I guess you didn't read what I said, or maybe you didn't watch the debate. If you don't have time, watch the very last question to the sophisticated audience. Then get back to me.
I don't think that belief in god is at all a function of intelligence. I've known very intelligent individuals -- scientists even -- who professed a belief in a creator. There's no intrinsic conflict here, since science and religion (in their purest forms) attempt to answer completely different questions. The only conflict that arises is when people try to use one of those two answers (science or religion) to answer the wrong question. Asking the Bible for the age of the earth is like asking a physics textbook what you should have for breakfast -- it's not that the book is wrong, it's just the wrong question!
I don't understand your question. Can you rephrase it? No evidence at all. Do you have evidence that I don't have a tiny invisible unicorn in my hat? You cannot prove a negative, ever. Not in science, not it faith, not ever.
I don't know which video of the 5 or 6 you have posted, or which question you refer. Not going to spend 4 hours watching youtube videos to figure it out. If you'd like to just say your point or what was said, great. I'm not hunting through youtube videos to find it. You finished the latest post with i guess the atheists have their work cut out for them. Which is what i was responding to. I would say the work is equally as difficult and pointless on both sides to "convert".
Is it impossible to have a being that isn't bound to the recent data/or research in physics? I hope I made it simple. I kind of ramble on the focus of my question. I apologize. Okay so there isn't evidence. That's really good to know. And talking about the "unicorn" this same principle can be made about multi-verses, since well; there isn't concrete evidence it exists.
that fact that he sounds confident doesn't make his arguments logically valid. he's a professional and extremely experienced and skilled debater, great at keeping thoughts organized and managing his time in a debate. his goal is to sway the audience by sounding authoritative. but confidently stated bullshit is still bullshit. and in any case he's firmly an old-earth christian so it's odd that you would defer to him as an authority on scientific topics.
It's a shame then. If you care about truth or science; it's actually worth watching. But no worries look at the last video I posted. The one in England. You don't have to watch the debate; but I really suggest it. But scroll all the way to the end. It's the very last question asked. [video=youtube;l3HCthi2i_o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3HCthi2i_o&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PLE0DDD050549488CC[/video] And when I say that they have a lot of work cut out for them; I go back to the great Hitchens and Dawkins and their mission to make Atheism a world view. By the show of hands in a very sophisticated setting; the vast majority believe there is a God. And I saw only one saying he didn't believe in God.
Wow are you that Naive? LOL... He isn't debating someone like you. He is debating arguably the greatest minds in science and philosophy. If he didn't have a scientific point; they would eat him for lunch.
Back to the original topic (sort of), I think this article is very interesting. Although it speaks of evolution, it also discusses a lot of what ORL2 and Mags have been suggesting about innate morals that exist in our DNA. http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/greatergood/archive/2005fallwinter/FallWinter0506_deWaal.pdf And I suppose so that my horse in this race is known: I grew up Christian (sort of) but do not consider myself to be any specific religion currently. My current thoughts on religion are very ill defined. I do believe in a creator but I base that belief on faith and not science, and at the end of the day I believe that the creator cares less about whether we believe in the creator or the correct version of the creator and more about how we treat our common man/woman. I have to accept evolution as it appears to me to be difficult to rebut or refute. I try to live my life based on the Golden Rule. And at the end of the day, if I make it into the afterlife (if that even exists) or I don't, or I was completely wrong, I have no regrets. So, I fully expect all to start casting stones. Cast away!! Edit: Oh yeah and my Creator says that any of you that disagree with me are screwed! Hope you all enjoy hell!
I personally had this opinion; but I didn't know if it was false. I battled it in my own head. And who knows; Craig maybe wrong, but he maybe right. I always perceived time in God's eyes is irrelevant. So what is a day for him could be millions of years to minds, physics or basic laws of science.
I personally had this opinion; but I didn't know if it was false. I battled it in my own head. And who knows; Craig maybe wrong, but he maybe right. I always perceived time in God's eyes is irrelevant. So what is a day for him could be millions of years to minds, physics or basic laws of science.
I follow the Bible because I believe it, yes. Also because it makes much more logical sense to me than man’s theories on how everything originated. And it’s backed by historical and archaeological evidence. Because you think it’s a closed loop doesn’t make it automatically untrue. A simple explanation is sometimes the best and most logical. Not that God or the Bible are simple, I just don’t believe that science will ever without a doubt figure why we’re here and what our meaning is unless they open up the Good Book. That’s fine with me. You had a magical experience that convinced you to start believing in atheism, that’s your business. I don’t doubt the reality of your experience - I cannot, for it is your alone - though of course I do doubt your interpretation of it. I also hate it when atheists make the claim that all babies are born atheist, like that’s supposed to prove something. Like if they weren’t “indoctrinated” into religion they would intrinsically believe in nothing. You can make the case that they are agnostic, but either way it’s dumb because we’re talking about a freaking baby here. I believe atheists do good things because their Creator is good and made them with innate basic moral values written in their DNA. Of course I’m sure you will disagree. I follow Jesus because He is the way, the truth, and the life. And as I mentioned earlier it makes more sense than any other theory or religion I've come across thus far.
not if they were poor or unprepared debaters, and WLC was one of the most skilled debaters in the world, which he is. that doesn't make him right. in fact everything he says (5 points etc) is easily refuted by someone with the time to do so.
Honestly, I would take that deal and run. And I never said I was against science, only science that attempts to explain things it has no business explaining. Enjoy your earthly things.
That said, I just sold a construction job yesterday. I had already visited their home, went over the parameters of the project, and worked towards selling the gentleman and his wife on the benefits of going with our company. This included sharing some testimonies of our other customers, hitting home our commitment to quality and service, etc., etc. He called me yesterday afternoon and went on to tell me that, while he had no way of "truly" knowing if we would do what we say we're gonna do, he just had that "gut" feeling that we were all we said we were. He said him and his wife had that same feeling. That's why their pulling the trigger on the deal. In other words, they put their "faith" in us.....pretty much sight unseen. I guess I said all this to point out that, sometimes, things aren't entirely cut and dried. Sometimes it really does take a faith factor. Without it, it's just another unsolved equation that very well may go spinning into indifference, nothingness, or flat-out rejection. For certain, faith is the basis for any Christian's relationship with Jesus. Without it, there's no relationship at all. Many Christians will respond with a, "I know that I know that I know.." I can related to that. And, nothing will unsettle that......ever.
Wow you think Hitchens was poor or unprepared? How about Millican, Law, Harris, Kraus, Ally, Carrier, Ludeman, Dayton, Dacey, DeSousa, Drange, Shook, Show, Wilson, Strobel, Dennison, Edwards, Bradley, Cooke, or Parsons? The Atheists sent the best they got and even Dawkins refuses to debate Craig one on one. And Dawkins is known to be the best debater that Atheism has to offer. If Craig was full of shit; then science would immediately show him for a charlatan. So far, it didn't even come close. And in some cases; jokes were even made to Craig to try and ruffle his feathers. Unfortunately for Atheists; that didn't even work. You can't discount Craig. He has quite the resumé: Biographical Sketch William Lane Craig is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California. He and his wife Jan have two grown children. At the age of sixteen as a junior in high school, he first heard the message of the Christian gospel and yielded his life to Christ. Dr. Craig pursued his undergraduate studies at Wheaton College (B.A. 1971) and graduate studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (M.A. 1974; M.A. 1975), the University of Birmingham (England) (Ph.D. 1977), and the University of Munich (Germany) (D.Theol. 1984). From 1980-86 he taught Philosophy of Religion at Trinity, during which time he and Jan started their family. In 1987 they moved to Brussels, Belgium, where Dr. Craig pursued research at the University of Louvain until assuming his position at Talbot in 1994. He has authored or edited over thirty books, including The Kalam Cosmological Argument; Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus; Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom; Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology; and God, Time and Eternity, as well as over a hundred articles in professional journals of philosophy and theology, including The Journal of Philosophy, New Testament Studies, Journal for the Study of the New Testament, American Philosophical Quarterly, Philosophical Studies, Philosophy, and British Journal for Philosophy of Science.
And let me get this straight. I hold a very high respect for both Hitchen's and Dawkins; because you can honestly believe that they are passionate about their philosophy. They come from a very prestigious background of science. Not a single person would disagree that if you want a scientist go to bat for you; they are the Barry Bonds or Mantles of science. I may not agree with their theories; but at least they try and explain things honestly. And even Dawkins will openly admit that intelligent design is a realistic possibility. And you can see Craig hold that same respect as well. Watch the debates and see just how much he goes out of his way to never call them out. And he is the first to shake their hand and never get into a pissing match verbally with them. You can say he's just a great debater. I think it's just someone that 100% believes in what he has to say. It's hard to cover your tracks when you aren't confident with your story or data. It's very easy to be extremely open when you are 100% confident in what you believe in.
