Doctor William Lane Craig

[Peter_Plato]

This is interesting, that you think you have nothing to lose. But you do.

Your pride is your “god” so to speak.

Atheism and Agnosticism claim to have no god or deity which they follow. However, in different sense, they do. They “worship” the self, the pride of knowing better and being ‘above’ all of those inferior deists who are deluded and think God exists. The purpose which drives atheists is their pride in being superior, and this is their “god.”

Therefore, if they admit they are wrong, they are giving up all of their pride and purpose, which is very hard for them to do.

I mean this not as a personal attack or a declaration of what ALL atheists are, but simply a refutation of what you said, which I quoted in this post.

This is a good point, but may be taken as a “fear of hell tactic” by atheists.

Lest that be the case, let’s mitigate the effect.

An atheist’s assumption is that ultimately s/he alone is responsible for and capable of their own formation, that they are “self-made.”

Lincoln’s quote about a man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client would seem to apply here.

The atheist or agnostic position would seem to assume that regardless of whether or not God actually exists, any person who takes it completely upon themselves to make themselves into the kind of being they wish to be, essentially are taking the enlightened path.

This conveniently forgets that we didn’t “make ourselves” in the first place and that whatever did indeed form and shape us into existence had the awesome capability and foresight to do so. However, the atheist contends, that fact is purely to be ignored because somehow after a meager 20-60 years or so of rather limited intellectual upbringing, each human, of their own accord “knows better.” Make your own decisions and completely ignore the fact that whoever or whatever brought you into being (metaphysically speaking) might just know better and have a better plan for you than you might concoct in that little dysfunctional brain of yours (speaking generally, of course). Brilliant, these atheists, in that they “strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.”

The option, it seems to me, is to make ourselves into merely the kind of being that our limited foresight might dream of, or to allow whatever had the foresight and ingenuity to bring the cosmos and all life into existence to have a hand. It would seem, at least on the face of it, a far wiser thing to cooperate with the superior Being than to go it alone, but, hey, that’s just me.

 

[ClemtheCatholic]

There goes that open-mindedness again.
If you took the time to read them all, and the linked references, you… oh why bother. Trying to argue with the religious is like playing chess with a pigeon.
Good day to you sir!

I was making the simple point that we should look at this fairly. Do you object? I am not interested in articles with obscene words written in reference to a picture of Doctor Craig. Do you object? I wouldn’t want a link describing religion as a virus any more than I’d want a link saying atheists are idiots. Do you object?

Look, you’re free to say what you like but I assure you it will get you nowhere and it’ll do you no favours. I appreciate the fact that you posted all those links. But I still didn’t find anything of particular weight that would make me change my mind when compared with the impressive displays from Craig in debates (there’s also the fact that anybody can criticize and accuse when the object doesn’t have the chance to answer back).​

“Can you explain, how you come to the conclusion, that science cannot study or examine this area”

Are you talking to me?

 

[mab23]

This is interesting, that you think you have nothing to lose. But you do.

Your pride is your “god” so to speak.

Atheism and Agnosticism claim to have no god or deity which they follow. However, in different sense, they do. They “worship” the self, the pride of knowing better and being ‘above’ all of those inferior deists who are deluded and think God exists. The purpose which drives atheists is their pride in being superior, and this is their “god.”

Therefore, if they admit they are wrong, they are giving up all of their pride and purpose, which is very hard for them to do.

I mean this not as a personal attack or a declaration of what ALL atheists are, but simply a refutation of what you said, which I quoted in this post.

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/...ITLQsU5Bf1uuJS-v7BgeBd7t0u4m3PG9bAi2AvK5N_sYg

 

[aprilfloyd]

I assume this relates to post #53.

Science is limited by its own method to conclusions that are verifiable by physical evidence. As such, it can only make conclusions about natural or physical phenomena based entirely upon what has happened previously in space-time. Science cannot presume to make statements about the existence or not of any realities outside of space-time. God for one.

It cannot claim to be the sole means by which truth or knowledge is attained, since that is relying on a scientifically unverifiable premise. It cannot even claim that scientific principles are absolutely true, since the evidence supporting them is conditional on past or present events. Science, in a sense, only describes what is.

Science, likewise, cannot make conclusions about qualities, about morality (what ought to be done or what course of action one ought to take), about aesthetics (the nature of beauty), about ethics (the nature of goodness), or about anything that does not manifest in quantifiable or physical reality.

That means immaterial reality cannot be addressed in any meaningful way by scientific methods. Science might or might not corroborate religious beliefs, but it cannot disprove them outright.

For example, if the Big Bang event initiated space-time, energy and mass, then the Big Bang marks the entry point for scientific pursuit. Whatever superceded the Big Bang event is a matter for metaphysics and philosophy because the evidential fact field for scientific inquiry does not exist outside of the space time continuum and science cannot draw any conclusions without factual, physical evidence in support.

Krauss, for example, attempts to argue against the self-evident metaphysical truth that “from nothing, nothing comes” with a sleight of hand exchange of the definition of nothing with something like “quantum vacuum.” He is attempting to use ambiguity and scientific mumbo-jumbo to argue against a metaphysical idea by making the simple seem complex in such a way that, he insinuates, only those with his scientific credentials have any authority to make, what have long been considered, metaphysical claims. Essentially, it is an argument from authority (fallacy) that relies on his claim that nothing is really not nothing but something (left ambiguous) that exists in the purview of science and that only science can now address. He is making what amounts to a semantic case for why science can involve itself beyond its traditional limitations.

Unfortunately, he does not provide scientific proof for doing so, because he can’t. He relies on a metaphysical assumption devoid of scientific evidence.

With all due respect nothing you have said makes me see how science cannot study, gods, religion, morality, atheistics, beauty, love etc,. etc,… It has never been proved that supernatural beings exist. No one can argue a god exists or not. I can’t prove santa does not exist or little green men, but at least in the case of santa I am sure we will both agree.

Not sure why science cannot consider what happened before big bang. Not sure what you mean by ‘self-evident metaphysical truth’ sounds like psycho-babble. Unlike religionists, he is attempting what I would consider one of man’s greatest attributes - he is trying to find the truth of what actually is and not what he or anyone else would like it to be. No doubt he will be the first to admit he is wrong as that is a foundation of science - To admit one is wrong. Religion attempts to maintain old world views, many times in the face of evidence.

 

[Peter_Plato]

With all due respect nothing you have said makes me see how science cannot study, gods, religion, morality, atheistics, beauty, love etc,. etc,… It has never been proved that supernatural beings exist. No one can argue a god exists or not. I can’t prove santa does not exist or little green men, but at least in the case of santa I am sure we will both agree.

Oh, my! You can’t see what I am saying.

Can you see what is in this picture?

View attachment 16311

No one can make you see it. It is a question of whether you see it or not.

Not sure why science cannot consider what happened before big bang. Not sure what you mean by ‘self-evident metaphysical truth’ sounds like psycho-babble. Unlike religionists, he is attempting what I would consider one of man’s greatest attributes - he is trying to find the truth of what actually is and not what he or anyone else would like it to be. No doubt he will be the first to admit he is wrong as that is a foundation of science - To admit one is wrong. Religion attempts to maintain old world views, many times in the face of evidence.

These days, the foundation of science is grant money to study profit making technologies. Many scientists are loathe to admit they might have gone off track because their funding sources are at stake.

Interesting how you show such naive faith in modern scientific endeavour.

 

[aprilfloyd]

Oh, my! You can’t see what I am saying.

Can you see what is in this picture?

View attachment 16311

No one can make you see it. It is a question of whether you see it or not.

These days, the foundation of science is grant money to study profit making technologies. Many scientists are loathe to admit they might have gone off track because their funding sources are at stake.

Interesting how you show such naive faith in modern scientific endeavour.

Studying things is the best way to discover about the world we live in. If I am naive so be it. It is better than cynicism

 

[Peter_Plato]

Studying things is the best way to discover about the world we live in. If I am naive so be it. It is better than cynicism

Studying things with an open mind is the best way to discover reality. To a priori assume that reality can only be physical reality is not demonstrating an open mind.

It is also untenable because physical reality cannot prove itself to be the only reality by scientific methods that are restricted to physical reality alone. It assumes what it cannot prove.

How much more self-interested and cynical can one be? Especially when there are all kinds of clues that reality, contains far “…more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy…(William Shakespeare)” Moral truth, beauty, questions of why and purpose, quality, pragmatic considerations, etc. all point at a greater reality than science can possibly address.

It would, indeed, be cynical and in the self-interest of materialism to ignore or deny those realities for the sake of some attenuated and misguided notion about the “reach” of science.

 

[aprilfloyd]

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.

I don’t see how you get to the analogy about a child and spinach.

I am not resisting a ‘belief in a god’ at all in fact, wouldn’t it be cool if someone actually discovered a god. Could you imagine the excitement on a global scale. If it was a benign and helpful god, think of all the sickness and death and misery that could be prevented. It would be a game changer. That would be something.

I don’t see your argument, I am not ‘insisting’ that god’s existence must be proved, but it would really help everyone, why all the obfuscation. If he is omniscient and know all, why play this silly obfuscation game, when people are dying.

Lastly, How can you be initimate with something that you admit cannot be proved is actually there

 

[Peter_Plato]

I don’t see how you get to the analogy about a child and spinach.

I am not resisting a ‘belief in a god’ at all in fact, wouldn’t it be cool if someone actually discovered a god. Could you imagine the excitement on a global scale. If it was a benign and helpful god, think of all the sickness and death and misery that could be prevented. It would be a game changer. That would be something.

I don’t see your argument, I am not ‘insisting’ that god’s existence must be proved, but it would really help everyone, why all the obfuscation. If he is omniscient and know all, why play this silly obfuscation game, when people are dying.

Lastly, How can you be initimate with something that you admit cannot be proved is actually there

To “discover a god” implies that such a god must be physical and, therefore, discoverable in nature and by natural means. However, if such a god is physical then this god could not be the explanation for why the natural universe exists to begin with because this god would be a part of the universe and, as such, not capable of bringing the universe into existence.

Only natural things are discoverable by scientific methods, so if such a “god” were discoverable it could only be a natural entity and therefore limited by time and space to existing within the space-time continuum of the material cosmos. God cannot be “discoverable” in this sense, but that does not mean there is no other means by which a level of certainty regarding God’s existence can be arrived at.

 

[aprilfloyd]

To “discover a god” implies that such a god must be physical and, therefore, discoverable in nature and by natural means. However, if such a god is physical then this god could not be the explanation for why the natural universe exists to begin with because this god would be a part of the universe and, as such, not capable of bringing the universe into existence.

Only natural things are discoverable by scientific methods, so if such a “god” were discoverable it could only be a natural entity and therefore limited by time and space to existing within the space-time continuum of the material cosmos. God cannot be “discoverable” in this sense, but that does not mean there is no other means by which a level of certainty regarding God’s existence can be arrived at.

Is ‘level of certainty’ another way of saying proof?

Do you have this ‘level of certainty’ ? Can you share it. I am not being facetious, but if you do this will be front page news.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I don’t see how you get to the analogy about a child and spinach.

Did you see what was in the picture? Will any amount of looking ever give you the answer to what it is? Perhaps, but perhaps not. Perception is more than just looking. How are things seen for what they are?

Lastly, How can you be initimate with something that you admit cannot be proved is actually there

You cannot “see” the personal identity (who they are) of people around you and yet, it could be argued, you can only be “intimate” (as in knowing on a personal level) the individuality aspect of creatures around you that are impossible to see with your physical eyes. You cannot be “intimate” with a chair or a tree, but you can be with a person, the real essence of whom you cannot see. Why not also with God?

 

[aprilfloyd]

Did you see what was in the picture? Will any amount of looking ever give you the answer to what it is? Perhaps, but perhaps not. Perception is more than just looking. How are things seen for what they are?

You cannot “see” the personal identity (who they are) of people around you and yet, it could be argued, you can only be “intimate” (as in knowing on a personal level) the individuality aspect of creatures around you that are impossible to see with your physical eyes. You cannot be “intimate” with a chair or a tree, but you can be with a person, the real essence of whom you cannot see. Why not also with God?

You are not making much sense? Is this leading up to your god proof? It seems like you are dancing around a point without making. People are real. Where is the proof of your god?

 

[Peter_Plato]

You are not making much sense? Is this leading up to your god proof? It seems like you are dancing around a point without making. People are real. Where is the proof of your god?

No denying that people are real, but who you are (as in personal identity or subject ) is not physically detectable. Who you are is not the same as what you are. What you are is a scientifically discernible question, but who you are is not. Others must get to know you, they cannot scientifically discover you.

Moses did not ask God, “What are you?” He asked, “Who should I say sent me?” God answered, “I Am Who Am.” He did not say, “I am what I am.”

We become “intimate” with the “who” of others not their “what.”

 

[aprilfloyd]

No denying that people are real, but who you are (as in personal identity or subject ) is not physically detectable. Who you are is not the same as what you are. What you are is a scientifically discernible question, but who you are is not. Others must get to know you, they cannot scientifically discover you.

Moses did not ask God, “What are you?” He asked, “Who should I say sent me?” God answered, “I Am Who Am.” He did not say, “I am what I am.”

We become “intimate” with the “who” of others not their “what.”

Do you have a point? You talk of intimacy, when I am asking about your proof of god, or your level of certainty - or are you just joking around?

It seems you take Moses and god as being literal and not symbolic. Now who is like a spinach eating child. Peter, gods don’t really exist. You may as well believe in The Great Green Arkleseizure, what you say offers as much support for that.

Until such times as I find a new one, I can only be intimate with my five senses

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t doubt a person called Jesus existed and that he was a good person,

Do you think a good person would claim to be God and then not be? Is that something a good person does?

 

[PRmerger]

Until such times as I find a new one, I can only be intimate with my five senses

What sense is the mind? Do you not regard philosophy as a form of knowledge, april?

 

[aprilfloyd]

Do you think a good person would claim to be God and then not be? Is that something a good person does?

I don’t know if he claimed that. he may have been an awful person for all I can prove

 

[aprilfloyd]

What sense is the mind? Do you not regard philosophy as a form of knowledge, april?

What do you mean what sense is the mind?

I regard philosophy as the study of the nature of knowledge, reality, existence and such like, but it is a very wide and somewhat nebulous term

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t know if he claimed that. he may have been an awful person for all I can prove

Fair enough.

So it’s curious that you would say this:

I don’t doubt a person called Jesus existed and that** he was a good person, **but more people who believe in God , don’t believe Jesus was god - Muslims and jews

Is that not something you wrote?

 

[PRmerger]

What do you mean what sense is the mind?

I regard philosophy as the study of the nature of knowledge, reality, existence and such like, but it is a very wide and somewhat nebulous term

What sense do you use when you engage in philosophy?

I use my mind. That’s not a sense. But it is indeed a way that I use to attempt to understand the world.