This is a really cool video [video=youtube;r3tvA9R3gJE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3tvA9R3gJE[/video]
I'm quite aware of what Dr. Craig's historical and philosophical views are. He also believes in the inerrancy of the Scriptures, much like me. He just has a different interpretation of what they mean. Old earth, young earth, it changes absolutely nothing.
then why are you so hung up on a young earth? you think WLC is some sort of authority on the subject of christianity that would demolish dawkins on the existence of god. yet you don't think he'd demolish you on the age of the earth?
WLC explains the absurdness of a godless universe very well with persuasive arguments. I agree with him on that and many other things such as moral values. But I interpret what the Bible says differently than he does and he is in no way someone who I look to for authority on the subject, that would be God and the Scriptures. Why are you so hung up on an old earth?
Yo Dawg! I heard you like scriptures, so I put some scriptures in your scriptures so you can interpret while you interpret.
No, they are God's written revelation to mankind and our ultimate authority. The important aspects of the Bible (i.e, why we suffer, how to be salvaged) are not open to interpretation, they are clear as day.
No. This is not at all what quantum mechanics addresses (and yes, I am a physicist). You weaken all of your arguments when you put forward stuff like this.
Christians follow the Bible because they believe it is the word of God. They believe in God largely because of the Bible. It's a closed loop, logically speaking. The only way on that little merry-go-round of faith is to simply start believing -- something that many of you did as a result of some kind of personal revelation or epiphany. That's fine with me. You had a magical experience that convinced you to start believing in the Bible, that's your business. I don't doubt the reality of your experience - I cannot, for it is yours alone - though of course I do doubt your interpretation of it. There's a popular conception of atheists as being spiritually apathetic or lazy; they haven't found God because they don't even care to try. That may be true for some, but for many of us the journey was as long and rewarding as any conversion. I was raised Christian, and for years said my prayers every night like a dutiful son, hiding the fact that I never heard a thing in my head at night but the echoes of my own mind rattling around in my brain. I assumed I was "doing it wrong", like there was a secret knock I just had never figured out. For years I lived with that guilt -- why could everyone else hear something that I could not? When I started questioning, as many do, it was again with guilt and trepidation. It's tough to be the black sheep of the family. Some born-again atheists - for we are all born atheist! - report feeling lost and scared when they first let go of their superstition and rituals. For me it was the opposite. I felt clear-eyed and awake for the very first time. I seek truth. I always have. I couldn't be happier to have finally let go of that which kept me from finding it. You ask about morality, and whether it can exist without a mighty god inscribing laws on tablets. But I ask the opposite. How can you consider anything you do to be good if it is done under the threat of punishment? Which is more impressive: the Christian who helps his neighbor because God told him to, always believing in an eventual and eternal reward in heaven, or the atheist who gives of what he has without being told, expecting no reward whatsoever? You may answer this by saying that actions are meaningless -- only the love of Jesus matters. But at that point we have left the discussion of morality, and are back on the merry-go-round. You believe that Jesus is the answer because it says so in the Bible. And you follow the Bible because Jesus is the answer... Wheeeee!
Done, and done! And I promise to stay out of your god's heaven if you promise to give up your car, computer, cell phone, medicine, and all other benefits of a science-based society. Deal?
This is what I find amazing. There maybe differences in interpretation of the bible; just like one scientist could support the big bang and another supports multiverse theory but that can be accepted because its science. The arrogance of them to assume that every Christian must agree on the generalization of the bible. I will tell you that one scientist agreeing on big bang and another on multiverse will debate each other with opn minds; but every debate I've ever seen from a creationist and atheist or evolutionist is the same tune. Just look at the arguments posted under the YouTube debates. It's almost like they don't even listen to what the creationist say. They almost always just immediately think the creationist is wrong. What I find even more intriguing is William Craig puts up great arguments; even scientific arguments and in front of the greatest minds of science and I see them stumble for the right answers and Craig seemlessly answering the questions with confidence and scientific and philisophical confidence. Watch the debate where Dawkins had an open chair. There was a panel of some very successful minds. You can see they were in over their head. If the evolutionist were confident, Dawkins would be leading the charge against Craig. Insted he hides and is even accused of being a coward by his fello atheist college. You can see that even the great mind of hitchens had to give him props. That for the first time atheist root for their speaker and wish them luck when they debate Craig. Myself; I agree with Craig's ideas. Even if it disapproves young earth. It makes sense. These were some of the very same questions I had and he answered them.
Well of course you will give up carbon 14 dating. It's impressively innaccurate! Lol! Why would it bother you?
Okay so do you agree with big bang or multiverse? Or is there another theory you adopted? Gotta ask because there are so many interpretations on what is actually accepted in the science field. Curious minds need to know.
Okay and why not? If something isn't there, then why wouldn't it be excluded from the laws of Physics? That makes no sense. If, and maybe this isn't what many Christians believe; but let's say the designer isn't bound by the laws of gravity, light, sound, or time or maybe other laws that haven't been discovered; then how could it not happen? Are you saying it's impossible? Do you have proof of this impossibility? And excuse me if I'm not scientifically explaining this. I am not a physicist. But it's great knowing you are. I want to know. So my question is: Do you have undeniable evidence that supports that a being, cannot break the known laws of physics? And if you do, then I would really like to read this proof.
I would really hope that you watched the two debates I posted here. I challenge you to watch them with an open mind. If you think that William Craig is bat crazy; and he doesn't have a leg to stand on; then we can agree to disagree. I know they are both long, but I sat through both of them last night. What I've learned from Hitchens, is I respect this man very much. He is honest, genuine and will admit or at least not "Bullshit" his way out. The next debates from the three panels of very sophisticated debaters from Philosophy, Biology and Physics all were stumbling against one man and his scientific theory. I also find it compelling that there were sophisticated individuals in the audience, and most of them agree that there is a God. I guess the Atheists still have a lot of work cut out for them.
work cut out for them? Why? How? to convince you of something? Then you have the same work cut out ahead of you to convince atheists of the existence of god. because William Craig sounds good in a debate does nothing to convince his opponents. The same that hitchens sounding good elsewhere won't convince you. But when one side uses science, and another says it is what I believe, well, there is no work that is going to alter that, IMO. Also don't see what difference it makes that there were sophisticated individuals who believed there was a god in the audience.
