Philosophy/Science and Atheism

<p>it just occured to me, that i am dealing with people that are unaware of CURRENT information.</p>

<p>this is simply sad to me, that people applying to berkeley etc. are so unaware of CURRENT philosophical issues and evidence pertaining to this topic.</p>

<p>See the debate that Christopher Hitchens had with Dr. William Lane Craig at BIOLA univeristy on April 4th.</p>

<p>Christopher Hitchens was HAD by Dr. Criag in front of THOUSANDS. Watch that debate which is on DVD (I was there in person) and you will find all of your questions answered there.</p>

<p>Organic: I totally understand what you’re getting at, I just think that taking a logical approach to the existence of God is a bad way of getting rid of religion, since it misses the key points. </p>

<p>Religion has many practical shortcomings as you have said, being a handicap for the human race is on the top of the list, whether God exists or not should be on the bottom of the list. Even if God is real, religion is STILL a handicap for humanity, with God playing the role of Captain Handicap, a dictator who enslaves mankind and sends non-followers to hell. (If we’re talking of the Christian God of course)</p>

<p>Can someone (maybe bass) address the [dis]connection between “God” and the humanesque institution of religion?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>What “CURRENT” information are these people lacking? You’ve been rambling on about arminian theology as if it’s proven fact. Have you ever actually considered the notion that you could be wrong?</p>

<p>I was -at- the Craig/Hitchens debate and, though it’s certainly not one I’d recommend to someone new to philosophy of religion (Hitchens’s performance was rather subpar compared to his usual rhetoric), he was certainly not “HAD” by Craig.</p>

<p>grey, I would, but seriously Im done discussing this topic because NOONE has yet to
first, TEAR apart my two Kalam premises, and TWO then errect a HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM of their own.</p>

<p>SERIOUSLY, all anyone is doing is complaining and not agreeing. I dont CARE if they agree or NOT. </p>

<p>STEPHEN HAWKING is not an IDIOT.
WILLIAM LANE CRAIG is not an IDIOT.
ALVIN PLANTINGA is not an IDIOT.
ELEONORE STUMP is not an IDIOT.</p>

<p>SOMEONE, show me an A R G U M E N T.</p>

<p>The problem is, not enough ANALYTIC philosophers are around today. TOO many are reading CONTINENTAL philosophers so noone knows the RULES OF LOGIC anymore.</p>

<p>NOT worth my time, noone even KNOWS who the aforementioned names are, with the exception of MAYBE Stephen Hawking.</p>

<p>POINTLESS.</p>

<p>Here’s an attempt for Grey: Rational justifications for the existence of God are often conflated with justification for religious worship of a specific faith, however this is a grave error. The reason is quite apparent if we replace the word God with Zor. For example, “Nothing comes from nothing, thus Zor must exist.” </p>

<p>Replacing God with Zor took away the affiliations with many of the prominent Judeo-Christian religions and the issue became a philosophical question having nothing to do with religion. If we then go back to using the word God, improper correlations would once again be made between the rational basis of a creator with religious affiliations.</p>

<p>heh,</p>

<p>CRAIG HAD HITCHENS.</p>

<p>I was so EMBARRASED for Hitchens man!!! Hes not a PHILOSOPHER OR a THEOLOGIAN. He Messed with the BULL and got the HORNS man.</p>

<p>HES A JOKE. and didnt prove ANYTHING at all. HE RAMBLED.</p>

<p>IF you think that I am just rambling, you are just unaware of what im talking about and im not coming down to your level to explain it. you need to come up to my level of intelligence and learn the arguments.</p>

<p>kkiiji,</p>

<p>you just used about 3 different philosophical fallacies in your last post. FYI</p>

<p>IM OUT YALL, no more posts.</p>

<p>If noone is going to prove my premises wrong or false, and give QUALIFIED SOURCES, as I DID FOR YOU, then im OUT. </p>

<p>What a JOKE this thread was…</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Your theoretical syllogism - post #89. Address it.</p>

<p>Bass: Have you ever considered that the standard deterministic model of cause and effect could be fallible? If you dive a little bit into quantum cosmology, there are many modern theories being thrown around stating that the big bang was simply a result of random quantum fluctuations. If you know anything about quantum theory, it’s proposed that quantum fluctuations are purely probabilistic and are not subject to cause and effect in the typical sense. </p>

<p>Further more, what does it mean for something to be caused if time does not exist? </p>

<p>Consider this argument:

  1. Time can only be either finite or infinite.
  2. Causality involves a linear succession of time, one moment before/after another.
  3. If time is finite, then there must have been a first moment, nothing can come before this first moment for time is finite, therefore it does not have a cause, thus no God is needed.
  4. If time is infinite, then time always existed, thus there’s no cause necessary for time, no God is needed.</p>

<p>if…</p>

<p>I know who all of them are.</p>

<p>I’m not sure why, but nobody ever argues against Craig correctly. Hitchens began to hit on it, but got sidetracked and started arguing antitheism instead. He correctly stated that even if all of Craig’s arguments for God are granted (cosmological, teleological, objective morality), it still only leads to deism, at best. His only argument that stands to affirm Christianity is his “proof of the resurrection of Jesus.”</p>

<p>This is his argument verbatim:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>In other words, the bible says that Jesus was resurrected. Therefore he was. I seriously don’t understand how anyone can take this argument seriously. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This isn’t just an extraordinary claim - this is a claim that the LAWS OF NATURE have been SUSPENDED. This is the ultimate of all extraordinary claims. And his only evidence is that the bible says so?</p>

<p>Congrats, you have a ridiculously low standard of proof.</p>

<p>Bass: What fallacies?</p>

<p>grey, OK. ill have at this poor attempt that ive seen a MILLION TIMES…</p>

<p>This is based on the FALSE assumption that God could not USE evil FOR good.</p>

<p>This assumes that EVIL MUST constitute bad in EVERY SITUATION.</p>

<p>If you really NEED it, I can give you professional philosophers who have extinguished this philosophical topic dubbed “THE PROBLEM OF EVIL”. I know of a dozen who will slam this into the ground if you really want to take the time to read articles.</p>

<p>seriously guys, go to reasonablefiath.org</p>

<p>that is dr. william lane craigs site</p>

<p>itll knock you on your @$$ if you are READY for it…</p>

<p>kkiijijijijijiji,</p>

<p>No i never considered it because STEPHEN HAWKING already did for me. You need to read the universe in a nutshell.</p>

<p>Bass: Don’t bother answering the problem of evil point - that’s one of the few things Craig got right. The “logical problem of evil,” as he dubs it, is fairly easily solved. Though I’d be hesitant to recommend him for much else, Martin Gardner has some good stuff on the problem of evil (and he’s not even a Christian).</p>

<p>The better question might be how you cope with the “emotional problem,” but even that is rather off-topic.</p>

<p>You have failed to defend your arguments sufficiently throughout this thread, many have already pointed out your error and you refused to acknowledge them. </p>

<p>Heh: “He correctly stated that even if all of Craig’s arguments for God are granted (cosmological, teleological, objective morality), it still only leads to deism, at best.”</p>

<p>This criticism of your argument has been stated throughout the thread at least 5 times, once by me on the top of this page.</p>

<p>Bass: You’re the one that’s defending your argument, not Stephen Hawkings. If you’re going to debate, don’t just tell people to read books and articles.</p>