Doctor William Lane Craig

[PRmerger]

You.

Actually, not so much. I have never,* ever, *attempted to make any “hard and fast” definition of God.

You may be confusing Truths about God that we know through Reason and through Revelation as being a “hard and fast” definition, but that is an incorrect assessment of the discipline of theology.

You’re saying that I’m redefining God, which means there is a definition of him from which I’m attempting to redefine.

You cannot proclaim errors about God that contradict Truths we know through Reason and Revelation.

Just like you don’t get to say, “I define this to be a square!”

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Maybe God prefers humans to be inquisitive

Again, here you are being very Catholic. (I think this limns quite nicely that your baptism and confirmation cannot escape you. )

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Even if some peoples’ concepts of God verge on the fanciful, that does not mean every person’s understanding does. Some individuals have expertise that others do not. We would not say that the body of knowledge in biology, chemistry or physics is fanciful just because so many people have fancifully conflicting ideas about these.

I wholeheartedly disagree. There is so much we have yet to learn and so much that is being disputed in those scinces you mentioned. Yet there is much that is agreed upon, that is testable, that is repeatable, that is definable. The creator does not come close to meeting such standards.

We do not rely on what “**people attribute to” ** physics or math to define the best understanding of those areas. Likewise, we ought not accept common conceptions as definitive in our understanding of God or Creator.

If a person at a astronomers debate challenges the notion of dark matter, he can certainly do that. There is much work and arguing on that front. If a person challenges the notion that the sun is larger than the earth, then there is a problem. So much evidence can be shown that is not the case.

Now if we take it to a religious debate, I don’t think the question of whether the creator of the universe is eternal is a question not to be asked. There is nothing grounded that can definitively show that. It’s a reasonable question, even if most believers feel specifically that it’s already an answered question.

Everything you say above applies to areas of quantum mechanics, theories of cosmic origins, life origins and many, if not most, theories of science. It is not clear to me how the uncertainty of the knowledge of some or many individual human beings disproves Craig’s formulation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

I’m not saying (nor did I ever say) it disproves the Kalam. What I am saying (repeatedly) is that if some questions a portion of an argument, especially one where you can’t rule out Eddie Deezen as being the ultimate conclusion, that one should be understanding of those who might find fault or have concerns and to treat the questions forthrightly.

==
I have to cut this short as I’m heading home soon. I’ll go further with this tomorrow. Thank you both for your time.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I’m not saying (nor did I ever say) it disproves the Kalam. What I am saying (repeatedly) is that if some questions a portion of an argument, especially one where you can’t rule out Eddie Deezen as being the ultimate conclusion, that one should be understanding of those who might find fault or have concerns and to treat the questions forthrightly.

The Kalam argument leads to a timeless, immaterial, supercapable or omnipotent being with anthropic intent. You will have to explain, without a smirk of sarcasm on your face, how Eddie Deezen fits those qualifications.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Do you think the Bible sanctioned Solomon having 700 wives and 300 concubines?

In fact, the books of 1 & 2 Kings make it abundantly clear that the disintegration of the Kingdom of Israel following Solomon was due to his own choices regarding nuptial partners.

That’s not entirely true. God’s issue wasn’t the number of wives but the fact that they were strange, and when he was old they led him away from Yahweh to other gods. The punishment meted to Solomon and his son did not come from having 1,000 partners but choosing the wrong ones.

==

A quick aside, we’ve gone off on a few tangents and I’ll try to respond bit by bit. Also I’m in the middle of something big right now, so I won’t be as prolific a poster as I was last night. Thanks.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

What you understand makes no difference as to its real significance, just as what you think God is makes no difference as to who God really is.

I get that.

But you would absolutely have a point if you said that a Native American vision quest ceremony done when you were 3 days old has no impact on your life today.

With these I completely agree. I could very well be wrong, but as there appears not to be the slightest particle of evidence to suggest that baptism has any effect I have to go with the most likely conclusion.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Actually, not so much. I have never,* ever, *attempted to make any “hard and fast” definition of God.

You may be confusing Truths about God that we know through Reason and through Revelation as being a “hard and fast” definition, but that is an incorrect assessment of the discipline of theology.

Capitalizing the word truth does not make what you’re saying true. It just makes the ghost of Noah Webster cry.

You cannot proclaim errors about God that contradict Truths we know through Reason and Revelation.

The problem is we don’t “know” that. Ignore me as a non-believer for a second. There are many people out there who are as convinced that their interpretation of the creator is accurate and the reason of revelation that the Catholic Church has is either misinterpreted or just plain false. They have their own reason and revelation for which you have an equally poor opinion. For the non-catholic christians in that group of believers, they even believe their reason and revelation derives from the Holy Spirit.

In short, each believer has a definition of their god based on the things that they been taught about him.

Again, here you are being very Catholic. (I think this limns quite nicely that your baptism and confirmation cannot escape you. )

I’m not sure it’s fair to say that Catholics are more or less inquisitive than other religions and other denominations. I think it’s more that my parents read to me early as a child

 

[PRmerger]

With these I completely agree. I could very well be wrong, but as there appears not to be the slightest particle of evidence to suggest that baptism has any effect I have to go with the most likely conclusion.

I find it disingenuous that you have such a high level of demand for evidence for all things religious, yet live your life with such a low level of demand for evidence for all other things.

 

[PRmerger]

Capitalizing the word truth does not make what you’re saying true. It just makes the ghost of Noah Webster cry.

Fair enough.

I amend my comment to this: You may be confusing truths about God that we know through Reason and through Revelation as being a “hard and fast” definition, but that is an incorrect assessment of the discipline of theology.

 

[PRmerger]

The problem is we don’t “know” that. Ignore me as a non-believer for a second. There are many people out there who are as convinced that their interpretation of the creator is accurate and the reason of revelation that the Catholic Church has is either misinterpreted or just plain false. They have their own reason and revelation for which you have an equally poor opinion. For the non-catholic christians in that group of believers, they even believe their reason and revelation derives from the Holy Spirit.

Sure. No one is arguing against that here.

Faith begins, first, with an act of the will. Then we come to understand. The mantra of Catholicism is, of course, fides quarens intellectum.

In short, each believer has a definition of their god based on the things that they been taught about him.

No doubt.

I’m not sure it’s fair to say that Catholics are more or less inquisitive than other religions and other denominations.

Again, this is very Catholic of you to say, Mike!

I think it’s more that my parents read to me early as a child

Oh. Do you want to rescind this comment you made earlier then about being seeking being something God desires for the human person?

Maybe God prefers humans to be inquisitive.

For that is very Catholic of you to say.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

The Kalam argument leads to a timeless, immaterial, supercapable or omnipotent being with anthropic intent. You will have to explain, without a smirk of sarcasm on your face, how Eddie Deezen fits those qualifications.

You brought up mathematics briefly in an earlier post, so I’ll use a bit of basic math in this post.

As you may or may not know, a set is collection of unique items and can be defined by certain parameters. If we make a set of timeless, immaterial, supercapable, omnipotent beings capable of creating the universe we have an infinite number of items limited only by our imaginations. Here are some examples in history: creator deities.

The problem becomes that Kalam does not list items that the being can not be. It doesn’t rule out multiple deities. It doesn’t rule out a deity that looks like an animal. Because it doesn’t rule out a kind carpenter living under Roman occupation who appears to be just human, it also doesn’t rule out the man who played Eugene in Grease 2.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I find it disingenuous that you have such a high level of demand for evidence for all things religious, yet live your life with such a low level of demand for evidence for all other things.

I disagree. Show me one aspect of baptism that demonstrates its power beyond water hitting flesh and beyond how one treats a person they know is baptised.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Again, this is very Catholic of you to say, Mike!

Now if you were to say that Catholics naturally had much higher levels of tenacity, you might be proving yourself right here.

 

[Peter_Plato]

That’s not entirely true. God’s issue wasn’t the number of wives but the fact that they were strange, and when he was old they led him away from Yahweh to other gods. The punishment meted to Solomon and his son did not come from having 1,000 partners but choosing the wrong ones.

On the contrary:

The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the LORD has told you, “You are not to go back that way again.” He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold. (Deut 17:16-18)

 

[Peter_Plato]

I disagree. Show me one aspect of baptism that demonstrates its power beyond water hitting flesh and beyond how one treats a person they know is baptised.

The effects of Baptism are supposed to be supernatural so your restriction of the demonstration of the power of Baptism to natural effects only rules out, by definition, the efficacy of Baptism. Its like asking someone to prove a numerical mathematical truth but prohibiting them from using numbers to do so.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Capitalizing the word truth does not make what you’re saying true. It just makes the ghost of Noah Webster cry.

If the Truth is a person, as in, “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life,” then capitalizing the word, Truth, would be quite appropriate since proper nouns ought to be capitalized. Noah Webster, ghost or otherwise, would whole-heartedly agree.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You brought up mathematics briefly in an earlier post, so I’ll use a bit of basic math in this post.

As you may or may not know, a set is collection of unique items and can be defined by certain parameters. If we make a set of timeless, immaterial, supercapable, omnipotent beings capable of creating the universe we have an infinite number of items limited only by our imaginations. Here are some examples in history: creator deities.

The problem becomes that Kalam does not list items that the being can not be. It doesn’t rule out multiple deities. It doesn’t rule out a deity that looks like an animal. Because it doesn’t rule out a kind carpenter living under Roman occupation who appears to be just human, it also doesn’t rule out the man who played Eugene in Grease 2.

I don’t recall the man who played Eugene ever demonstrating, or giving the least indication that he ever possessed the power to interfere with or suspend the laws of physics that govern the universe. The claim isn’t that a man qua man could do so, but that God qua God, alone, could take the form of a human because nothing could constrain his power to do so.

Greek or pagan deities, while mythologically imagined to undertake some degree of supernatural power were never conceived of as omniscient, omnipotent nor as transcending the physical universe (they lived on Mt. Olympus), but were restricted by their human “creators” to inhabiting a location and time within the cosmos. The God of Judeo-Christian monotheism never revealed himself to be restricted by either space or time. The fact that he had the power to take on human nature and form is not an admission that therefore any human, even one so endowed as the man who played Eugene, could transitively become God.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

The effects of Baptism are supposed to be supernatural so your restriction of the demonstration of the power of Baptism to natural effects only rules out, by definition, the efficacy of Baptism. Its like asking someone to prove a numerical mathematical truth but prohibiting them from using numbers to do so.

Right, so replace baptism with voodoo curse and see my position. Does baptism affect a person in a physical way? Does it cause a person to act differently? If so, has anybody done a study comparing those that are baptised versus those that are not?

If the Truth is a person, as in, “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life,” then capitalizing the word, Truth, would be quite appropriate since proper nouns ought to be capitalized. Noah Webster, ghost or otherwise, would whole-heartedly agree.

If Truth a capital T is meant to represent a person, then replacing the word Truth with that person’s should make sense. So in your example it works. It has a form of “to be” to equate himself to God. When you go to examples like “The Truth about God” it’s clearly meant to be used to refer to a quality about God not as God himself. “The God about God” doesn’t work.

 

[PRmerger]

Right, so replace baptism with voodoo curse and see my position. Does baptism affect a person in a physical way? Does it cause a person to act differently? If so, has anybody done a study comparing those that are baptised versus those that are not?

If you start from a position of “I won’t believe until you prove to me that baptism changed my soul indelibly”, then we can’t help you.

You have to start with an act of the will: “I will believe”, then you seek to understand.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I don’t recall the man who played Eugene ever demonstrating, or giving the least indication that he ever possessed the power to interfere with or suspend the laws of physics that govern the universe. The claim isn’t that a man qua man could do so, but that God qua God, alone, could take the form of a human because nothing could constrain his power to do so.

One doesn’t have to make a claim about an ability or demonstrate an ability to others in order to be able to perform that ability (or to have previously performed it). That is not a reason to rule out any number of entities that could be the uncaused cause.

Greek or pagan deities, while mythologically imagined to undertake some degree of supernatural power were never conceived of as omniscient, omnipotent nor as transcending the physical universe (they lived on Mt. Olympus), but were restricted by their human “creators” to inhabiting a location and time within the cosmos. The God of Judeo-Christian monotheism never revealed himself to be restricted by either space or time. The fact that he had the power to take on human nature and form is not an admission that therefore any human, even one so endowed as the man who played Eugene, could transitively become God.

First, don’t limit yourself to just the Greek or pagan deities. There were many more listed in that page I linked to. Second, Greek belief says that the Titans (like Gaia and other forebearers to the more popular Greek gods) sprung from Chaos, an eternal entity – an uncaused cause if you will.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

If you start from a position of “I won’t believe until you prove to me that baptism changed my soul indelibly”, then we can’t help you.

You have to start with an act of the will: “I will believe”, then you seek to understand.

I’m not looking for help Remember this all sprung from the idea that I disagreed with the church that baptism leaves an indelible mark on a person.

To say that an act of belief will help me understand ignores the fact that an act of belief in rituals we both belief is untrue will help me understand that as well.