Doctor William Lane Craig

  • Thread starter Thread starter ClemtheCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
aprilfloyd, are you saying you think there is no evidence for a supernatural, intelligent designer or are you saying you think there is no evidence for the Christian God?

EDIT: youtube.com/watch?v=e0A5F-KbVoo. Any comments on 04:35-09:55?
 
aprilfloyd said:
I don’t see evidence for either
Click to expand...
Well, in debates where he argues that God exists, Doctor Craig’s format is to defend two contentions. (1) There is reason to believe in a supernatural creator. (2) There are no reasons to believe in the atheistic view. (<-- Rough descriptions)

Watch his debate with Christopher Hitchens if you’re looking for reasons. 🙂 Hitchens tries to take the debate off course and instead he starts attacking religion. But Craig keeps on going with the fundamental question as to the existence of God.
 
aprilfloyd said:
I don’t see evidence for either
Click to expand...
I don’t see much of a difference between your position of “I dare you to give me enough evidence to make me believe in God!” and that of a five year old who closes his/her mouth to a spoonful of spinach, insistent that, “You can’t make me swallow that!”

Might I suggest that you take some time to compare how you apply the idea of “burden of proof” to the existence of God with how you apply it to many other beliefs which, I suspect, you have no such compulsion to deny. You might, fairly, ask yourself, “Why do I specifically put up such resistance to belief in God when I do not do so with these other beliefs that I readily accept?”

For example, what do you believe about the existence of a spouse (or parent, child, friend, sibling) who you think loves and cares for you? How do you know they do? Do you demand such a high level of evidence to believe they do? Do you question their love each day and refuse to renew your trust in them without seeing new physical evidence? How much physical evidence will ever provide “substantial” proof, not subject to further doubt?

The problem, it seems to me, is that you are treating God as an “object” or physical reality that must be proven as the existence of microbes or the Loch Ness Monster must be proven before reasonable assent can be given. However, if God is Supreme Subject then, as Person(s), he is to be related to on a completely different level, one of mutual trust, which can never be grounded on objective evidence, but rather on deep personal intimacy.

An insistence that God’s existence must first be proven scientifically before entering into this intimacy, is as silly as demanding that the love of one’s spouse must be subjected first to chemical analysis for proof before accepting the “fact” of their love.

Intimacy, on the other hand, is an interpersonal reality that makes each person more real to the other on its own terms.
 
aprilfloyd said:
No. I thought that was your point.

I agree

I agree

There is to much to mention but some would include
  • Jesus was son of God - I dunno something about fulfilling all those prophesies and doing miracles which none of the miracles were ever protested as anything but real but as he was doing them with works of the devil in non Christian writings
  • Mary was a virgin mother - I don’t see this being disputed in early writings either, takes some faith which you already use in your day to day life
  • No evidence for gods - I don’t see what gods has to do with Christianity
  • why should one believe Catholic Version of God and not the 1,000s of others - maybe because the Catholic Church was there in the beginning we have writings from the late end of the 1st Century of the Church which still acts and teaches the same stuff and goes under the name Catholic Church… for starters
  • Bigotry towards homosexuals and lesbians - bigotry is a product of people not the Church , the church accepts people with same sex attractions but will not approve of any type of premarital sex for it is sinful to succumb to our own selfish desires
  • Church’s involvement in sex altogether - why? - because Jesus spoke about it and gave us the Church with has authority to speak on Faith and Morals and a sex crazed society isn’t productive as we have seen in history
  • paedophilia and celibate priests - The acts of sinful sick people have nothing to do with the church and less than 1% of priests did this heinous acts we have more school teachers committing pedophilia (which does not in any way justify it) but your correlation to celibacy position is unsound
  • misogyny - thats laughable in the Catholic church -
    “It is theologically and anthropologically important for woman to be at the center of Christianity Through Mary, and the other holy women, the feminine element stands at the heart of the Christian religion” - Pope Benny XVI
  • The total inability for Catholic God to present himself in a way humans would understand and could interact with - if there is a god it would be the most amazing discovery ever and think what could be achieved with such a resource - health, hunger, poverty the implications would be enormous - We have it… its called mass/Eucharist and the Catholic Church feeds, clothes, educates and helps more people every single day than any other institution… in the world
  • Bible being taken literally - very Generalized but the bible isn’t to be taken completely literally
  • Transubstantiation - mystery of Faith but easily explained
  • Existence of devils - im not sure what you are stating…
  • Contraception advice - Contraception is great… when its abstinence, contraceptive pills are not healthy, some are abortifants and kill off a human being at an early stage, contraceptives lead to people using sex for pleasure instead of procreation and leads to more premarital sex, also abortions and std’s have increased.
  • Gay Marriage - ahh so called same sex marriage it has nothing to do with two people loving each other (LEGALLY) which is a big argument of same sex marriage supporters about how two people who love each other and they should be able to get married (which they can but not recognized by the Government) , thats an emotional argument and is unsound because it gives the premise that marriage is solely about two people that love each other
Marriage is a financially incentive that we adopted from England to keep children united with there parents because Children do best with both their biological mothers and fathers

it is also orientated towards procreation whether that procreation happens or not
and same sex couples cannot procreate
also so called same sex marriage will infringe on already recognized religious liberties and lawsuits have already been filed

so called same sex marriage is not about equality it is about forcing the gay agenda and having the Government demand approval of this lifestyle
]if it were about equal rights then you would see same sex civil unions being fought for the same federal benefits and married couples (which would most likely have much easier time passing) but NO they want to redefine marriage to include them and tat is not right

The list is endless…
Click to expand...
I noticed your problems with Christianity seem to stem from your views which seem to parallel what the media shoves at us on a daily basis, which are incorrect

these are just my immediate responses I can deeper in to any category if you’d like
 
I am not talking of beliefs.

There is no proof of a god, that has been accepted and peer reviewed and that is why we don’t teach god in science class.

We have got this far in understanding our world without the requirement for a god
 
aprilfloyd said:
I am not talking of beliefs.

There is no proof of a god, that has been accepted and peer reviewed and that is why we don’t teach god in science class.

We have got this far in understanding our world without the requirement for a god
Click to expand...
The reason God isn’t taught in science class is because religion is not the domain of science; science is. Science has no business meddling in the affairs of theology or philosophy, so they have no right to speak for or against the existence of God.
 
There is so much in your answer!

Where do I start?

Misogyny. Try being a woman priest. Or pope?

Paedophilia. The church covered it up. Unforgivable.

Constantly insinuating heterosexuality or heterosexual acts are wrong or immoral

Continually attempting to validate ignorance because it has been handed down from a time when we did not know of dinosaurs, or the age of the earth, or that we go around the sun.

Blindly sticking to a position is counter productive in furthering our collective knowledge
 
aprilfloyd said:
There is so much in your answer!

Where do I start?

Misogyny. Try being a woman priest. Or pope?

Paedophilia. The church covered it up. Unforgivable.

Constantly insinuating heterosexuality or heterosexual acts are wrong or immoral

Continually attempting to validate ignorance because it has been handed down from a time when we did not know of dinosaurs, or the age of the earth, or that we go around the sun.

Blindly sticking to a position is counter productive in furthering our collective knowledge
Click to expand...
Morals do not change. The natural law does not change. Therefore, the Church cannot change Her teachings on morals, because if she did so she would be lying.
 
dshix said:
The reason God isn’t taught in science class is because religion is not the domain of science; science is. Science has no business meddling in the affairs of theology or philosophy, so they have no right to speak for or against the existence of God.
Click to expand...
Are you serious ?

What you say is most definitely not the reason. Just ask any scientist!
 
aprilfloyd said:
Are you serious ?

What you say is most definitely not the reason. Just ask any scientist!
Click to expand...
How about these two who are both scientists and come down on both sides of the issue even though they are also both theists, Catholics, in fact?

youtu.be/knEY1wKODR0

Once again your assertions lack any kind of substantial proof (you said “any” scientist) yet you accept your generalized beliefs as fact without corroborating evidence.

I can list hundreds of scientists that would dispute your claim which has absolutely no scientific nor philosophical support, yet you hold it to be true despite your claim of not holding beliefs without evidence for them.
 
Peter_Plato said:
How about these two who are both scientists and come down on both sides of the issue even though they are also both theists, Catholics, in fact?

youtu.be/knEY1wKODR0

Once again your assertions lack any kind of substantial proof (you said “any” scientist) yet you accept your generalized beliefs as fact without corroborating evidence.

I can list hundreds of scientists that would dispute your claim which has absolutely no scientific nor philosophical support, yet you hold it to be true despite your claim of not holding beliefs without evidence for them.
Click to expand...
THAT is the crux of the problem.
 
aprilfloyd said:
I said any scientist, I agree
Click to expand...
Yes “any,” means

: one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind:
a : one or another taken at random

Which, translated, effectively means “all,” because you imply that any scientist picked at random will agree with you.

Your statement is, to put it succinctly, untrue.
 
aprilfloyd said:
I meant in relation to intelligent design
Click to expand...
You didn’t imply “in relation” to anything. Your answer was to dshix who explicitly stated the reason science should not be involved in teaching God is because it is not in the domain of science to do so. You were arguing, by implication, that everything is in the domain of science and science has - I suspect you also imply - definitively disproved the existence of God and truth of religion.

Dshix’s point (as would be Stephen Barr’s - video link) was that science has not done so because science is incapable of addressing metaphysical and philosophical issues adequately.

At least try to understand your own arguments, please.
Quote:
Click to expand...
Originally Posted by dshix
The reason God isn’t taught in science class is because religion is not the domain of science; science is. Science has no business meddling in the affairs of theology or philosophy, so they have no right to speak for or against the existence of God.
Click to expand...
Are you serious ?

What you say is most definitely not the reason. Just ask any scientist!
Click to expand...
 
aprilfloyd said:
Are you being serious, with me or just having a laugh ?
Click to expand...
I am taking you very seriously. I believe words matter a great deal. That is why I presume that what you say is what you mean. If what you mean is not what you say, then, I suggest, you apply more precision to your words.
 
Peter_Plato said:
You didn’t imply “in relation” to anything. Your answer was to dshix who explicitly stated the reason science should not be involved in teaching God is because it is not in the domain of science to do so. You were arguing, by implication, that everything is in the domain of science and science has - I suspect you also imply - that science has definitively disproved the existence of God and truth of religion.

Dshix’s point (as would be Stephen Barr’s - video link) was that science has not done so because science is incapable of addressing metaphysical and philosophical issues adequately.

At least try to understand your own arguments, please.
Click to expand...
Peter_Plato said:
I am taking you very seriously. I believe words matter a great deal. That is why I presume that what you say is what you mean. If what you mean is not what you say, then, I suggest, you apply more precision to your words.
Click to expand...
Well put. :clapping:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top