LMAO! Than everyone in the field of science is irrelevant! Hahahahaha... Okay sorry crow, maybe the scientific field get you in charge to lead the way of our progression! You look like a supreme candidate! But if I misread your post regarding "intellect" then I will concur on that statement.
Please, PLEASE tell me you are joking here. We live in a world where snake oil sells better than ever.
Careful. ONE person called him a con artist. I see no reason to doubt his earnest, honest belief, even if I think he's mistaken. (Crow may call me naive here.) Intelligence and sophistication (and I agree that Craig has both) do NOT equate to infallibility.
I hold a high respect for you and Denny in these debates. I see you, like Denny wanting to seek truth and believe in the "purism" of science. And I embrace that as well. But remember that this was a response to one poster; maybe a couple others that have a certain arrogance in these threads. Don't think I am generalizing the entire flock. Just like I wouldn't generalize the entire flock of Christians.
I hold a high respect for you and Denny in these debates. I see you, like Denny wanting to seek truth and believe in the "purism" of science. And I embrace that as well. But remember that this was a response to one poster; maybe a couple others that have a certain arrogance in these threads. Don't think I am generalizing the entire flock. Just like I wouldn't generalize the entire flock of Christians.
Appreciated. I also think you are an honest believer and honest questioner, and I respect that. I know too many Christians to possibly lump them all into any one basket.
Are you sure? Because this becomes the issue here. If he thinks the probability that our DNA had a program; even if it started with just the single cell type organism; by a being more intelligent than we are; then who made that being? And so on, and so on. Basically, what is God? Can God be someone or something or nothing with supreme intelligence; that breaks the very laws of our known science like light, gravity, relativity, physics, etc. You can't say this is impossible. You maybe able to say it's "improbable", and if future science can manipulate actual DNA, or even find ways to "synthesize" it; then couldn't we play God? <--- This statement doesn't agree with my Christian Faith by the way. This isn't the question that "My Hebrew God is God" as the one you must believe in. It's the question of "Can God exist"?
What Dawkins said, repeatedly, was "nobody knows how life started". This is the only honest answer an atheist can give. He acknowledged that yes, it is POSSIBLE that life on earth was "seeded" by some extraterrestrial super-species, which was itself spontaneously created and shaped through evolutionary processes. It's also possible that life originated with petri dish of bacteria sent backwards in time with Scott Bakula. That's not saying that either one of these is the most likely scenario, or even likely at all -- it's just saying that nobody knows. Twisting this into "Dawkins admits to intelligent design" is a pretty big stretch.
I didn't say he admitted to it. I'm saying he said it's possible. And this was to a reply that crow said "Anyone that thinks this isn't sophisticated". You gotta see where I replied it. I didn't say Dawkins admits, therefor he believes. But since Dawkins is a "realist" and "rational"; he can't discredit it; which is why he is "sophisticated". This is the very same reason why Craig can say he is open to "evolution" even though it isn't a popular belief of "Christians". This is another reason why Craig is sophisticated. He also believes the Universe is 17 billion years old. Once again not very popular in the Christian sector. Please read why I posted this and who I responded to.
Sorry - I wasn't originally commenting on your argument specifically, but on the title of the YouTube video (which is "Richard Dawkins admits to intelligent design"). And by "Christian sector" you mean SOME in the Christian sector, right? I know plenty of Christians who have no problem whatsoever incorporating evolution into their religious views -- probably shouldn't generalize them.
LOL yep! I stand corrected... But I wouldn't say some, but majority if people in the Christian sector. Trust me, I've talked about similar theories regarding the Earth life, and even evolution. My theory trips people out a little. And I will be honest and candid in this place. What really goes on in my head; or what I truly battle is this. Can it be possible that a being "God" doesn't need to worry about time because, well he made time. 1 billion years ago is just as relevant as the present or 1 trillion years in the future. If this is the case; one day to him could mean millions of years and still be accurate because; well it's nothing (If you know what I mean). And, this is completely my opinion; but what if there was some sort of evolution. Something like God enjoying the masterpiece come to finalization. The imperfections become perfections. Life from nothing becomes something amazing? This is why I don't discount "some sort of evolution". I discount "The reason why so many embrace evolution". And again, it's not like I believe in it or disbelieve in it; if you know what I mean. Then comes the Bible; which I do truly believe is the inspiration of God "God's basic words". But then think about how we speak to children. Because we know their vocabulary is small; we talk in a way they can understand. Could you imagine seeing Heaven or even God for that matter? Think about being simple and seeing such a marvelous, supernatural being right before your eyes. And try explaining 100,000,000 years to people with no true history. I mean lets even think about the history of written word. What maybe 1,000 years? They live on average of 30? 30 years is a fucking HUGE number to them. So talk simply and tell them 1 day. Because in reality 1 day is billions to God. Man my thinking goes even farther, but I think I've said too much already. LOL! Okay maybe I'm rambling, but whatever.
maris said that, not me lol. i don't think the belief of any individual is necessarily tied to intelligence or sophistication. WLC is obviously a very smart and well-educated man. that's not the problem. my issue with him is he seemingly deliberately misrepresents the positions of atheists, facts of what is claimed by scientists, and the consensus position of the biblical scholarly community in order to shoehorn those things into his arguments. for example he typically starts out his first point by misdefining atheism as necessarily "strong" (belief that god DOES NOT exist, not belief that god is unproven or improbable based on evidence) so he can conflate any form of athiesm with faith. he claims scientists have shown that it's likely the universe had an absolute beginning, which is bullshit, claims the majority of biblical scholars agree that the gospels are historically accurate about intricate details of the resurrection, which is bullshit, etc. given the scope of his debate career i have no reason to doubt that he knows better about these things, but chooses to maintain this type of tactic because it sounds great, and most of his audience doesn't know any better.
it's pretty close to 50/50 in the USA based on recent polls. even if it's not a majority obviously tens of millions of christians believe in evolution.
Oops, you are right, my apologies. But reading back, you pretty much said the same thing. In fact, throughout this thread; you have made comments that anyone in the modern science fields; don't being in God. The Big Bang is a theory that the universe had an absolute beginning. Is that wrong? And he debates about moral aptitude being placed or programed into us; and most atheists believed that these "moral aptitudes" are evolved through our DNA naturally. Both can happen; but none has proven more than the other, IMO. If you find or prove there maybe a designer; then it only brings up the possibility that eventually you will reach the Grand Designer. But if you call it bullshit, then that's your opinion. I think it's actually pretty cool!
Nah, I think you are investigating some important consequences of belief in a timeless deity. But that's again where things get dicey for us and free will. You and I are not timeless. We live our lives bound up in a steady, one-way flow of events following one after another. If someone (like God) were to see our lives in their entirety, start to finish, laid out like a painting, what does this imply about our free will? How can an all-knowing, timeless god be compatible with the concept of free will? ABM punted on this question, and I don't blame him -- it kept me up at night as a kid.
no, i said working scientists don't believe in a young earth. polls show 40% of scientists in the USA are theists. yes. the big bang theory doesn't address where the matter/energy that "banged" came from. it makes no claims about that. i don't think his moral argument misprepresents anyone's position.
