Conclusive evidence for Design!

[ManRay]

I want prodigal son to go back and find anything of mine that he’s refuted. Not just opinons…or theological jive talk…I want to see the incontrovertible refutation.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Exactly my point. You don’t get it though.

It’s not much of a point, and it certainly doesn’t bolster your argument. Drawing a picture doesn’t add to my personal perfection, but it still doesn’t preclude me from doing it.

There is nothing perfect…hence there is no god. I’ve said this 42 million times on here, and you’ll never understand it because it is apparently beyond you.

Your premise is completely unsubstantiated and, hence, your conclusion is worthless. It’s not beyond me. It’s beneath the realm of logic. No philosopher, theist or atheist, would recognize this as a valid argument.

We exist in the domain of time and space. If there is a change in the universe or God between state 0, and 1, then neither state, due to the existence of an alternative, is perfect. Then by induction, there is no perfect state that the universe or God can ever achieve.

There is no logical connection between any of your premises and conclusions here.

Time is change so, a thing that never changes can’t exist

Total non sequitur.

but a thing that does change can’t be perfect. Your only defense is that god exists outside of time and space…this is magical knowledge - you may think you know what that means…but you don’t.

It is not magical knowledge. It is an application of the scientific fact that the cause of the universe exists outside of time. We can’t imagine timelessness, but we can conceive of it, and there is nothing logically contradictory about the idea.

And, to the contrary of your accusations, we do have an example of something that exists beyond time: light (time stops at the speed of light.)

You can go, on, on all day about this made up bunk, about your knowledge of love, and the different types of love, and gods love - but it’s completely made up. You don’t know anything about this god thing. It’s magical knowledge. Why would I use some christian jive talk to defend my argument…spare me.

You need to properly refute the Christian concepts you’re attacking, which you have failed to do. The different types of love are not “made up bunk.” They are drawn from logical analysis of human experience. “Agape”, for example, finds a real world illustration in the common relationship between parent and child (creator and creation) or in the selfless actions of saintly people.

 

[ManRay]

The only way you could get out of your completely incorrect statement was to attack Dawson…which I predicted…and you still did it!!! Dawkins is a respected atheist - atheists who don’t like him doesn’t take away from the point that he is generally respected, and he ridiculed Lane…So you are wrong. You’ll never admit it though. This is the ongoing point.

 

[ManRay]

Wrong. There is no field of knowledge of anything that exists outside of time sans religion. There is no frame of reference for it. The theist postulates god, and then magically knows all of these attributes, tendencies, and characteristics. It’s a complete joke.

Let me get this straight

1. Nothing exists outside of time
2. Time and the universe itself began at the Big Bang.
3. Nothing exists “outside” of the consequences of the Big Bang.
   Therefore, nothing brought time and the universe into existence.

So everything came from nothing and you (not You, however) want us to believe that “magic” (creation from nothing) is not an intrinsic aspect of the universe. It seems to me that the “magical” nature of knowledge cannot be denied by you (though it isn’t denied by You, however.) Right, You?

 

[ManRay]

What a pathetic attempt at word smithing… The old catholic double speak…it’s magic. There is nothing presumptive about claiming that someone can’t know something that exists outside of a framework of knowledge. There is no incontrovertible evidence that there is a loch ness monster. If you claim to know this for a fact, and can’t demonstrate, point to any means of demonstrating (outside of aquinas proving it in five different ways) then I can legitimitely call you out on that. Nothing illogical about that at all. Show me god…show me this knowledge that isn’t anecdotal, made up. assumed, passed on from some “doctor of the church”…let us all see this incontrovertible proof of this magical knowledge you possess…let’s see it. I’m open.

Theist claims there is a god, non theist says - really - lets see - show me something.Theist rambles on about things that exist outside of time and space, quotes aquinas till his head explodes…blah blah blah. Non theist is a bad guy for thinking theist is being dishonest whether they know it or not. laaaame

This is an interesting point. So you (but not You) know the nature of this “magical” knowledge in order to say that we don’t “know” what this knowledge is. You (intended lower case, but could not at the beginning of a sentence, but not You {sorry, You}) claim to know what others don’t know. How would you (again, not You) “know” what it is that others don’t know without some non-natural (i.e., magical) means?

PS. Sorry You. I told you (You) that this You name would become a messy business.

Sigh, I am so glad that you (You) are (is) here, however. Would not have it any other way. It’s perfect! Or is it?

 

[ReapReason]

What a pathetic attempt at word smithing… The old catholic double speak…it’s magic. There is nothing presumptive about claiming that someone can’t know something that exists outside of a framework of knowledge. There is no incontrovertible evidence that there is a loch ness monster. If you claim to know this for a fact, and can’t demonstrate, point to any means of demonstrating (outside of aquinas proving it in five different ways) then I can legitimitely call you out on that. Nothing illogical about that at all. Show me god…show me this knowledge that isn’t anecdotal, made up. assumed, passed on from some “doctor of the church”…let us all see this incontrovertible proof of this magical knowledge you possess…let’s see it. I’m open.

Theist claims there is a god, non theist says - really - lets see - show me something.Theist rambles on about things that exist outside of time and space, quotes aquinas till his head explodes…blah blah blah. Non theist is a bad guy for thinking theist is being dishonest whether they know it or not. laaaame

You really are a sad person…

 

[prodigalson2011]

The only way you could get out of your completely incorrect statement was to attack Dawson…which I predicted…and you still did it!!! Dawkins is a respected atheist - atheists who don’t like him doesn’t take away from the point that he is generally respected, and he ridiculed Lane…So you are wrong. You’ll never admit it though. This is the ongoing point.

My statement was:

And you must hold yourself in higher esteem than the most respected atheistic philosophers of our time, because they take philosophers like William Lane Craig very seriously. I’ve not heard one of them accuse him of hocus pocus.

You responded with some disparaging remarks from Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is not a philosopher.

Dawkins is a respected biologist. He is a respected militant atheist among militant atheists. He is not a respected atheistic philosopher or even a logician. By and large, most philosophically trained atheists discredit his sophomoric attempts at philosophy. It’s not even a matter of them “not liking him.” It’s a matter of professional atheist philosophers COMPLETELY DISCREDITING his logic.

All you can say about Dawkins’ is that a lot of rabid atheists like his vitriolic diatribes.

Being an atheist does not make one an authority on philosophy. The words atheism and philosophy are not synonymous.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Wrong. There is no field of knowledge of anything that exists outside of time sans religion. There is no frame of reference for it. The theist postulates god, and then magically knows all of these attributes, tendencies, and characteristics. It’s a complete joke.

As already indicated in a previous post, we do have knowledge of something that exists beyond time: light.

 

[ManRay]

Point taken (doing something that you can’t seem to do) - so If I find any credible philosopher that thinks Lane is a joke - will you concede? Of course not. So Dawkins isn’t technically a philosopher - fine - even though he has written philosophically in a professional manner. I don’t believe Nietzche had a philosophy degree - but a philology degree. Descartes had a juris doctor(law degree)…I wonder who else? There are lots of people with philosophy degress who aren’t philosophers also.

My statement was:

You responded with some disparaging remarks from Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is not a philosopher.

Dawkins is a respected biologist. He is a respected militant atheist among militant atheists. He is not a respected atheistic philosopher or even a logician. By and large, most philosophically trained atheists discredit his sophomoric attempts at philosophy. It’s not even a matter of them “not liking him.” It’s a matter of professional atheist philosophers COMPLETELY DISCREDITING his logic.

All you can say about Dawkins’ is that a lot of rabid atheists like his vitriolic diatribes.

Being an atheist does not make one an authority on philosophy. The words atheism and philosophy are not synonymous.

 

[JerryZ]

Point taken (doing something that you can’t seem to do) - so If I find any credible philosopher that thinks Lane is a joke - will you concede? Of course not. So Dawkins isn’t technically a philosopher - fine - even though he has written philosophically in a professional manner. I don’t believe Nietzche had a philosophy degree - but a philology degree. Descartes had a juris doctor(law degree)…I wonder who else? There are lots of people with philosophy degress who aren’t philosophers also.

Descartes… Yes he had a degree in law but not a Juris Doctor, though just a Bacclaurate degree which he obtained mainly to appease his father. Haven’t I heard that before.
He then studied Mathematics and Philosophy. He was recognized during his life as a philosopher AND he pubblished works on Philosophy.
Therefore your comparison at least for Descarted does not hold.
I am curious according to you was he a theist or atheist? What do you believe?

 

[ManRay]

I always assumed he was a theist, but some catholics don’t accept the guy it seems. I heard about a showdown in an an empty LA warehouse with DJ Descartes and DJ Jesus…Not sure who won.

Descartes… Yes he had a degree in law but not a Juris Doctor, though just a Bacclaurate degree which he obtained mainly to appease his father. Haven’t I heard that before.
He then studied Mathematics and Philosophy. He was recognized during his life as a philosopher AND he pubblished works on Philosophy.
Therefore your comparison at least for Descarted does not hold.
I am curious according to you was he a theist or atheist? What do you believe?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Point taken (doing something that you can’t seem to do) - so If I find any credible philosopher that thinks Lane is a joke - will you concede? Of course not. So Dawkins isn’t technically a philosopher - fine - even though he has written philosophically in a professional manner. I don’t believe Nietzche had a philosophy degree - but a philology degree. Descartes had a juris doctor(law degree)…I wonder who else? There are lots of people with philosophy degress who aren’t philosophers also.

Well, I don’t pay any attention to Craig because he said he disagreed with St. Thomas on something which is pretty basic. Slips my mind now but it left a bad taste in my mouth. See Ray, I’m not too proud to let you know I agree with you about something.

 

[ManRay]

Well, I don’t pay any attention to Craig because he said he disagreed with St. Thomas on something which is pretty basic. Slips my mind now but it left a bad taste in my mouth. See Ray, I’m not too proud to let you know I agree with you about something.

You just warmed the cockles of my heart!! Cereal.

 

[tonyrey]

We’ve all heard his lame excuses and flip-flopping attempts at damage control, but they are nothing more than that: lies and excuses. The fact is he already DID share a platform with him, when he had safety in numbers. But he knows that, one on one, Craig would dismantle him. Not to mention, such feigned moral indignation is even less believable coming from one who claims that there is no such thing as evil.

Anyway, atheists much more philosophically competent than Dawkins (who is a biologist, and not a philosopher) exhibit a great deal of respect for Craig, which leads me to Dawkins’ statement that Craig only “parades himself as a philsopher” and that noone takes him seriously. As it so happens, his more philosophically astute atheist contemporaries have already refuted that claim:

“Professor Craig has a PhD in philosophy and PhD in theology. He is Research Professor in Philsophy at Talbot University. He has published more than thirty books and over a hundred papers in reputable peer-reviewed journals. Given your passionate and unconditional commitment to truth, I can only think that you {Dawkins] were not aware of Professor Craig’s credentials when you made the above reference.” - Daniel Came

“…I can tell you that my brothers and sisters and co-thinkers in*** the unbelieving community take him very seriously. *** He’s thought of as … very rigorous, very scholarly, very formidable. And I would say that without reserve… Normally, I don’t get people saying, “Good luck tonight,” and, “Don’t let us down,” you know. But with him, I do.” - Christopher Hitchens

“William Lane Craig is one of the leading philosophers of religion and one of the leading philosophers of time. In this book [Time and Eternity], he combines his expertise in these areas to produce an original, erudite and accessible theory of time and God…” - Quentin Smith, atheist philosopher

“I’m genuinely honored to be sharing the stage with Professor Craig this evening…” - Stephen Law, atheist philosopher

“Craig has done a great work, and it is marvelous that now the philosophy of religion is engaging with the philosophy of science to the great benefit of both.” - John Lucas, philosopher, Oxford Fellow, Fellow of the British Academy and former President of the British Society for the Philosophy of Science

“…it was clear even then that Bill [Craig]'s book was a new landmark in the discussion of the cosmological argument.” - Peter MacMillan, atheist philosopher

.

It’s highly significant these tributes have been ignored…

 

[prodigalson2011]

Point taken (doing something that you can’t seem to do)

Sorry, I don’t take points that I don’t believe have been sufficiently demonstrated. Does the fact that I don’t think you’ve presented a convincing argument for your case bother you? Why? What do you care what I think? Why do you feel the need to turn a debate into a demonstration of personal superiority? Who’s taking this personally again?

• so If I find any credible philosopher that thinks Lane is a joke - will you concede? Of course not. So Dawkins isn’t technically a philosopher - fine - even though he has written philosophically in a professional manner. I don’t believe Nietzche had a philosophy degree - but a philology degree. Descartes had a juris doctor(law degree)…I wonder who else? There are lots of people with philosophy degress who aren’t philosophers also.

If you find one, I will concede that I was wrong to say that none of them think he’s a joke.

 

[ManRay]

I didn’t realize that John Loftus of
**Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity **
was actually a student of Craig’s. While he may not have called him a joke in so many words - he did apparently call him a coward - with some other interesting bits.

John Loftus has recently posted an article (2011), “Let’s Recap Why William Lane Craig Refuses to Debate Me.” The article even includes a picture of Craig’s face digitally edited into the picture of a chicken, with the caption, “Is William Lane Craig Chicken to Debate John Loftus?” According to Loftus, in 1985 Craig apparently told a class at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, “the person I fear debating the most is a former student of mine.” Loftus then considers potential explanations for Craig’s refusal to debate Loftus: (i) such a debate would not be good for Loftus spiritually; (ii) Loftus is not qualified; (iii) Craig doesn’t want to help turn Loftus into “Mr. Anti-Christian Apologist”; and (iv) Craig is afraid to debate Loftus. Loftus concludes that (iv) is the best explanation, calling Craig a “coward.”**

secularoutpost.infidels.org/2011/10/why-wont-william-lane-craig-debate-john.html

Actually you’re right though, because it seems that the only people who praise the guy or acknowledge him are theists. I heard a while back ago about Sam Harris debating him, but I’ve never watched it. Sam Harris though I’m sure thinks the guy is a joke as Harris pretty much believes that religion is evil…although Harris only has a PHD in neuroscience…Alas - I guess there aren’t too many people walking around who consider themselves “professional debaters”…or “professional philosophers”…it’s a little creepy.

Sorry, I don’t take points that I don’t believe have been sufficiently demonstrated. Does the fact that I don’t think you’ve presented a convincing argument for your case bother you? Why? What do you care what I think? Why do you feel the need to turn a debate into a demonstration of personal superiority? Who’s taking this personally again?

If you find one, I will concede that I was wrong to say that none of them think he’s a joke.

 

[pig]

This is an interesting point. So you (but not You) know the nature of this “magical” knowledge in order to say that we don’t “know” what this knowledge is. You (intended lower case, but could not at the beginning of a sentence, but not You {sorry, You}) claim to know what others don’t know. How would you (again, not You) “know” what it is that others don’t know without some non-natural (i.e., magical) means?

PS. Sorry You. I told you (You) that this You name would become a messy business.

Sigh, I am so glad that you (You) are (is) here, however. Would not have it any other way. It’s perfect! Or is it?

Not to worry! I have solved the problem! I changed my name!

regards
You

 

[pig]

Wrong. There is no field of knowledge of anything that exists outside of time sans religion. There is no frame of reference for it. The theist postulates god, and then magically knows all of these attributes, tendencies, and characteristics. It’s a complete joke.

Even a-theists are faced with the problem of their origin. But they are happy too to have a magical mystery as their source and beginning - because that is the nature of the source and beginning of everything.
A very thoughtful person differs from one who wants to believe only the magical mystery as an a-theist does.
A-theisms belief in the magical mystery of their origin is, personally speaking, not a belief that ever attracted me.

It seems just too easy, to me, to just accept the magical mystery as the cause of everything.

I feel I must look around at what has been created, (brought into existence), by this magical mystery and learn about its nature by observing and thinking about the quality of what it has produced and made all around me.
just some thoughts…

 

[tonyrey]

Not to worry! I have solved the problem! I changed my name!

regards
You

Thank heaven for that! I wasn’t sure whether you intended to confuse us or were compelled by natural causes…

 

[tonyrey]

Even a-theists are faced with the problem of their origin. But they are happy too to have a magical mystery as their source and beginning - because that is the nature of the source and beginning of everything.
A very thoughtful person differs from one who wants to believe only the magical mystery as an a-theist does.
A-theisms belief in the magical mystery of their origin is, personally speaking, not a belief that ever attracted me.

It seems just too easy, to me, to just accept the magical mystery as the cause of everything.

I feel I must look around at what has been created, (brought into existence), by this magical mystery and learn about its nature by observing and thinking about the quality of what it has produced and made all around me.
just some thoughts…

“quality” is the keyword. Materialists don’t distinguish between the quality of life and the quality of matter. For them it’s all a question of quantity and complexity (although some don’t even admit the reality of complexity!)

The descent to nihilism is progressing so nicely it will soon destroy itself. :clapping: