46 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 11/10/2013 1:24:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Well, I think it is clear to anybody who has studied Dr. Craig that he contradicts himself to know end. Not to my surprise, I found another contradiction in Dr. Craig's view.

"They (animals) have pain awareness." - Dr. Craig

"Even though animals are in pain, they aren't aware of it." - Dr. Craig

I have seen Craig try to slither out of contradictions and other absurdities before, but how does he slide out of this one?

As ridiculous as I have ever found Craig's arguments, the argument that animals do not feel pain is the most ridiculous of all, Any fool can tell when animals genuinely feels pain, and his argument is nothing more than a defence for the church to keep slaughtering and killing billions of innocent animal so we can consume their flesh

Did you even listen to/comprehend what WLC said? He made it very clear that animals do feel pain.

How can you feel something if you are not aware of it. Another Contradiction.

This is the subject of much debate, & there are 2 schools on the matter. There are those who say that humans who are unconscious can feel pain , but they are not aware that they are in pain http://www.newscientist.com.... It's a very subtle difference, but what is referred to as the highest level of pain requires "self awareness". http://www.sciencedaily.com...

http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
See also:
"Nature Red in Tooth and Claw", Michael Murray, Oxford University Press, 2011
"Feeling Pain and Being in Pain", Nikola Grahek, MIT Press, 2007.
The original biblical commandment is thou shalt not Kill, which applies to all living things, but to no astonishment the newer translations translate the commandment as thou shalt not Murder, where which the word murder only applies to man......

Where did you get that from? Would you be willing to defend this contention in a debate?

There is nothing to debate. Do some research, Thou shalt not kill has now become thou shalt not murder. Go figure. And I have already debated this as a contradiction in biblical translations. And I won with most of the votes begrudgingly coming from Christians.


I'm not sure what you're talking about, that debate was not about "The original biblical commandment is thou shalt not Kill, which applies to all living things", but rather "This debate is about two key words used in the Christian bible which is found in multiple translations and contradict each other. There is no other conclusion other than to deem at least some translations of the Bible as un-reliable." (which is rather silly to debate, since there are obviously multiple translations with many conflicting translations. I can actually argue that all translations (at least the english ones) contain mistranslations).

So are you willing defend your claim that "The original biblical commandment is thou shalt not Kill, which applies to all living things" in a debate, or not?

As Gandhi stated "I like you Christ but I do not like your Christians".
I say to Gandhi "People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones & they also shouldn't sleep with little girls, I like the peaceful ideology which you preached, but I don't like the way you actually live". (If you don't know what I'm talking about, read a book by the former New York Times executive editor titled "Great Soul". See also http://www.independent.co.uk... http://www.telegraph.co.uk... http://diaryofahollywoodstreetking.com...)

What does any of that have to do with Dr. Craig's contradiction?

I guess it got a bit tangential, but I already responded to the contradiction in post #5. This was in response luba.
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2013 3:04:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/15/2013 3:03:29 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
At 11/15/2013 2:55:20 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/15/2013 2:46:56 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
At 11/15/2013 12:45:57 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 11/15/2013 7:35:26 AM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
At 11/13/2013 12:57:46 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 11/10/2013 1:24:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Well, I think it is clear to anybody who has studied Dr. Craig that he contradicts himself to know end. Not to my surprise, I found another contradiction in Dr. Craig's view.

"They (animals) have pain awareness." - Dr. Craig

"Even though animals are in pain, they aren't aware of it." - Dr. Craig

I have seen Craig try to slither out of contradictions and other absurdities before, but how does he slide out of this one?

As ridiculous as I have ever found Craig's arguments, the argument that animals do not feel pain is the most ridiculous of all, Any fool can tell when animals genuinely feels pain, and his argument is nothing more than a defence for the church to keep slaughtering and killing billions of innocent animal so we can consume their flesh

Did you even listen to/comprehend what WLC said? He made it very clear that animals do feel pain.

How can you feel something if you are not aware of it. Another Contradiction.

This is the subject of much debate, & there are 2 schools on the matter. There are those who say that humans who are unconscious can feel pain , but they are not aware that they are in pain http://www.newscientist.com.... It's a very subtle difference, but what is referred to as the highest level of pain requires "self awareness". http://www.sciencedaily.com...

http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
See also:
"Nature Red in Tooth and Claw", Michael Murray, Oxford University Press, 2011
"Feeling Pain and Being in Pain", Nikola Grahek, MIT Press, 2007.
The original biblical commandment is thou shalt not Kill, which applies to all living things, but to no astonishment the newer translations translate the commandment as thou shalt not Murder, where which the word murder only applies to man......

Where did you get that from? Would you be willing to defend this contention in a debate?

There is nothing to debate. Do some research, Thou shalt not kill has now become thou shalt not murder. Go figure. And I have already debated this as a contradiction in biblical translations. And I won with most of the votes begrudgingly coming from Christians.


I'm not sure what you're talking about, that debate was not about "The original biblical commandment is thou shalt not Kill, which applies to all living things", but rather "This debate is about two key words used in the Christian bible which is found in multiple translations and contradict each other. There is no other conclusion other than to deem at least some translations of the Bible as un-reliable." (which is rather silly to debate, since there are obviously multiple translations with many conflicting translations. I can actually argue that all translations (at least the english ones) contain mistranslations).

So are you willing defend your claim that "The original biblical commandment is thou shalt not Kill, which applies to all living things" in a debate, or not?

As Gandhi stated "I like you Christ but I do not like your Christians".
I say to Gandhi "People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones & they also shouldn't sleep with little girls, I like the peaceful ideology which you preached, but I don't like the way you actually live". (If you don't know what I'm talking about, read a book by the former New York Times executive editor titled "Great Soul". See also http://www.independent.co.uk... http://www.telegraph.co.uk... http://diaryofahollywoodstreetking.com...)

What does any of that have to do with Dr. Craig's contradiction?

I guess it got a bit tangential, but I already responded to the contradiction in post #5. This was in response luba.

The point is that when people "misspeak", Dr. Craig has called people out for contradictions in debates before. I'm just giving him a taste of his own medicine.
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2013 6:23:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/15/2013 2:33:35 PM, stubs wrote:
At 11/11/2013 4:40:34 AM, YYW wrote:
At 11/10/2013 1:24:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Well, I think it is clear to anybody who has studied Dr. Craig that he contradicts himself to know end. Not to my surprise, I found another contradiction in Dr. Craig's view.

"They (animals) have pain awareness." - Dr. Craig

"Even though animals are in pain, they aren't aware of it." - Dr. Craig

I have seen Craig try to slither out of contradictions and other absurdities before, but how does he slide out of this one?

WLC is not an intellectual. He is not a worthwhile theologian. There is nothing he brings to the table which is valuable. But yes, in any case, a contradiction you have found.

He's certainly a worthwhile theologian haha

Are you one of those people who thinks that God's existence can be deductively proven?
Bellerophon
Posts: 94
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2013 7:19:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/10/2013 1:24:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Well, I think it is clear to anybody who has studied Dr. Craig that he contradicts himself to know end. Not to my surprise, I found another contradiction in Dr. Craig's view.

"They (animals) have pain awareness." - Dr. Craig

"Even though animals are in pain, they aren't aware of it." - Dr. Craig

I have seen Craig try to slither out of contradictions and other absurdities before, but how does he slide out of this one?

This is where most folks miss the point, animals have pain awareness but it's a lower order awareness: Murray says that have first order pain. But humans have third order pain awareness. (This is what Craig takes are "awareness" in the second sentence, it's a slip of tongue probably because he was informally talking on a podcast.)

This is why the principle of charity is awesome. Doesn't waste your time or ours. :-)
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2013 7:27:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/15/2013 7:19:45 PM, Bellerophon wrote:
At 11/10/2013 1:24:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Well, I think it is clear to anybody who has studied Dr. Craig that he contradicts himself to know end. Not to my surprise, I found another contradiction in Dr. Craig's view.

"They (animals) have pain awareness." - Dr. Craig

"Even though animals are in pain, they aren't aware of it." - Dr. Craig

I have seen Craig try to slither out of contradictions and other absurdities before, but how does he slide out of this one?

This is where most folks miss the point, animals have pain awareness but it's a lower order awareness: Murray says that have first order pain. But humans have third order pain awareness. (This is what Craig takes are "awareness" in the second sentence, it's a slip of tongue probably because he was informally talking on a podcast.)

This is why the principle of charity is awesome. Doesn't waste your time or ours. :-)

Too bad Dr. Craig isn't as "charitable" when we quotes other people.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2013 7:46:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/15/2013 7:19:45 PM, Bellerophon wrote:
At 11/10/2013 1:24:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Well, I think it is clear to anybody who has studied Dr. Craig that he contradicts himself to know end. Not to my surprise, I found another contradiction in Dr. Craig's view.

"They (animals) have pain awareness." - Dr. Craig

"Even though animals are in pain, they aren't aware of it." - Dr. Craig

I have seen Craig try to slither out of contradictions and other absurdities before, but how does he slide out of this one?

This is where most folks miss the point, animals have pain awareness but it's a lower order awareness: Murray says that have first order pain. But humans have third order pain awareness. (This is what Craig takes are "awareness" in the second sentence, it's a slip of tongue probably because he was informally talking on a podcast.)

This is why the principle of charity is awesome. Doesn't waste your time or ours. :-)

The bolded hasn't actually been shown though. It's assumed in a neo-cartesian framework but what reason is there to believe that?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Bellerophon
Posts: 94
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2013 7:51:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/15/2013 7:27:48 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/15/2013 7:19:45 PM, Bellerophon wrote:
At 11/10/2013 1:24:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Well, I think it is clear to anybody who has studied Dr. Craig that he contradicts himself to know end. Not to my surprise, I found another contradiction in Dr. Craig's view.

"They (animals) have pain awareness." - Dr. Craig

"Even though animals are in pain, they aren't aware of it." - Dr. Craig

I have seen Craig try to slither out of contradictions and other absurdities before, but how does he slide out of this one?

This is where most folks miss the point, animals have pain awareness but it's a lower order awareness: Murray says that have first order pain. But humans have third order pain awareness. (This is what Craig takes are "awareness" in the second sentence, it's a slip of tongue probably because he was informally talking on a podcast.)

This is why the principle of charity is awesome. Doesn't waste your time or ours. :-)

Too bad Dr. Craig isn't as "charitable" when we quotes other people.

Actually he is, if you're thinking of Krauss they immediately corrected their error once they saw that it wasn't Dawkins they quoted but someone else.. Craig also apologized to Krauss and announced their error online through podcast. Get your facts str8
Bellerophon
Posts: 94
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2013 7:58:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/15/2013 7:46:03 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/15/2013 7:19:45 PM, Bellerophon wrote:
At 11/10/2013 1:24:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Well, I think it is clear to anybody who has studied Dr. Craig that he contradicts himself to know end. Not to my surprise, I found another contradiction in Dr. Craig's view.

"They (animals) have pain awareness." - Dr. Craig

"Even though animals are in pain, they aren't aware of it." - Dr. Craig

I have seen Craig try to slither out of contradictions and other absurdities before, but how does he slide out of this one?

This is where most folks miss the point, animals have pain awareness but it's a lower order awareness: Murray says that have first order pain. But humans have third order pain awareness. (This is what Craig takes are "awareness" in the second sentence, it's a slip of tongue probably because he was informally talking on a podcast.)

This is why the principle of charity is awesome. Doesn't waste your time or ours. :-)

The bolded hasn't actually been shown though. It's assumed in a neo-cartesian framework but what reason is there to believe that?

Craig and Murray can assume Emergent dualism if they want to it doesn't have to be Cartesian.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2013 8:04:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/15/2013 7:58:47 PM, Bellerophon wrote:
At 11/15/2013 7:46:03 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/15/2013 7:19:45 PM, Bellerophon wrote:
At 11/10/2013 1:24:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Well, I think it is clear to anybody who has studied Dr. Craig that he contradicts himself to know end. Not to my surprise, I found another contradiction in Dr. Craig's view.

"They (animals) have pain awareness." - Dr. Craig

"Even though animals are in pain, they aren't aware of it." - Dr. Craig

I have seen Craig try to slither out of contradictions and other absurdities before, but how does he slide out of this one?

This is where most folks miss the point, animals have pain awareness but it's a lower order awareness: Murray says that have first order pain. But humans have third order pain awareness. (This is what Craig takes are "awareness" in the second sentence, it's a slip of tongue probably because he was informally talking on a podcast.)

This is why the principle of charity is awesome. Doesn't waste your time or ours. :-)

The bolded hasn't actually been shown though. It's assumed in a neo-cartesian framework but what reason is there to believe that?

Craig and Murray can assume Emergent dualism if they want to it doesn't have to be Cartesian.

Murray explicitly deploys his arguments in a neo-cartesian framework and Craig follows suit. Their arguments don't work without it.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Bellerophon
Posts: 94
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2013 8:10:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/15/2013 8:04:13 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/15/2013 7:58:47 PM, Bellerophon wrote:
At 11/15/2013 7:46:03 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/15/2013 7:19:45 PM, Bellerophon wrote:
At 11/10/2013 1:24:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Well, I think it is clear to anybody who has studied Dr. Craig that he contradicts himself to know end. Not to my surprise, I found another contradiction in Dr. Craig's view.

"They (animals) have pain awareness." - Dr. Craig

"Even though animals are in pain, they aren't aware of it." - Dr. Craig

I have seen Craig try to slither out of contradictions and other absurdities before, but how does he slide out of this one?

This is where most folks miss the point, animals have pain awareness but it's a lower order awareness: Murray says that have first order pain. But humans have third order pain awareness. (This is what Craig takes are "awareness" in the second sentence, it's a slip of tongue probably because he was informally talking on a podcast.)

This is why the principle of charity is awesome. Doesn't waste your time or ours. :-)

The bolded hasn't actually been shown though. It's assumed in a neo-cartesian framework but what reason is there to believe that?

Craig and Murray can assume Emergent dualism if they want to it doesn't have to be Cartesian.

Murray explicitly deploys his arguments in a neo-cartesian framework and Craig follows suit. Their arguments don't work without it.

Right, what about, say, Hasker's emergent dualism is incompatible with their arguments?
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2013 8:20:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/15/2013 8:10:32 PM, Bellerophon wrote:
At 11/15/2013 8:04:13 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/15/2013 7:58:47 PM, Bellerophon wrote:
At 11/15/2013 7:46:03 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/15/2013 7:19:45 PM, Bellerophon wrote:
At 11/10/2013 1:24:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Well, I think it is clear to anybody who has studied Dr. Craig that he contradicts himself to know end. Not to my surprise, I found another contradiction in Dr. Craig's view.

"They (animals) have pain awareness." - Dr. Craig

"Even though animals are in pain, they aren't aware of it." - Dr. Craig

I have seen Craig try to slither out of contradictions and other absurdities before, but how does he slide out of this one?

This is where most folks miss the point, animals have pain awareness but it's a lower order awareness: Murray says that have first order pain. But humans have third order pain awareness. (This is what Craig takes are "awareness" in the second sentence, it's a slip of tongue probably because he was informally talking on a podcast.)

This is why the principle of charity is awesome. Doesn't waste your time or ours. :-)

The bolded hasn't actually been shown though. It's assumed in a neo-cartesian framework but what reason is there to believe that?

Craig and Murray can assume Emergent dualism if they want to it doesn't have to be Cartesian.

Murray explicitly deploys his arguments in a neo-cartesian framework and Craig follows suit. Their arguments don't work without it.

Right, what about, say, Hasker's emergent dualism is incompatible with their arguments?

Missing the point. The neo-cartesian CD's (as Murray calls them) don't depend essentially on any particular theory of ontological nature of the mind (i.e. whether the mind is just the brain, or it is non-physical, etc). They could go from physicalism to idealism. It's the nature of the theories of how consciousness works that make them neo-cartesian. Saying that they could be wedded to emergent dualism does absolutely nothing to mitigate the problems with the framework as a whole.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Bellerophon
Posts: 94
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2013 8:59:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/15/2013 8:20:15 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/15/2013 8:10:32 PM, Bellerophon wrote:
At 11/15/2013 8:04:13 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/15/2013 7:58:47 PM, Bellerophon wrote:
At 11/15/2013 7:46:03 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/15/2013 7:19:45 PM, Bellerophon wrote:
At 11/10/2013 1:24:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Well, I think it is clear to anybody who has studied Dr. Craig that he contradicts himself to know end. Not to my surprise, I found another contradiction in Dr. Craig's view.

"They (animals) have pain awareness." - Dr. Craig

"Even though animals are in pain, they aren't aware of it." - Dr. Craig

I have seen Craig try to slither out of contradictions and other absurdities before, but how does he slide out of this one?

This is where most folks miss the point, animals have pain awareness but it's a lower order awareness: Murray says that have first order pain. But humans have third order pain awareness. (This is what Craig takes are "awareness" in the second sentence, it's a slip of tongue probably because he was informally talking on a podcast.)

This is why the principle of charity is awesome. Doesn't waste your time or ours. :-)

The bolded hasn't actually been shown though. It's assumed in a neo-cartesian framework but what reason is there to believe that?

Craig and Murray can assume Emergent dualism if they want to it doesn't have to be Cartesian.

Murray explicitly deploys his arguments in a neo-cartesian framework and Craig follows suit. Their arguments don't work without it.

Right, what about, say, Hasker's emergent dualism is incompatible with their arguments?

Missing the point. The neo-cartesian CD's (as Murray calls them) don't depend essentially on any particular theory of ontological nature of the mind (i.e. whether the mind is just the brain, or it is non-physical, etc). They could go from physicalism to idealism. It's the nature of the theories of how consciousness works that make them neo-cartesian. Saying that they could be wedded to emergent dualism does absolutely nothing to mitigate the problems with the framework as a whole.

Sure it does, the dualists's account of interactionionism is fully compatible with the Emergentist's.
Bellerophon
Posts: 94
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2013 9:01:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/15/2013 8:20:48 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
In other words, neo-cartesian is still unmotivated.

And??, insofar as it remains a live option the problem of evil can't extend to animals until neo-Cartesian dualism is disconfirmed.
Bellerophon
Posts: 94
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2013 9:04:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Note the logical structure of the whole debate,

Atheist: Animals also suffer pain

Theist: How do we know that? Couldn't pain be a lower order mental state given dualism?

Atheist: There are other options other than dualism

Theist: So why pick those options over dualism?

Atheist: Because they're more likely

Theist: Law of diminishing returns much?