Christian Philosopher William Lane Craig Is Ready to Debate, but Finds Few Challengers

[buffalo]

Sure, as a generic definition it is fine. But the devil is in the details. Evidence for the physical realm is an objective, observable, testable and repeatable phenomenon. Evidence is called proof in the abstract sciences, where a proposition is true, if it is the logical corollary of the axioms. Evidence is some testimonial when the subject is in the past, which cannot be observed directly. Its validity is subject to several criteria, not to be discussed here.

Finally: what is the “evidence” for a supernatural? Because no matter whether the author admits it or not, “life after death” is a supernatural phenomenon.

Mighty cheap shot buddy. If that is the best you can do, I will be happy to close this conversation.

Not completely. There is evidence that events will happen in the future based on the fact they happened in the past. Is there evidence all humans will die? Sure there is. He builds the case based on the evidence.

Materialism is worse off since most of its basis is not objective, observable, testable and repeatable…

I have seen this often - critique a book not read, ie Francis Ayala regarding the Signature in the Cell. This avoids having to answer the arguments presented. Call it a cheap shot. I try to call 'em as I see 'em.

Science is the search for knowledge. Materialism limits this search and to not even consider the supernatural is irrational.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I think you two guys are actually afraid to read it.:yup:

There is no fear discouraging me from reading it. There is a desire to not consume a book credit on a book in which I think disappointment will result.

 

[buffalo]

There is no fear discouraging me from reading it. There is a desire to not consume a book credit on a book in which I think disappointment will result.

I am sure it is in the library then.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Oh that is possible. But I think that the problem goes much deeper. Words like “love”, “evil”, “good”, “faith”, “justice”, “mercy”, “evidence” need to be defined before any conversation can even start. Epistemological questions need to ne ironed out. Craig seemed to “win” his debates, because his opponents neglected to rub his nose into his own “proverbial substance”.

Meaning, in plain language------------------

“The book does not meet MY standards of how an apologetics book should be about. It does not raise arguments which enable me to easily overcome. It does not start off looking at things from a way sympatheitc to MY point of view (or what I consider the RIGHT way to start off an apologetics book) and going from there-----which makes it not worth reading in my estimation. It might also cause me to question or change my beliefs, which I will not accept.”

There ya go.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Sure, as a generic definition it is fine. But the devil is in the details. Evidence for the physical realm is an objective, observable, testable and repeatable phenomenon. Evidence is called proof in the abstract sciences, where a proposition is true, if it is the logical corollary of the axioms. Evidence is some testimonial when the subject is in the past, which cannot be observed directly. Its validity is subject to several criteria, not to be discussed here.

Finally: what is the “evidence” for a supernatural? Because no matter whether the author admits it or not, “life after death” is a supernatural phenomenon.

Mighty cheap shot buddy. If that is the best you can do, I will be happy to close this conversation.

It’s not a cheap shot.
If your beliefs are SO correct and so unchageable, then how is a book going to change that?
Tell you what---------if the book is SO wrong as you think it is, you should be GLAD to read it------so that you can use it in later discussions as an example of “how not to write an apologetics book.” It would also serve to strenghten your beliefs and legitimize them.

 

[exnihilo]

As such if God is supposed to be perfectly just and perfectly merciful, then God is simply a logical contradiction - much worse than the FSM, God became a married bachelor. And no amount of twisting words can rescue God - as long as “justice” and “mercy” have a meaning.

You are imagining a very human God. You are imagining something like scales for weighing decisions. God being complete and perfect is not limited like humans.

 

[Spock]

Not completely. There is evidence that events will happen in the future based on the fact they happened in the past. Is there evidence all humans will die? Sure there is.

Indeed, we use the “inductive” method, when it comes to predictions. We use the basic principle that the future will not be wildly different from the past - and guess what, there is no a-priori validation for that either. That is precisely what the much maligned scientific method is. Observe, make prediction, and test them. What is impossible in this particular case is the verification part. How do you know if your speculations are true of not? You keep saying that the phenomena you talk about is not material, so the empiricist method does not apply. I have been asking many times now, what is your suggested method instead. No one, but NO ONE even attempts to answer this question.

He builds the case based on the evidence.

What evidence is there for a continued existence?

Materialism is worse off since most of its basis is not objective, observable, testable and repeatable…

Only a few nincompoops keep saying that the method is supposed to apply to itself. The materialist method is validated a-posteriori - by its results, and there is no need for an a-priori validation.

I have seen this often - critique a book not read, ie Francis Ayala regarding the Signature in the Cell. This avoids having to answer the arguments presented. Call it a cheap shot. I try to call 'em as I see 'em.

I only criticized those pages which I read. And I said, that if you present a synopsys of other parts of the book, I will be happy to talk about it with you. I do not go and waste time on reading books, unless there is a decent chance that the book is worth to read. It is your chance to show that the suggested book is “better” than those idiotic apologetic books I read so far.

Science is the search for knowledge. Materialism limits this search and to not even consider the supernatural is irrational.

As soon as there is any real evidence that the supernatural exists, it will be examined. Your supernatural claims are precisely like the claims of the paranormal, empty claims, without evidence. The followers of paranormal are indignant that they are not taken seriously by science, just like you are. Well, give us evidence, and you will be taken seriously.

 

[Spock]

You are imagining a very human God. You are imagining something like scales for weighing decisions. God being complete and perfect is not limited like humans.

And what is that supposed to mean? Can God create create a stone which is so heavy that even he cannot lift it? Can God create a 4-sided triangle? Obviously he cannot. By the same token he cannot deliver a sentence which reflects precise equality between the deed and the punishment (just sentence) and also a discrepancy between them, where the punishment is lower that it should be (mercy).

The concept of “justice” and “mercy” are universal. There is no “human justice” and “divine justive” which are totally, fundamentally, completely different. The difference is in the execution of the same concept, which God can execute it perfectly and humans cannot - due to the human limitations. As a matter of fact I was careful to point out these differences.

What you actually said here is that the concept of “divine justice” and/or “divine mercy” are meaningless in human terms. You could just say that God is perfectly “qweynfhr” and perfectly “hfduer” and leave it at that. When I ask you what those words mean, you can say, that you have no idea, but they are sure some perfect divine attributes. Then I would not waste my time to give a detailed explanation, which you toss to the side that God is not “limited” by human terms. Bah, humbug! If you wish to use human terms, like justice and mercy, you must use in their proper meaning. I spelled them out for you. Which one do you disagree with?

 

[James1215]

James, why do you think Craig lost that debate? I’ve heard that debate and neither side produced any new arguments or objections I haven’t heard before. Sinnott-Armstrong seemed better prepared and organized than most, but certainly didn’t score any knock-downs (so to speak).

Well, we may have come across different versions - I have read the published version but didn’t hear the originals. I think he lost it because the problems posed by his debater seemed to outstrip the thoroughness of his answers. This suggested either that he could not provide for his belief, or that he is satisfied with rhetoric over intellectual honesty. In particular, I think he lost it over the problem of evil. Saying that evil presupposes God misses the point that something can be immoral without a conception of God, and the way he talked about divine command stuff also seemed not to deal with the atheistic questions about how an omnipotent God answers to reason. If morality can be logical, it doesn’t need God to command it.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I am sure it is in the library then.

It’s not. The public libraries around here don’t get a lot of new books. I know “new” is a loose term, but if it tells you anything the last time I checked the computer section the most recent book they had on MS Office was for Office 97. From what I’ve seen the last time I went in just to see what it looks like the public library is the place people go to need to use an Internet terminal or a pay phone.

 

[buffalo]

Indeed, we use the “inductive” method, when it comes to predictions. We use the basic principle that the future will not be wildly different from the past - and guess what, there is no a-priori validation for that either. That is precisely what the much maligned scientific method is. Observe, make prediction, and test them. What is impossible in this particular case is the verification part. How do you know if your speculations are true of not? You keep saying that the phenomena you talk about is not material, so the empiricist method does not apply. I have been asking many times now, what is your suggested method instead. No one, but NO ONE even attempts to answer this question.

What evidence is there for a continued existence?

Only a few nincompoops keep saying that the method is supposed to apply to itself. The materialist method is validated a-posteriori - by its results, and there is no need for an a-priori validation.

I only criticized those pages which I read. And I said, that if you present a synopsys of other parts of the book, I will be happy to talk about it with you. I do not go and waste time on reading books, unless there is a decent chance that the book is worth to read. It is your chance to show that the suggested book is “better” than those idiotic apologetic books I read so far.

As soon as there is any real evidence that the supernatural exists, it will be examined. Your supernatural claims are precisely like the claims of the paranormal, empty claims, without evidence. The followers of paranormal are indignant that they are not taken seriously by science, just like you are. Well, give us evidence, and you will be taken seriously.

The point that you seem to keep missing is that the scientific method is limited. A true scientist would be open to more.

Are you kidding? - science is based on an a priori assumption. (and followed - we cannot let the divine foot in the door)

As far as the book goes, you are missing out. Evidence is presented there. Lots of it.

Remember, God does not lay Himself down on a lab table to be poked and prodded. He does however, make Himself known to us through Revelation and experience. And the human heart desires to know God.

1. 
   *]Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.
   *] But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.
   *]Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.
   *]This something is what people call “God” and “life with God forever.”
   
   Understanding the universe to be intelligible we study the source of this intelligence.

 

[buffalo]

It’s not. The public libraries around here don’t get a lot of new books. I know “new” is a loose term, but if it tells you anything the last time I checked the computer section the most recent book they had on MS Office was for Office 97. From what I’ve seen the last time I went in just to see what it looks like the public library is the place people go to need to use an Internet terminal or a pay phone.

Where the heck do you live? (scratching head icon)

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Where the heck do you live? (scratching head icon)

In the metro-atlanta area. Though from the description in my previous message I wouldn’t be surprised if some one thought I was talking about a spot in the middle of nowhere.

 

[Spock]

The point that you seem to keep missing is that the scientific method is limited. A true scientist would be open to more.

Who said otherwise? The empirical method is “limited” to the actual physical reality. It is not applicable to mathematics, or ethics. If you wish to stipulate that there is “something” out there which is not physical, and not an abstract concept, you need to demonstrate that it actually exists, and not just a figment of your imagination.

Remember, God does not lay Himself down on a lab table to be poked and prodded. He does however, make Himself known to us through Revelation and experience.

Why not? What would he “lose” by making himself knowable? And that “revelation” just does not keep happening. Millions ask and pray for it, but God plays “shy”… And how can someone “experience” God, when he is immaterial and unobservable. You guys are deeply lost in your contradictions. If God could be experienced, then he could be examined. If he cannot be examined, he cannot be experienced. (Yes, I know, the word “experienced” in your parlance does not mean “experienced”… but something totally different. The final argument: the word “X” does not mean what it means.)

And the human heart desires to know God.

What a joke! The human “heart” pumps blood.

1. 
   *]Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.
   *] But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.
   *]Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.
   *]This something is what people call “God” and “life with God forever.”
   
   Understanding the universe to be intelligible we study the source of this intelligence.

1. 
   Especially this list. If there is something someone desires, than that something “really” exists? And this “argument” is supposed to be convincing? Have you ever heard of unlimited imagination? And wishful thinking?

 

[buffalo]

Who said otherwise? The empirical method is “limited” to the actual physical reality. It is not applicable to mathematics, or ethics. If you wish to stipulate that there is “something” out there which is not physical, and not an abstract concept, you need to demonstrate that it actually exists, and not just a figment of your imagination.

Why not? What would he “lose” by making himself knowable? And that “revelation” just does not keep happening. Millions ask and pray for it, but God plays “shy”… And how can someone “experience” God, when he is immaterial and unobservable. You guys are deeply lost in your contradictions. If God could be experienced, then he could be examined. If he cannot be examined, he cannot be experienced. (Yes, I know, the word “experienced” in your parlance does not mean “experienced”… but something totally different. The final argument: the word “X” does not mean what it means.)

What a joke! The human “heart” pumps blood.

Especially this list. If there is something someone desires, than that something “really” exists? And this “argument” is supposed to be convincing? Have you ever heard of unlimited imagination? And wishful thinking?

Good.

Demonstrated over and over and over, but not accepted.

God has made Himself knowable. He so loved the world He sent His son to walk among this. No doubt you are familiar with flatlanders? These characters who live in a 2D world have no comprehension of a 3RD dimension. For them to comprehend a 3D’er, the 3D’er would need to come into their 2D world and then explain it. Most would not comprehend.
Dr Quantum - Flatland

Now read the Bibles accounts of encounters with God.

Yes, the argument from desire is powerful.

 

[exnihilo]

If you wish to stipulate that there is “something” out there which is not physical, and not an abstract concept, you need to demonstrate that it actually exists, and not just a figment of your imagination.

So demonstrate love, morality or the number 1. Lots of people, even scientists, believe those exist. Most importantly the last sentence you point out that man, with his imagination, can think about things which are not physical. The fact that he can do this is evidence that we are not merely physical beings. From this fact follows much of our understanding of God.

Why not? What would he “lose” by making himself knowable? And that “revelation” just does not keep happening. Millions ask and pray for it, but God plays “shy”… And how can someone “experience” God, when he is immaterial and unobservable.

Actually lots of people do experience God very directly and tell others as much. To be certain some accounts are probably not true. But many are from very honest people. Since you discount the possibility of those experiences you are begging the question.

Especially this list. If there is something someone desires, than that something “really” exists? And this “argument” is supposed to be convincing? Have you ever heard of unlimited imagination? And wishful thinking?

Again, if we are imagining then we are not purely physical beings. If humans have desires which do not exist in reality than the pure materialism that seems to undergird your arguments is not true. In your world man can have desires that can not be met at all. How can a purely physical creature invent a desire? As much as you question there are lots of questions you seem unable to answer.

 

[Spock]

Demonstrated over and over and over, but not accepted.

God has made Himself knowable. He so loved the world He sent His son to walk among this. No doubt you are familiar with flatlanders? These characters who live in a 2D world have no comprehension of a 3RD dimension. For them to comprehend a 3D’er, the 3D’er would need to come into their 2D world and then explain it. Most would not comprehend.
Dr Quantum - Flatland

Now read the Bibles accounts of encounters with God.

Yes, the argument from desire is powerful.

Please. Stories, no matter how ancient they might be are just stories. If that is “demonstration”, then there are “turtles all the way down”. They are just as perfectly “demonstrated”. But, of course I am sure that you wish to demand a “special treatment” for you story. Sorry, no dice.

By the way, I am familiar with the flatland idea. Just like a 2 dimensional being cannot “reach” the 3D world, the inhabitants of the 3D world are unable to enter into a 2D world. Cannot even see it.

The “argument from desire” would be hilarious, if it were offered as a joke. As a serious argument it is very sad.

 

[Spock]

So demonstrate love, morality or the number 1.

Sure, let’s meet and I will give you a big, loving hug. It will be a demonstration of my positive feeling called “love” toward you. Love is an abstraction, and/or a feeling. Morality is a description of acertain type of behavior (we cannot even agree just what kind of behavior it would be). The number “1” is an abstraction. You seem to confuse the demonstration of external OBJECTS with internal feelings and concepts. Are you really unaware of the fundamental difference between them?

Lots of people, even scientists, believe those exist. Most importantly the last sentence you point out that man, with his imagination, can think about things which are not physical.

Sure we can. We can even imagine “married bachelors”, but that does not lead to their existence. We can imagine Hamlet - does that lead to his existence? We can imagine beings with horns whose “job” is to torture those dead ones, who are out of favor with God. We can even imagine good-natured “devils” who create a special paradise for those who are freethinkers just like they are. I can imagine and desire our world without religion. Does that “desire” mean that we shall reach that world? I sure hope so! Our imagination is limitless. And the professed “argument from desire” is probably the dumbest one of all I have heard so far.

The fact that he can do this is evidence that we are not merely physical beings.

Physical beings do have non-physical attributes and activities. Walking is not a physical OBJECT. Thinking is not an OBJECT either. But all of these rely on a physical infrastructure. Of course your phrase “not merely physical beings” is too vague to be meaningful.

Actually lots of people do experience God very directly and tell others as much. To be certain some accounts are probably not true. But many are from very honest people. Since you discount the possibility of those experiences you are begging the question.

You should be precise: “lots of people CLAIM that they experience God”. How can they expereince an immaterial OBJECT? It is not “begging the question”, it is pointing out a logical contradiction. And the honesty of those witnesses is not in question. Perfectly honest people could claim nonsense, and fully believe it.

Again, if we are imagining then we are not purely physical beings. If humans have desires which do not exist in reality than the pure materialism that seems to undergird your arguments is not true.

Why would it?

In your world man can have desires that can not be met at all. How can a purely physical creature invent a desire?

Lots of ways and means. People observed birds, and saw them flying flapping their wings. Then they imagined “angels” as human-looking beings and having wings". Of course all those ancient, and superstitious people had no idea that flying with wings would demand chest muscles which are about 25 times stronger than they actually are. They would believe anything and everything that is asserted to them in a sufficiently forceful manner. Heck, the same thing happens today. Look at the church next to yours, when the members of a “sect” congregate. They are willing to believe all sort of nonsense, even though you know that their beliefs are nonsense!

As much as you question there are lots of questions you seem unable to answer.

I sure cannot answer many questions. I definitely cannot answer nonsensical questions. I cannot even answer fully sensible questions, like: “how is it possible that people in 2011 still cling to ancient beliefs, for which there is no other evidence than a 2000 years old book loaded with scientific nonsense?”.

 

[exnihilo]

Love is an abstraction, and/or a feeling.

The issue is whether love exists or not. If it is a feeling please explain what a feeling is. If it is nothing but chemical reactions then it is not a feeling but just what chemicals do. Tell a woman ‘I have chemical reactions for you’.

Sure we can. We can even imagine “married bachelors”, but that does not lead to their existence.

That is just silly. You seem to be denying contradictions. I cant imagine a married bachelor. If you can then you have far worse problems than the folks who you look down upon for ‘imagining’ God.

You should be precise: “lots of people CLAIM that they experience God”. How can they expereince an immaterial OBJECT? It is not “begging the question”, it is pointing out a logical contradiction. And the honesty of those witnesses is not in question. Perfectly honest people could claim nonsense, and fully believe it.

If you experience mercy what have you experienced?

It is begging the question if you say that those who claim to have had an experience with God did not because that is impossible. If you rule out the supernatural then you are begging the question. I know you cant prove the supernatural does not exist so to deny it is begging the question.

Lots of ways and means. People observed birds, and saw them flying flapping their wings. Then they imagined “angels” as human-looking beings and having wings". Of course all those ancient, and superstitious people had no idea that flying with wings would demand chest muscles which are about 25 times stronger than they actually are.

So you know how ancient people thought and you *know *that they imagined angels from birds? Sounds to me like you imagining something which we know from what you said earlier means nothing. Your imagining what ancient people did has not even a foot in reality. It is just some chemicals reacting in your body making you think… ah well thinking would be immaterial… making you feel… nope again feelings are just the chemical doing what they do - there can be nothing immaterial to perceive the reaction… I dont know what is going on but it must be meaningless.

I sure cannot answer many questions. I definitely cannot answer nonsensical questions. I cannot even answer fully sensible questions, like: “how is it possible that people in 2011 still cling to ancient beliefs, for which there is no other evidence than a 2000 years old book loaded with scientific nonsense?”.

So any belief which is ancient is wrong? Of course I know you dont mean that. So you are just being ad hoc.

Anything based on a 2000 year old book is unreliable? Well there goes all ancient history. I’m sure you dont mean that either. Again you are arguing ad hoc.

The atheist is the most prideful person in declaring his time to be the only one worthy. Even Newton realized he stood on the shoulders of giants. Of course he was a Christian.

 

[Spock]

The issue is whether love exists or not. If it is a feeling please explain what a feeling is. If it is nothing but chemical reactions then it is not a feeling but just what chemicals do. Tell a woman ‘I have chemical reactions for you’.

What is wrong with it? I can tell my wife: “let’s go out to masticate some burned carcass and do some enzyme secreting”. Since she is educated, and thus she know that I am proposing to have a nice steak for dinner, she will just smile and say: “ok, let’s do it”.

That is just silly. You seem to be denying contradictions. I cant imagine a married bachelor. If you can then you have far worse problems than the folks who you look down upon for ‘imagining’ God.

Nonsense. I can imagine the concept of a married bachelor, while knowing full well that such an entity cannot exist in reality. We are able to imagine anything, even if the referents of those imagined entities do not and cannot exsit in reality.

If you experience mercy what have you experienced?

I experience the lack of justice.

It is begging the question if you say that those who claim to have had an experience with God did not because that is impossible.

It is not I, who say that it is impossible, it is those believers, who wish to have their cake and eat it, too.

So you know how ancient people thought and you *know *that they imagined angels from birds? Sounds to me like you imagining something which we know from what you said earlier means nothing. Your imagining what ancient people did has not even a foot in reality. It is just some chemicals reacting in your body making you think… ah well thinking would be immaterial… making you feel… nope again feelings are just the chemical doing what they do - there can be nothing immaterial to perceive the reaction… I dont know what is going on but it must be meaningless.

Please get real. What you say is sheer nonsense.

So any belief which is ancient is wrong? Of course I know you dont mean that. So you are just being ad hoc.

Anything based on a 2000 year old book is unreliable? Well there goes all ancient history. I’m sure you dont mean that either. Again you are arguing ad hoc.

Nonsense again. (Boy I hate that word, I wish I could use a few other other words… but I cannot risk the wrath of the mods.) If you actually read and understood what I said, you would realize that it is not just the age of the book I was referring to, but also the contents of that book.

You are getting real close to what a few other posters already achieved: to get on my ignore list. I really don’t care either way. But unless you start to exhibit some level of rationality, I think you will tip the scale. I am really not in the mood to reply all that crapola you toss my way.