Doctor William Lane Craig

[aprilfloyd]

Fair enough.

So it’s curious that you would say this:

Is that not something you wrote?

Yes I wrote it and you quoted it, so why do you ask if I wrote it?

 

[aprilfloyd]

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.

I can’t imagine - no pun intended - what your mind is like, but mine just works with the five senses I know of, unless you know different.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes I wrote it and you quoted it, so why do you ask if I wrote it?

Because it appears as if you don’t know what you’re writing.

First you say that Jesus was a good man. Then you say he could have been an awful person.

It’s confusing to me.

Which one is your actual position?

 

[PRmerger]

I can’t imagine - no pun intended - what your mind is like, but mine just works with the five senses I know of, unless you know different.

Ah, very good, then.

So you do use something besides your five senses.

That also contradicts your original premise which was that you could only have intimacy (that is, intimate knowledge of) through your five senses.

This, also, is our post, yes?

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

 

[aprilfloyd]

Because it appears as if you don’t know what you’re writing.

First you say that Jesus was a good man. Then you say he could have been an awful person.

It’s confusing to me.

Which one is your actual position?

Both and Neither. I can’t prove either.

 

[aprilfloyd]

Ah, very good, then.

So you do use something besides your five senses.

That also contradicts your original premise which was that you could only have intimacy (that is, intimate knowledge of) through your five senses.

This, also, is our post, yes?

I am sticking to I only have the five and my mind works ok on that basis

 

[PRmerger]

Both and Neither. I can’t prove either.

I am sticking to I only have the five and my mind works ok on that basis

Yeah, I think based on the evidence you’ve thus supplied it’s quite clear to me that you have not fully thought out any of your arguments.

You post what you feel at the moment.

And that’s fine.

But it’s absurd to attempt to have any meaningful dialogue with someone who doesn’t even know what her own beliefs are, how to articulate them and how to support her beliefs with logic and reason.

It’s like being in a discussion with someone who says, “I absolutely believe that brides should wear red!” and then when pressed to support her belief she says, “Well, I think it’s just fine for brides to wear white!”

25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m5x9nralSF1ql5yr7o1_400.gif

 

[PRmerger]

TOff-topic:
“Why can’t there be married bachelors?”
A man is married in the Catholic Church. He later files for a divorce. The state recognizes the divorce, the church does not. The state considers him a bachelor and the church considers him married.

But it would be nonsensical for the state to consider him married and a bachelor, and the Church to consider a married bachelor, yes?

 

[mab23]

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m5x9nralSF1ql5yr7o1_400.gif

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

But it would be nonsensical for the state to consider him married and a bachelor, and the Church to consider a married bachelor, yes?

Right. I wasn’t arguing about the perception of a such person, but the fact that he is both things – a seeming contradiction. Take the concept of the contranym, words that are their own antonyms. Depending on the context of the sentence only one of their meanings is in use at any time, but as a whole each of them are defined in two conflicting ways.

As you quoted, I threw it out there as an off-topic response to what Peter Plato was saying; but I’m going to try to bring it back to William Lane Craig (Remember when this thread was about William Lane Craig? ) If you go back to my discussion with Peter, I just wanted to show that in a philosophical discussion that no one (even WLC) can take anything for granted – especially when it comes to the notion of a creator, for whom definitions are so numerous and varied.

 

[ClemtheCatholic]

I just want to summarize before pulling out of this.

I think Doctor Craig is a good man and a very good debater. I think he has searched for the truth honestly and now he defends what he regards as the truth. He makes the point that he doesn’t win his debates just because he is a good debater. He wins because he has the right cause, the right arguments, and he has the truth (though perhaps not the whole truth, as he admits in one debate when talking about doctrinal/theological issues). He has been using the same arguments for years and atheism still has no response. I find him appealing because he shows atheists that their fundamental belief in there being no god is simply absurd.

 

[PRmerger]

Hey! How did you get the meme to show up? I’ve been having to post links, not the actual meme/gif.

 

[Peter_Plato]

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

Can you see, hear, feel, taste or touch someone’s “self?” Perhaps you can use senses to detect the actions of another self if the other chooses to manifest their self in their bodily movements, but you can never know the other self unless that other person allows you to. You can only get to know the person by their self-revelation through what they do and say, but they can be deceptive and fool you by giving false signals.

Perhaps that is why you don’t believe in God? If God is a “Self” then God cannot be known except as God chooses to reveal Himself? That means God cannot be known except as he chooses to be nor can he be controlled like things we can manipulate in space-time. Knowing God requires a giving of ourself over to Him in trust so that we can know Him as we are known to Him on the level of person, not as object. Faithfulness and trust are required, not scientific analysis. When was the last time you got to know someone by applying the scientific method to them? Do you think God wants to be known as an object and not a subject?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Right. I wasn’t arguing about the perception of a such person, but the fact that he is both things – a seeming contradiction. Take the concept of the contranym, words that are their own antonyms. Depending on the context of the sentence only one of their meanings is in use at any time, but as a whole each of them are defined in two conflicting ways.

As you quoted, I threw it out there as an off-topic response to what Peter Plato was saying; but I’m going to try to bring it back to William Lane Craig (Remember when this thread was about William Lane Craig? ) If you go back to my discussion with Peter, I just wanted to show that in a philosophical discussion that no one (even WLC) can take anything for granted – especially when it comes to the notion of a creator, for whom definitions are so numerous and varied.

Yes and I can demonstrate to you with visual proof that 1+1=1 or 1+1+1=1, but that does not disprove the mathematical truth of 1+1=2 or that three ones do not equal 3.

 

[PRmerger]

Right. I wasn’t arguing about the perception of a such person, but the fact that he is both things – a seeming contradiction.

Actually, Mike, the fact is he IS NOT both these things.

He either is married. Or he is not.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Actually, Mike, the fact is he IS NOT both these things.

He either is married. Or he is not.

So which is he, married or a bachelor? Depending on how you look at it he can be either. If you say one thing, someone else could very well say the other.

Honestly, we’re just going to have to agree to disagree as neither one of us will be able to convince the other.

Yes and I can demonstrate to you with visual proof that 1+1=1 or 1+1+1=1, but that does not disprove the mathematical truth of 1+1=2 or that three ones do not equal 3.

But that’s just it. Mathematics is grounded. There are rules that can be used to prove or disprove notions about mathematics. The concept of a creator is more fanciful. Not to discount the possibility of his existence, but so much of what people attribute to such a creator can’t definitively be denied or ascertained (a truth most believers will agree with). There are major disagreements as to what properties the creator of the universe possesses.

Let’s propose most of what Catholics believe about is true except for a few things including: 1) He is not eternal, 2) He was created by some other entity. If true, it would mean WLC’s idea that the christian god is the uncaused cause is not true. Obviously this is not a belief most people share but it is equally provable and disprovable as what Catholics believe.

Now before you say I’m just obfuscating the discussion, remember that there was a time when Christians argued where God possessed certain properties of God that are contradictory. The first being that Jesus is all God and all man (as opposed to something like half God and half man, or that he was all God with the appearance of man, etc.). The second is the nature of the Trinity. When people propose these concepts, there were many people against them. Heck there are still believers in God who are against one or both concepts.

My whole point extending from my first post in this thread is this, considering:

• People have long asked where God came from,
• The idea of God is nebulous and unprovable
• People have many vastly different opinions of God’s nature
• God is already said to possess several seemingly contraditctory attributes
• In general, it’s wise not to make assumptions in philisophical discussion

that when William Lane Craig dismisses the question of “Where did God come from?” as laughable it belies blind spots in his methods. The only thing laughable is a philosopher whose nature isn’t to question certain precepts.

 

[PRmerger]

So which is he, married or a bachelor?

He is married. What God has joined no one can declare to be separated.

Depending on how you look at it he can be either. If you say one thing, someone else could very well say the other.

Think of it this way: can someone saying, “This is a circle!” change what it actually is?

 

[PRmerger]

• People have many vastly different opinions of God’s nature

Actually, not so much, Mike.

People for millenia have had some very similar opinions of God’s nature: God is eternal. God is uncaused. God is omnipotent. God is creator. God is Other. God is mystery.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

He is married. What God has joined no one can declare to be separated.

[
noun

1. an unmarried man. ](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bachelor?s=t)

Now even if you vehemently disagree with the idea that a man can become unmarried, can you see how our proposed man nicely fits within the definition of a bachelor? Can you see how there is no way to take a square and have even come close to the definition of a circle? It’s not the same thing at all.

Actually, not so much, Mike.

People for millenia have had some very similar opinions of God’s nature: God is eternal. God is uncaused. God is omnipotent. God is creator. God is Other. God is mystery.

All I am saying (seemingly ad infinitum) is that God is not math. There is no one wholly singular definition for God, and because of that we can’t assume anything about or smugly brush off questions about him. Even if it’s something that 99.44% of the population is true, doesn’t mean it shouldn’t face scrutiny. This is triply true when an undefinable concept like a creator is discussed.

 

[PRmerger]

[
noun

1. an unmarried man. ](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bachelor?s=t)

Now even if you vehemently disagree with the idea that a man can become unmarried, can you see how our proposed man nicely fits within the definition of a bachelor?

Huh? He is married, Mike.

[SIGN1]Even if someone declares him to be un-married, that cannot change the fact that he is, indeed, married.[/SIGN1]

As such, he cannot also be a bachelor.

Can you see how there is no way to take a square and have even come close to the definition of a circle? It’s not the same thing at all.

Its parallel is this: someone simply declaring something to be [A] does not cease to make it [not-A].