Happy Atheist Forum

I wonder what everyone thinks of this argument for the existence of a creator. William Lane Craig developed his defense of this argument as "most likely to be a sound and persuasive proof for the existence of God" (p. 92).  I'll break it down into lists. The main argument has three steps:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

He claims the first premise is in no need of defense, so he simply passes that over. On to the second premise, "The universe began to exist." He argues this in the following way:

A1. An actually infinite number of things cannot exist.
A2. A beginningless series of events in time entails an actually infinite number of things.
A3. Therefore, a beginningless series of events in time cannot exist.

Also,

B1. The series of events in time is a collection formed by successive addition.
B2. A collection formed of successive addition cannot be actually infinite.
B3. Therefore, a series of events in time cannot be actually infinite.

He also adds the "Argument Based on the Isotropic Expansion of the Universe" (meaning the universe expands in all directions simultaneously; that is, the universe looks the same in all directions). He then adds the "Argument Based on Thermodynamic Properties of the Universe" (this involves the second law of thermodynamics). He does this to prove that, "whether one adopts a re-contracting model, an ever-expanding model, or an oscillating model, thermodynamics implies that the universe has a beginning" (p. 107).

So, according to Lane, "From the first premise -- that 'whatever begins to exist has a cause' -- and the second premise -- that 'the universe began to exist' -- it follows logically that  'the universe has a cause'" (p. 107). He then goes on to explore the nature of this cause, and this is where we become interested. He proposes:

4. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless , and enormously powerful.

Therefore, from 3 and 4,

5. An uncaused, personal creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful.

His reasoning is thus: "As the cause of space and time, this entity must transcend space and time and therefore exist atemporally and non-spatially, at least sans this universe."

So, what do we think? You buy it?

Craig, W. L.  (2002.)  The Kalam Cosmological Argument.  Philosophy of religion: a reader and guide.  New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers  University Press.

I'm bothered by flawed axioms. Most axioms I come across are assumptions presented as fundamental truths.

Whatever begins to exist has a cause? Of course not. Cause is entirely subjective, thus whatever begins and is subjectively considered to have a cause still does not necessarily have an objective cause.

William Lane Craig is a Christian apologist and faux-intellectual. I wish I could debate every Christian apologist at once and take them all apart.

Premise 2 doesn't work if I define the "universe" as space instead of the stuff that is trying to take up space.  Does anything need to actually create space?

If he supposes an ultimate "creator" then I don't see how he can hope to get anywhere with A1-3.  God should be able to begin and/or end things as many times as it wants.  So an infinite number of things could exist, if God exists to begin things but doesn't end them.

Maybe I'm not understanding what he was trying to mean with B1-3.  B-2 states, " A collection formed of successive addition cannot be actually infinite."  Which doesn't make sense to me as you can always add one to something.  B-2 makes less sense when you don't think of "events" as something physical, but as a label us conscious observers give to the things we can conceive of having happened or happening.  Events don't require a conscious observer to happen, and I would add that things not happening can also be considered an event which means that its possible events could be infinite.  Which blows his Premises about things not being infinite out of the water.

If you add 1 to any number you get another number that you can add 1 to, with nothing to stop this process from repeating infinitely.  "Events" are the same.  Something happens, and then something else happens.  Therefore two things happened in the past, then something else happens.  Therefore three things happened... so it is possible to add another event to the list of events that have already occurred.

I haven't the faintest idea where Premise 4 comes from, so I'm left scratching my head.  It just sorta pops up outta the blue.  There's nothing that really supports Premise 4 and without Premise 4, his Conclusion is not based on much of anything.

He's full of it. Short answer.

Where he comes up with some of these, in particular #4, is beyond my understanding. He's using invalid assumptions for his points. He's using a philosophical basis for causality, and Will has correctly pointed out the absurdity of #1.

Links:

"Thanks for the response.

This is all way above my head, but it's great to see that there is a counter on the Evangelical side.

I'm trying to learn it all.

EDIT:




Quote:
Originally Posted by harvey
 Stenger is not a philosopher, so his reasoning is not bad for a physicist, but some physicists are notoriously naive when it comes to cosmogony (versus cosmology in which they flourish). Let's take a step by step look at that argument you sent.


Stenger is professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado and a professor of physics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by William Lane Craig
First, though, in answer to your question, the standard Big Bang model includes an initial singularity.


"Hawkins has repudiated his own earlier proof. In his best seller A Brief History of Time, he avers, "There was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe."  -- Stenger.

Quote:
Originally Posted by William Lane Craig
The prediction of the standard model that the universe began to exist remains today as secure as everâ€"indeed, more secure, in light of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem and that prediction’s corroboration by the repeated and often imaginative attempts to falsify it. The person who believes that the universe began to exist remains solidly and comfortably within mainstream science.


"A couple of brief comments, hopefully more later. First, Borde, Guth & Vilenkin did *not* prove that eternal inflation has singularities to the past. As you know, most singularity theorems prove geodesic incompleteness, and this is the case here. What all of their theorems do are (a) write out a set of conditions which they consider to correspond to eternal inflation, then (b) show that the region in which these conditions hold is geodesically incomplete. This would indeed be consistent with eternal inflation “emerging from a primordial singularity”, but it is also consistent with eternal inflation just being grafted onto some spacetime region that is not eternally inflating by their definition." -- From Physics and Cosmology Prof. Anthony Aguirre, UC Santa Cruz

"I should also mention that the Borde/Guth/Vilenkin theorem is (1) completely classical, not quantum, of course, and (2) a little less definitive than you make it sound, as they assume an “averaged expansion condition” which certainly may be violated along some geodesics."  -- Sean Carroll, Senior Research Associate in Physics at Cal Tech

Infinite:

"This principle can be illustrated in a simple linear equation: a line rising infinitely at a 45 degree angle with the x axis will ultimately reach the same height on the y axis as a line rising infinitely at a 90 degree angle with the x axis; it is true that, if measured over a finite period of time, the line rising at 90 degrees will always be ahead of the line rising at 45 degrees, but the 45 degree line will always reach the same points on the y axis that the 90 degree line does, it will simply take it twice as much time to do so, and because infinite entities are by their nature extratemporal, the difference in the rate of increase is completely irrelevant. Similarly, an entity whose quantity is eternally increasing (an infinite entity) does not lose this quality if its quantity at a given point in time is added to or subtracted from. Craig makes the mistake of thinking of infinity as a quantity, rather than an eternally increasing trajectory. An actual infinite trajectory is certainly possible, and time is just this sort of eternally increasing, infinite trajectory, which is advancing with every second that passes." -- http://secweb.infidels.org/?kiosk=articles&id=726 (http://secweb.infidels.org/?kiosk=articles&id=726)

Quote:
Originally Posted by harvey
Now, what would a causeless world look like? ... something non-physical would have to be the cause of the universe.


1) "In a recent argument, the Kalam argument was offered to me as proof of a creator.

Im not a religious philosopher. My background was in science and physics. So my reply to the 'Kalam' was completely different than the other replies I've run into.

My argument with Kalam is the basic assumption of causation. That the universe was 'caused' to exist. It created a great confusion in my opponent, when I stated that causation is merely an effect of 4 dimensional space (3 of space, one of time) and that causation falls down at the quantum level.

At the quantum level, effects can precede cause, and nothing makes sense as it does in our traditional space/time that we live in. So trying to use our understanding of causation to explain what happened 'before' the big bang is to fail to understand quantum mechanics. And if you don't understand quantum mechanics, you have no business trying to theorize a 'cause' for the origin of the universe, while citing the 'big bang' as Craig does.

Its just a shame more particle physicists arn't interested in religious debates" -- debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/

2) "Dr. William Lane Craig‘s “Kalam Cosmological Argument” is one of the more sophisticated and (in some circles) popular arguments for the existence of God. Unfortunately, like so many other theistic arguments, it suffers from a fatal flaw that the author prefers to gloss over instead of address directly.


Francois Tremblay addresses the problems at Talk Reason, in particular the faulty premise of "Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence":

What evidence does he have to prove that whatever begins to exist must have a cause? In his opening case, he states: “I really don't think that it's necessary because the premise that whatever begins to exist must have a cause of its existence I think is so intuitively obvious that scarcely anybody could sincerely deny that it is false.“
He does support it elsewhere by using two arguments: our observation of the caused entities around us, and causality as a principle of human thought. Dr. Craig is no doubt aware, however, that to infer a necessary causality on a whole -- the universe -- on the basis of observation of such attribute in the parts -- the existents around us - is a fallacy of composition. The attribute being transposed here, being caused, is relational and therefore cannot be transposed. Thus he cannot generalize from caused entities around us to the universe in this matter.
Despite being a sophisticated and, at least in spirit, scientifically-oriented argument, Dr. Craig's version of the Kalam Argument fails to justify any of its premises. It is based on a number of assumptions -- that temporality implies the existence of a beginning, and that the existence of a beginning implies a cause -- which are not logical or scientific. Its only valid finding -- that infinity cannot be actualized -- is trivial. Furthermore, the conclusion that the hypothetical Creator is changeless is also unsupported and contradicts the rest of the argument. It is unclear how the only alternatives for an atemporal being are to be changeless or to experience an infinite regress of changes.
Craig’s argument is complex, so Tremblay’s critique is necessarily complex as well. Nevertheless, it is worth reading through because the problems in Craig’s can often be found in other forms of the Cosmological Argument. If Craig’s fails in this way, it is reasonable to think that others will also fail and that there is currently no Cosmological Argument that provides a reasonable basis for theism. " -- Austin Cline/Francois Tremblay. << Austin Cline and StrongAtheism.net argument previously posted."

Here's a video of him presenting these views so you can hear them explained to be more understandable and I think answers some of your questions Jolly. Unfortunately when he draws logical conclusions from atheists who don't accept step 1 he does make fun of them which I apologize for and I don't want to start a flame war. But I would be interested Will if you can think of an example where step 1 doesn't hold and what you mean by subjective cause.

Dr. William Lane Craig: How Did the Universe Begin?
http://www.saddleback.com/mediacenter/s ... qcpA0SUkE= (http://www.saddleback.com/mediacenter/services/currentseries.aspx?site=yDi0V4EwP58=&s=OsqcpA0SUkE=)
Talk begins 23min into video (note you have to wait for the first 23min to download before you can jump to that point)

Indeed concepts like time having a beginning is hard to get your head around.

mcm may I ask you a question?  I don't mean to sound like an ass but I see this way too much.  How come Christians address people they like as Dr. when they don't have an accredited PHD?  Mr. Craig has two M.A. degrees one in Philosophy of religion and another in Church History.  He also has a B.S. degree in communications.  This is something I see all the time when Christians try to reference apologists.  They give them the title of Dr. regardless if they meet the qualifications just so they can try and lend credibility to the argument.  Why is it that you Christians do this and do it frequently?  Also (if I haven't burned the olive branch at this point) if I may ask is this argument the reason you believe in a god?  Or is there another reason and this argument is just a convenience thing you can point to?

Quote from: "LoneMateria"mcm may I ask you a question?  I don't mean to sound like an ass but I see this way too much.  How come Christians address people they like as Dr. when they don't have an accredited PHD?  Mr. Craig has two M.A. degrees one in Philosophy of religion and another in Church History.  He also has a B.S. degree in communications.  This is something I see all the time when Christians try to reference apologists.  They give them the title of Dr. regardless if they meet the qualifications just so they can try and lend credibility to the argument.  Why is it that you Christians do this and do it frequently?  Also (if I haven't burned the olive branch at this point) if I may ask is this argument the reason you believe in a god?  Or is there another reason and this argument is just a convenience thing you can point to?

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nerve.com%2FCS%2Fblogs%2Fscanner%2F2008%2F11%2F23-End%2Fdr_phil.jpg&hash=887b6781e5b76e11edff338094e183adb150ff72)

ROFL Mr. Phil.

From now on everyone must refer to me as Her Magesty Dr Whitney the Magnificent!!!!

But seriously, I am curious as to why so many Christians think it is okay to tack on Dr. to their name without having earned an accredited degree.  I don't think that most of them mean to do it; they probably just believe people like Craig that they are "Dr."

Quote from: "Lone Materia"How come Christians address people they like as Dr. when they don't have an accredited PHD?

From Dr. Craig's wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig):

 

QuoteIn 1977 Craig earned a doctorate in philosophy under John Hick at the University of Birmingham, England, and in 1984 a doctorate in theology under Wolfhart Pannenberg at the University of Munich. During his doctoral studies, he was a Fellow of the Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung.

Sounds credible enough to me.  I don't buy the Kalam argument, but Craig has earned 2 doctorates.  If you know anything about Craig, you'll know that he's not likely to go around calling himself "Dr." without deserving it.  I've come to respect his skill at theological debate, even if, as I said, I don't buy his arguments.  From what I've been able to gather, he pretty much won his debate with Hitchens, for instance, because, as one atheist blog put it, "Hitchens is a polemicist, not a philosopher."  Also, Hitchens doesn't like to waste time preparing for debates; he prefers to live by his wits, which, as superbly witty as Hitchens is,  may not be enough when confronting Craig's very technical style. That aside, I do agree that there are plenty of questionable "PhD's" in the ranks of the Christian academics, so it's not that surprising that you would think that Craig was among them.

QuoteIn 1977 Craig earned a doctorate in philosophy under John Hick at the University of Birmingham, England, and in 1984 a doctorate in theology under Wolfhart Pannenberg at the University of Munich. During his doctoral studies, he was a Fellow of the Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung.

That'll teach me to just skim the wiki page.  I just looked under education and I didn't see that.  Even though i'm wrong about this person I've seen it done for other apologists.  Still curious.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"mcm may I ask you a question?

Not at all, ask as many as you like.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"How come Christians address people they like as Dr. when they don't have an accredited PHD?

I don't know. Doing a quick google search it appears some are honourary titles given by people like Oral Roberts and I guess for some receiving the title they don't want to make a statement against his ministry by not accepting it. But it kind of reminds me of the behaviour of the religious leaders (wore special garments to elevate their status in the community) in the bible of Jesus time who we're told not to act like.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"Is this argument the reason you believe in a god?

No it isn't and I believe if someone has been argued into the faith then it's just as easy to argue them out of it too. The main reason why I remembered this video is near the end he gives a few logical arguments about what this creator would be like (can't remember them now, and people can probably find holes in them) but I just thought it was cool because it kind of backed up the verse in the bible which says God's invisible qualities can be observed in what he has created.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"... this argument is just a convenience thing you can point to?

This is actually the first time I've done so. I was just reading this (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4332) thread and was reminded of this video and curious about peoples opinion on it, but after doing a quick search before posting it I found this thread instead.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"Or is there another reason

For me the main reason why I believe in God is because of my experiences and the help the bible has been to me in my life. For example I remember in Yr5 at school I used to beat myself up over the way I had behaved in certain situations and had trouble sleeping for like a week or so. Then for the first time in my life I prayed to God out of my own accord (grew up in a christian home), although I still had trouble sleeping that night, the next night I realised it was like a big burden had been lifted off and could go to sleep easily. A year later I started feeling that way again but instead of praying to God I put him to the test by not praying the first night but only on the second and sure enough it was only the night after I prayed my burden was lifted (haven't felt burdened that way since).

Quote from: "Will"I'm bothered by flawed axioms. Most axioms I come across are assumptions presented as fundamental truths.

Whatever begins to exist has a cause? Of course not. Cause is entirely subjective, thus whatever begins and is subjectively considered to have a cause still does not necessarily have an objective cause.

William Lane Craig is a Christian apologist and faux-intellectual. I wish I could debate every Christian apologist at once and take them all apart.

I've found other posts by you to be interesting, so I was wondering if I could request a more detailed explanation of your stance on this than "of course not", as well as possibly an example of something (other than the universe as that is what we are discussing) that does not have a cause.  When I throw bleach and ammonia into the same bucket, is the reason that chlorine gas erupts really subjective? or can we honestly say that the cause of the chlorine gas is objective (ie the two chemicals mixing)?
I dunno, pinpointing the cause of an issue is very subjective (what caused this banana to be happy -->  :yay:

-Ihateusernames

Quote from: "mcm"I don't know. Doing a quick google search it appears some are honourary titles given by people like Oral Roberts and I guess for some receiving the title they don't want to make a statement against his ministry by not accepting it. But it kind of reminds me of the behaviour of the religious leaders (wore special garments to elevate their status in the community) in the bible of Jesus time who we're told not to act like.

Bad research on my part.  Like I said before when I looked through though Craig's wiki I didn't see where it said he got his PHD's.  I just saw his M.A. Degrees and was basing my question off that assumption.  I didn't know if your paster called him Dr or a friend or if you did it.  Like I said though i'm wrong there.  

Anyway I'm surprised about an honorary title for Oral Roberts (who will forever be known as the guy who raised money by lying to his congregation saying God would kill him).  Does his followers just call him that?  From my experience arguing with some Christians I hear them referring to someone as a doctor to try to raise the persons credibility.  I don't know if it's an honest mistake or if it's intentional.  But anyway you haven't referred to someone as a doctor who doesn't have the credentials so you can't help answer this I guess.  

Quote from: "mcm"No it isn't and I believe if someone has been argued into the faith then it's just as easy to argue them out of it too.

Is this really a bad thing?  Not just from an atheists standpoint but in general?  If you have been convinced by some arguments to believe in a god then it shows you are using reasoning and logic (no matter if you are committing fallacies) to come to your conclusion.  And if you can be argued out of it it's even better because it shows a willingness to correct any mistakes you may have made in this process.  Whether this leads you to another religion or to no religion this is a good thing.  Even Christians will say God doesn't want robots (free will argument).  There is no reason to go on forever with a mistake or an obvious contradiction in your belief after all and to be unwilling to change it.

Quote from: "mcm"This is actually the first time I've done so. I was just reading this (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4332) thread and was reminded of this video and curious about peoples opinion on it, but after doing a quick search before posting it I found this thread instead.

Ahh kk.  We get quite a few Christians who come there to present an argument as their "irrefutable proof" that God exists.  And I always wonder if the (normally poor) argument they put forward is the reason they believe.  And if it's not then I'd like to ask them why they think it would convince us.  But they are usually gone by the time I get around to asking it.  So I was just curious and thats why i asked.  But you aren't presenting a new argument you are just providing resources which exempts you from this ^_^.  But any insight you may have on it (if you have friends who proselytize or w/e insight you might have) would make for a good discussion.

Quote from: "mcm"For me the main reason why I believe in God is because of my experiences and the help the bible has been to me in my life. For example I remember in Yr5 at school I used to beat myself up over the way I had behaved in certain situations and had trouble sleeping for like a week or so. Then for the first time in my life I prayed to God out of my own accord (grew up in a christian home), although I still had trouble sleeping that night, the next night I realised it was like a big burden had been lifted off and could go to sleep easily. A year later I started feeling that way again but instead of praying to God I put him to the test by not praying the first night but only on the second and sure enough it was only the night after I prayed my burden was lifted (haven't felt burdened that way since).

I'm usually bad about this.  As atheists we tend to have a dogma for trying to "deconvert" people.  There may be some truth to it because sometimes I find myself trying that.  But I do my best to respect a persons religion within reason.  So thank you for sharing your story with us.  In my response I am in no way trying to convert you or anything like that.  I'm just going to give you my perspective on things (if you are interested at all).  If you aren't interested just ignore my next paragraph ^_^

Because a book can help you get through an emotional part of your life doesn't mean its true.  I found when I was upset as a kid that reading StarWars books calmed me down.  Something about using the Force and all that jazz.  That doesn't mean there is a real Luke Skywalker and that the Force is real (despite what the "Jedi" of the StarWars Religion will say ... and yes there is an actual StarWars Religion with half a million followers around the world).  Now when I was a kid I was very similar to you in regards to sleeping.  I would worry about something or think about something a lot and though at the time I considered myself a Christian I didn't turn to God for the answers.  Instead I meditated (which is essentially what you are doing when your praying) and after a while I found out how to let go of my worries.  I've had awesome sleep for years now.  I no longer need to meditate because I taught myself how to let go and not allow my mind to wander.  My solution, granted it's kind of like procrastination, is to tell myself that I can deal with whatever it is tomorrow when i'm rested and better able to handle the situation at hand.  It works ^_^

There are a couple of things I do not like about the argument, mainly that it forges ahead of itself, making what I consider to be rash, yet convenient assumptions.

The Universe having a beginning, I am not sure, we only know the universe down to about 10^-35 seconds after the big bang with any certainty, after this, the theories become a bit precarious. I am by no means sure that the universe has a beginning, having said that, I will say that it probably did for now. The beginning of the Universe was also the start of time, since every cause has to lie before the effect in time, it would seem to me that cause and effect are not the best thing to use at the beginning of the Universe. Craig is keen to invent an uncaused cause (thereby undermining his argument based on cause and effect), but I am more wary, instead I question the veracity of cause and effect for this application. As an aside, assuming C&E applies at all times in the history of the Universe would seem to be committing the uniformity fallacy. There are some other, more minor things I am worried about, like whether things in this Universe even begin to exist at all, but that could be a long one.

That pretty much sums up my trepidations about points 1 and 2, I am basically unsure of whether either of these things are true, and it has not been proven that they are true in any deductive way (unless I missed something big anyway). However, being the generous chap that I am, we will go deeper, and accept the conclusion, point three, as true, based on the valid logical form of the argument (to say nothing of the very shaky premises).

Now, up until here, I could have taken him seriously, sure, he was not quite as scrupulous as I when it comes to questioning things that are convenient to his argument, but his argument could at least be considered plausible, possibly more. Point 4 is where he goes down the shitter.

Uncaused cause? He just shat all over C&E, Personal creator? Who on Earth says that he must be personal? Any proof forthcoming of this? Does he even want to demonstrate that a beginningless, timeless changeless, immaterial, spaceless and powerful being can exist? Does he even want to demonstrate what timeless for instance means? None of this "Exists outside of time" rubbish, I want a real answer to this, maybe an example to back it up. Even ignoring this, he in no way shows that these attributes are needed for creating the universe, just his assumption based on wanting the argument to fit his religion, rather than on any evidence.

If we consider 1,2,3,4 as OK, which I do not, then 5 follows on based on logical form.

To sum up, I would say the first part, proving the Universe needs a cause is a little shaky, but not totally unreal, the second part is pure unsubstantiated waffle, made up in order to fit the properties of this cause to their own idea of what god is, an attempt to side step the problem of specificity of this argument, but still not managing it.

My own thounghts preserve quite a bit of points 1 through 3, but completely shave 4 onwards out of the picture. My two theories that could answer the first part is that either the universe needed no cause, or, the universe was its own cause, both pretty shaky as well, which is why if ever asked the question formally, I would give a big IDK, but both of mine are a hell of a lot better tha inventing a god to fill it.

Quote from: "SSY"Uncaused cause? He just shat all over C&E, Personal creator? Who on Earth says that he must be personal? Any proof forthcoming of this? Does he even want to demonstrate that a beginningless, timeless changeless, immaterial, spaceless and powerful being can exist? Does he even want to demonstrate what timeless for instance means? None of this "Exists outside of time" rubbish, I want a real answer to this, maybe an example to back it up. Even ignoring this, he in no way shows that these attributes are needed for creating the universe, just his assumption based on wanting the argument to fit his religion, rather than on any evidence.

To play devil's advocate a bit because I just oh so enjoy it...

Its a big disingenuous to say that he 'just shat all over C&E' as what he actually holds is that everything that began has a cause. Not 'everything has a cause'.  Obviously he is, even if you hate it, holding that god is timeless, or outside of time... etc. therefor God didn't begin, which make it so his existance doesn't require a cause--so he very well could be an uncaused cause.  This makes perfect sense to me, honestly.

I'm not entirely sure how WLC defends that the God must be personal, however here is my devils advocate thought-up-on-the-spot assumption. I do understand that if you are willing to follow his argument, that  "sans the universe [god] is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful." it would lead at least to this God having a will (lacking a will, how does one choose anything?  Obviously you may say that he didn't choose, and it just happened somehow, but that'd be deism which you don't agree with either.)  And is it really a stretch to define "personal" as "having a will"?  I don't think it is but you might.

Do you want to demonstrate how a being absolutely couldn't possess the characteristics of beginningless, timeless, changeless, immaterial, spaceless and powerful being can exist?  People are not powerful, so obviously a being exists that isn't powerful, so strike that off the list.  If we accept the possibly of there being other dimensions than just our physical realm (controversial, and probably not very likely, I agree, but still it isn't impossible as far as we know) then something that is spaceless, and immaterial may be constructed, if you will, of whatever resides in one of those as whatever makes up those dimensions isn't of space or material as we know it. So spacelessness and immateriality don't really seem to be at least philosophically impossible.  Also if you assume other dimensions again, then something that resides there very well may be changeless and timeless, in that time as we know it does not necessarily have to exist in every dimension.  So honestly, however far fetched it may seem, I can't see how it can be absolutely ruled out.  Maybe practically ruled out, but that's personal opinion based so not very objective.

"he in no way shows that these attributes are needed for creating the universe..." to this I'd just have to say that for someone to create matter, they must not be made up of matter else matter exists before it was created which obviously makes no sense.  To create time, one must not be under time's grip as that would imply time exists before it was created which also obviously makes no sense...etc.

/end devil advocate

Ah that was fun.  I'll probably go back through this and be like... "???" to some of my faux-arguments since they were made up on the spot... but maybe I am a genius and I wont.... one can always hope, can't they?! : )

My god, Ihateusernames, it's like he's in the room!

The causing bit, as soon soon as you say an uncaused cause can exist, you basically ruin C&E for me, the basic thing about cause and effect is that every effect has a cause, and this effect goes on the cause other effects, since the whole rest of his argument depends on effects having causes, he needs to come up with a better reason to violate this law than just making one up for his god, but holding everything else accountable to this law, it smacks of a special pleading fallacy.

Yes, if he had all the other attributes, he could have a will, but the other attributes are not something I am willing to accept without some form of proof. Also, he could be wrong, and god may not have a will, while still possessing the other attributes, that would be deism, but WLC has not countered it as he proposes his theism.

The burden of proving such a being is even possible lies with the claimant in my opinion, we see nothing on Earth that is even close to that, not in anyway, one could quote the old adage about extraordinary claims needing extraordinary evidence. I could claim that invisible pink unicorns robbed the bank, changed the security camera footage to include me, and altered the memory of the witnesses, but I may then be asked to show a shred of evidence to support this. Going on, we do not even have definitions for those attributes, what does timeless even mean? Spacless etc etc? Once we actually know what the hell he is talking about, we can get somewhere. At the moment, spacless means to me means, having no spatial co-ordinate, and timeless, having no time value associated with it. These are both properties one would associate with something that does not exist.

For the showing attributes, I was thinking more about changeless and personal, the other make a bizarre sort of sense in whatever imaginary world WLC is proposing his arguments from.

I was going to characterise this argument as full of holes, but it is more like a hole with a thin rim of nonsense around the outside. By the way, you make a good devil's advocate, ideas should always be tested, by people on both sides.

Hehehe, I'm just an argumentative person, who loves discussion, so it really doesn't matter the subject I almost always find myself in the devil's advocate position.  I've gotten into so much trouble with real life friends, because I'll argue something that I don't actually believe just to be the devils advocate and then they assume I actually believe it later.. and then they are like "well you think X!".. ahh anyway... on to the post  :hissyfit: dwelling on logical fallacious is like trying to get a computer to divide by 0  :yay: .

On a side note I'm as equally annoyed at atheists that are atheists for reasons such as "omg I hate christians, therefor there is no god!" as I am at the christian who says "I'm a christian... cus... I always... have been?"

Bigoted people--in either direction--inspired my HAF world view tag ; )

Where you put forward an uncaused cause, I would simply say that causality does not apply here, I suppose you could say an uncaused cause and causality being broken is kinda the same.

Stuff like love, good, concepts, etc actually do exist in the same way god exists, in peoples minds. Good, evil and the rest are ideas, they exist only in the minds of humans, just as the concept of good cannot hurt you, nor can god. The type of existence put forward by WLC is of something outside the minds of humans, something with an ability to affect us, so far, everything that fits that has a physical form. So in short, philosophical proof for such an entity, does not satisfy me, no.

Quote from: "SSY"Where you put forward an uncaused cause, I would simply say that causality does not apply here, I suppose you could say an uncaused cause and causality being broken is kinda the same.

Which is exactly why "what caused God" is a useless question if you assume he has the attribute of timelessness, and why saying God is uncaused is logically coherent under WLC's argument. Causality for an uncaused being does not apply.  Also, doesn't the causality chain HAVE to be broken else it falls into the death of infinite regress?

(What caused you? Your mom? What caused your mom? Your mom's Cause? What caused your mom's cause's cause? Your mom's cause's cause's cause?...etc I just had to type that out... I am quirky and think typing out an infinite regress of questions is ALWAYS a fun thing to do :yay: )

Quote from: "SSY"Stuff like love, good, concepts, etc actually do exist in the same way god exists, in peoples minds. Good, evil and the rest are ideas, they exist only in the minds of humans, just as the concept of good cannot hurt you, nor can god. The type of existence put forward by WLC is of something outside the minds of humans, something with an ability to affect us, so far, everything that fits that has a physical form. So in short, philosophical proof for such an entity, does not satisfy me, no.

Wait, wait, wait.  Correct me if I'm wrong but "sticks and stones can hurt my bones but words can never hurt me" isn't very logical... but aren't you saying that concepts can not harm?  You must never have been lied to/slandered/verbally abused..etc. Those are all concepts, and they all hurt.

Were you implying the only valid hurt in your post was physical hurt? >_> If so I totally agree with your conclusions.

An interesting point that just popped into my head, but if concepts can influence reality as we know it here (and I'd argue they do) and they are timeless and spaceless, it stands to reason that a God who is timeless and spaceless (just bare with me..) at least has the possible ability to effect our material and timed world.  Ooooooooo Ihateusernames is so deeeeeeeep *goes off and ponders the meaning of life and dimensional instances...etc...lalala.... *really just hits submit button and goes and eats dinner**

-Ihateusernames

PS: dinner, in case you were wondering, is really being yummy in my tummy! MMM!

Quote from: "LoneMateria"Anyway I'm surprised about an honorary title for Oral Roberts (who will forever be known as the guy who raised money by lying to his congregation saying God would kill him). Does his followers just call him that? From my experience arguing with some Christians I hear them referring to someone as a doctor to try to raise the persons credibility. I don't know if it's an honest mistake or if it's intentional. But anyway you haven't referred to someone as a doctor who doesn't have the credentials so you can't help answer this I guess.

Oops, I was meaning to say Oral Roberts gave an honourary title to someone else, not that he received one himself. The christian person I looked up was Joyce Meyer but the wiki has better information than the page I found:

Quote from: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joyce_Meyer"Critics question the legitimacy of Meyer's theological education. According to Joyce Meyer Ministries, Meyer earned her doctorate degree from Life Christian University in Tampa, Florida. LCU is not accredited by a governmental agency recognized by the U.S. Dept. of Education. Meyer has, however, been given an Honorary Doctorate of Divinity by an accredited institution, Oral Roberts University, in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

So it's actually a universtiy named after Oral Roberts that awarded the title. It also mentions she actually did do a doctorate degree but just not at an accredited university so I guess this mentions two ways christians get awarded the title not in the normally understood way. Just so you know I didn't check to see if William Craig was a real Dr or not, I simply copied and pasted the text from the website I linked and if I was introduced to him as Dr I would probably introduce him to others as Dr as well so it probably explains how it propagate.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"

Quote from: "mcm"No it isn't and I believe if someone has been argued into the faith then it's just as easy to argue them out of it too.

Is this really a bad thing? Not just from an atheists standpoint but in general? If you have been convinced by some arguments to believe in a god then it shows you are using reasoning and logic (no matter if you are committing fallacies) to come to your conclusion. And if you can be argued out of it it's even better because it shows a willingness to correct any mistakes you may have made in this process. Whether this leads you to another religion or to no religion this is a good thing. Even Christians will say God doesn't want robots (free will argument). There is no reason to go on forever with a mistake or an obvious contradiction in your belief after all and to be unwilling to change it.

I guess what I meant by that statement (since I am a christian) is since we believe God is a personal God if you only have a knowledge of him he won't be with you unless you have a relationship with him. So if you argue someone into having faith in God based on knowledge only that person will often do things God does not want because he does them based on his own understandings which can be wrong instead of doing things based off his relationship with God. But if someone does have a relationship with God then people are not going to easily argue them out of it because it's a bit like you having a good friend you've known a long time is suddenly accused of doing something wrong based off circumstantial evidence. Although you may not be able to argue against the circumstantial evidence, because you've known your friend a long time, you're unwilling to believe he could have committed the wrong.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"Ahh kk. We get quite a few Christians who come there to present an argument as their "irrefutable proof" that God exists. And I always wonder if the (normally poor) argument they put forward is the reason they believe. And if it's not then I'd like to ask them why they think it would convince us. But they are usually gone by the time I get around to asking it. So I was just curious and thats why i asked. But you aren't presenting a new argument you are just providing resources which exempts you from this ^_^. But any insight you may have on it (if you have friends who proselytize or w/e insight you might have) would make for a good discussion.

To be honest I don't think there is any conclusive evidence for or against God that will convince everyone. I think there is only circumstantial evidence for and against there being a God. And a lot about what you believe, is going to determine how you interpret that circumstantial evidence. I think there's a famous story that kind of illustrates this. When the first cosmonaut (who did not believe in God) reached outer space he said "See there is no God", where as when the first astronaut (who did believe in God) reached outer space he said "Wow, isn't God awesome".

In terms of christians spreading their faith. There is a parable in the bible which compares it to growing crop in that we plant the seed and reap the harvest but God makes it grow. So although we are encouraged to share what we believe (plant the seed) and reap the harvest (baptize people in the name of God) it's not our job to try and convince people to become christians (make the seed grow). So I guess from that the answer to your question as to why we think (or should think) something we've shared would convince someone who doesn't believe in God to believe in him. The answer is we don't know only God does (since he is the one that challenges the person in their mind over what was shared).

Quote from: "LoneMateria"Because a book can help you get through an emotional part of your life doesn't mean its true. I found when I was upset as a kid that reading StarWars books calmed me down. Something about using the Force and all that jazz. That doesn't mean there is a real Luke Skywalker and that the Force is real (despite what the "Jedi" of the StarWars Religion will say ... and yes there is an actual StarWars Religion with half a million followers around the world). Now when I was a kid I was very similar to you in regards to sleeping. I would worry about something or think about something a lot and though at the time I considered myself a Christian I didn't turn to God for the answers. Instead I meditated (which is essentially what you are doing when your praying) and after a while I found out how to let go of my worries. I've had awesome sleep for years now. I no longer need to meditate because I taught myself how to let go and not allow my mind to wander. My solution, granted it's kind of like procrastination, is to tell myself that I can deal with whatever it is tomorrow when i'm rested and better able to handle the situation at hand. It works ^_^

I guess what I meant about the bible being a help, is not so much for emotional support, but for things that it says that have helped me live my life that I've found to be true. For example what you discovered on your own is kind of mentioned in the bible: "Mt 6:34 Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own".

Quote from: "LoneMateria"I'm usually bad about this. As atheists we tend to have a dogma for trying to "deconvert" people. There may be some truth to it because sometimes I find myself trying that. But I do my best to respect a persons religion within reason. So thank you for sharing your story with us. In my response I am in no way trying to convert you or anything like that. I'm just going to give you my perspective on things (if you are interested at all). If you aren't interested just ignore my next paragraph ^_^

You've definitely been respectful and am impressed, so thanks for being so. And it's probably my turn to apologize as I've ended up being a little preachy in this reply so I apologise.

Quote from: "mcm"Oops, I was meaning to say Oral Roberts gave an honourary title to someone else, not that he received one himself. The christian person I looked up was Joyce Meyer but the wiki has better information than the page I found:

Quote from: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joyce_Meyer"Critics question the legitimacy of Meyer's theological education. According to Joyce Meyer Ministries, Meyer earned her doctorate degree from Life Christian University in Tampa, Florida. LCU is not accredited by a governmental agency recognized by the U.S. Dept. of Education. Meyer has, however, been given an Honorary Doctorate of Divinity by an accredited institution, Oral Roberts University, in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

So it's actually a universtiy named after Oral Roberts that awarded the title. It also mentions she actually did do a doctorate degree but just not at an accredited university so I guess this mentions two ways christians get awarded the title not in the normally understood way. Just so you know I didn't check to see if William Craig was a real Dr or not, I simply copied and pasted the text from the website I linked and if I was introduced to him as Dr I would probably introduce him to others as Dr as well so it probably explains how it propagate.

KK wow.  I can't believe an accredited university can just give honorary Dr. titles to people they like.  There is something very asinine about that.  Oh and as for Craig, one of our members SSY corrected me.  Turns out I missed his PHD section when I looked at his wiki article.

This conversation reminds me of something the religious right was trying to do in Texas, about a year ago I think.  They were trying to have it so that nonprofit organizations could issue their own doctorate degrees based on their own criteria (essentially shoehorn people in to fight evolution and the big bang and whatever other science they don't like).  The reasoning behind it was because these organizations didn't receive funds from the government (like universities do) and so they should not be limited by the same constraints when issuing their own degrees.  Which sounds at least somewhat reasonable.  The problem is, of course, when you go for a job interview and you tell them your credentials as soon as you say you have a doctorate many employers don't need to hear more.  But if the law got passed employers would have to ask, "Where did you get your doctorate?  Texas?  Goodbye."  One of the atheist shows I listen to called, "The Non-Prophets" went into a long, long rant about this (this show usually bitches about religion so its both educational and entertaining for me) and they are sponsored by the Atheist Community of Austin an nonprofit educational organization.  They were telling viewers that if the law got passed (essentially to protest it) all we'd have to do is send our name/address and the degree title we'd like to have and they would send us that degree and have a long rant on the back of it about the stupidity of the law.  

Quote from: "mcm"I guess what I meant by that statement (since I am a christian) is since we believe God is a personal God if you only have a knowledge of him he won't be with you unless you have a relationship with him.

Correct me if i'm wrong but isn't convincing someone there is a god the first step to them having a relationship with that god (assuming of course they don't believe in a god)?  It seems to me that the first challenge would be to convince people there is an invisible, all powerful, friend constantly watching and meddling in the persons life (personal god)  then once that gets established you convince them that its your personal god.  I don't see a way to skip step one but have step two.  

Quote from: "mcm"So if you argue someone into having faith in God based on knowledge only that person will often do things God does not want because he does them based on his own understandings which can be wrong instead of doing things based off his relationship with God.

Isn't this the problem with everyones "faith" in God?  (I don't know if you caught onto my system between God and god but just to avoid potential confusion, when I use the Capital G [unless at the beginning of a sentence] when i'm referring to the god of the bible.  when I use a lowercase g i'm referring to the concept of god which could fill any number of religions.)  People will do things they know God wants like killing their children and shooting abortion doctors which horrifies other believers.  But the people who commit these horrendous acts are amongst the strongest believers who think they are furthering their relationship with God.  How strong is your faith mcm?  If you thought God wanted you to kill your children would you do it?  People like Stephen Baldwin will say yes, but I hope your moral standards are better then his and the people who do these things.  

Anyway this boils down to belief.  Currently I, myself, think I can never believe in a personal god much less believe in Christianity ever.  I can't believe these things because to me these things don't make sense.  I can't force myself to believe (like many Christians think) because I truly can't believe in something that makes no sense to believe in.

Before I miss the question let me ask.  How do you know what God wants you to do and how does that differ then a person who applies his knowledge of the world to his belief?    

Quote from: "mcm"But if someone does have a relationship with God then people are not going to easily argue them out of it because it's a bit like you having a good friend you've known a long time is suddenly accused of doing something wrong based off circumstantial evidence. Although you may not be able to argue against the circumstantial evidence, because you've known your friend a long time, you're unwilling to believe he could have committed the wrong.

First you are implying when someone has a relationship that everything they do for God is as infallible as the God is.  If someone thinks they have a relationship with God but really don't, say for example those who follow Islam, wouldn't it be better if they can be talked out of their religion?  Wouldn't it be better for reason and critical thinking to guide their actions rather then blind faith and their relationship with Allah?  And if you say yes then you must include yourself in there, because these peoples conviction is just as strong as yours when it comes to their faith.  They think they are doing what is right in the eyes of their god just like you.

I argue against circumstantial evidence all the time.  Circumstantial evidence is just that circumstantial.  It's not enough to convict someone in a court of law and it's not strong enough to prove the existence of a deity or a belief system.  

Quote from: "mcm"To be honest I don't think there is any conclusive evidence for or against God that will convince everyone. I think there is only circumstantial evidence for and against there being a God. And a lot about what you believe, is going to determine how you interpret that circumstantial evidence. I think there's a famous story that kind of illustrates this. When the first cosmonaut (who did not believe in God) reached outer space he said "See there is no God", where as when the first astronaut (who did believe in God) reached outer space he said "Wow, isn't God awesome".

No arguments or sets of them will convince everyone of anything, be it political parties or deities.  I have to disagree with you when you say there is only circumstantial evidence for and against there being a God.  Because when you say God you are endowing that entity with certain characteristics that have an effect on the world.  Since they have an effect on the world then they can be measured to see if there really is a God or not.  A loving and just god who actively interferes to do his will in the world comes to mind as a usual attributes yet when you see things like starving children and horrendous crimes like rape, murder, slavery, and so on you see there is no justice and there is no love.  When you see children being accused of witchcraft by Christians in Africa and are beaten mercilessly and injected with acid (not the drug) you see there is no justice or love.  Not just that, we see the claim that the deity created the world in 3 days and the stars in 1.  We know that it took billions of years for the earth to form and for life to develop.  I mean the list just kinda goes on.

Quote from: "mcm"In terms of christians spreading their faith. There is a parable in the bible which compares it to growing crop in that we plant the seed and reap the harvest but God makes it grow. So although we are encouraged to share what we believe (plant the seed) and reap the harvest (baptize people in the name of God) it's not our job to try and convince people to become christians (make the seed grow). So I guess from that the answer to your question as to why we think (or should think) something we've shared would convince someone who doesn't believe in God to believe in him. The answer is we don't know only God does (since he is the one that challenges the person in their mind over what was shared).

God is a fun character in the bible isn't he?  So thats the lesson to be learned from that what about the lesson from 2 Kings 2 where 42 children called God's prophet bald and God responds by sending 2 bears to tear those 42 children apart?  When we start coming down to personal interpretation of the bible it's essentially cherry picking the parts you like and disregarding the parts you don.

Quote from: "mcm"I guess what I meant about the bible being a help, is not so much for emotional support, but for things that it says that have helped me live my life that I've found to be true. For example what you discovered on your own is kind of mentioned in the bible: "Mt 6:34 Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own".

Carpi Diem (seize the day).  Because a book may contain a few pieces of "wisdom" (i'm using it generously here) how does that lend truth the the overall book?  There is a lot of bad advice in the bible like numbers 5:11-28 if you think your wife is cheating on you make her drink some water mixed with dirt, if she gets sick then she has cheated on you.  You can eat anything that moves Genesis 5:3.  Mark 16: 17-18 you can drink poison or be bit by a snake and if you are a Christian it won't affect you.  I'd say Matthew 6:34 is bad advice, don't worry about global warming, don't worry about paying your bills, don't worry about getting an education, live for today, etc., etc., etc..

Quote from: "mcm"You've definitely been respectful and am impressed, so thanks for being so. And it's probably my turn to apologize as I've ended up being a little preachy in this reply so I apologise.

Thanks.  I try to attack ideas and not the people.  You really weren't that preachy in the scheme of things though I personally felt you did some back peddling.  That could be just me though >.<

Quote from: "LoneMateria"Correct me if i'm wrong but isn't convincing someone there is a god the first step to them having a relationship with that god (assuming of course they don't believe in a god)? It seems to me that the first challenge would be to convince people there is an invisible, all powerful, friend constantly watching and meddling in the persons life (personal god) then once that gets established you convince them that its your personal god. I don't see a way to skip step one but have step two.

Correct, I wasn't meaning to say you can have step two without step one only that step one on it's own is not enough.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"Isn't this the problem with everyones "faith" in God? (I don't know if you caught onto my system between God and god but just to avoid potential confusion, when I use the Capital G [unless at the beginning of a sentence] when i'm referring to the god of the bible. when I use a lowercase g i'm referring to the concept of god which could fill any number of religions.) People will do things they know God wants like killing their children and shooting abortion doctors which horrifies other believers. But the people who commit these horrendous acts are amongst the strongest believers who think they are furthering their relationship with God. How strong is your faith mcm? If you thought God wanted you to kill your children would you do it? People like Stephen Baldwin will say yes, but I hope your moral standards are better then his and the people who do these things.

Basically the different ways I hear from God are feeling convicted that what I did was wrong. A thought pops into my head out of the blue that I should do something and my heart starts to race (similar but different then when I feel nervous and sometimes it's to do something that would not make me feel nervous or fearful). Other times it might be deciding on a course of action and suddenly a strong feeling comes over me about which action to choose leaving no doubt in my mind even though I have not reasoned it through. By reading the bible and it's like something on the page jumps out at me and I understand it in a different way I never have before. When communicating something about christianity to someone and all of a sudden it seems like words just flow from my mouth that answers something or explains something in a powerful way without me even thinking about it first (in case you think I'm becoming conceited there is no way I can believe the words were from me). And so on. I have had a number of experiences like that although they don't happen regularly like every day, week or even months at a time and I'm not good at remembering what the message was because it's a bit like trying to remember how you first learnt a particular thing in science (a diary would solve that one). And it took me a while to hear from God because I was so busy trying to listen out for an audible voice which he has never communicated to me in that way yet.

Now in all those ways I have never felt convicted to do anything close to what you've suggested so is hard for me to answer the question because I've never been put in that situation of feeling like God was telling me to do something that I felt was wrong. Certainly everyday thoughts come into my mind and a number of those I've acted on. So usually what I try to do with those is test them against scripture. So if a thought came into my mind to kill someone all I have to do is look at the 10 commandments and see thou shalt not kill. Now the killing of the abortion doctors kind of reminds me when Jesus warned his disciples that a time will come that anyone who tries to kill them will think they are offering a service to God. His answer is that they will do such things because they have not known God or him (John 16:2).

Quote from: "LoneMateria"First you are implying when someone has a relationship that everything they do for God is as infallible as the God is. If someone thinks they have a relationship with God but really don't, say for example those who follow Islam, wouldn't it be better if they can be talked out of their religion? Wouldn't it be better for reason and critical thinking to guide their actions rather then blind faith and their relationship with Allah? And if you say yes then you must include yourself in there, because these peoples conviction is just as strong as yours when it comes to their faith. They think they are doing what is right in the eyes of their god just like you.

For your first question all I was meaning to imply is when we obey God and continue to listen to him when acting out his wishes it will bare fruit. Sadly though I often let fears like what will people think plus others keep me from obeying what I believe God is telling me even though I can sometimes clearly see the good. So although I believe I have a relationship with him, I am anything but infallible. As for you other question, which I think is a very good question, I guess we believe no one can truly come to God unless he calls them. So although I believe reason and critical thinking serves a purpose in helping explain things which they find difficult to accept that might stop them believing the message. No amount of reason or critical thinking is going to help them accept the message if their mind is firmly made up unless God convicts them in their heart. As for me going the other way I've explained a little how I believe I hear from God and would be interested to know the way in which they think they hear from Allah?

Quote from: "LoneMateria"God is a fun character in the bible isn't he? So thats the lesson to be learned from that what about the lesson from 2 Kings 2 where 42 children called God's prophet bald and God responds by sending 2 bears to tear those 42 children apart? When we start coming down to personal interpretation of the bible it's essentially cherry picking the parts you like and disregarding the parts you don.

This would be the prophet Elisha who was given the power and authority of God and who called down a curse upon these youths. Considering his authority it is a little like youths going up to the Queen of England rediculing her and if done a couple of hundred years ago would have resulted in their deaths. If you are after a lesson it's to respect those who are in authority (even when you don't agree with them).

Quote from: "LoneMateria"Carpi Diem (seize the day). Because a book may contain a few pieces of "wisdom" (i'm using it generously here) how does that lend truth the the overall book? There is a lot of bad advice in the bible like numbers 5:11-28 if you think your wife is cheating on you make her drink some water mixed with dirt, if she gets sick then she has cheated on you. You can eat anything that moves Genesis 5:3. Mark 16: 17-18 you can drink poison or be bit by a snake and if you are a Christian it won't affect you. I'd say Matthew 6:34 is bad advice, don't worry about global warming, don't worry about paying your bills, don't worry about getting an education, live for today, etc., etc., etc..

Numbers 5:11-28 ... and the priest is to utter a curse over the water which the women is to agree to before drinking. At the end of the day this is one part that forms part of the legal system for early Israel. So although it's a useful book to study to know right from wrong I'm hardly going to seek legal redress for my complaint from there. I would go through the legal system for the country where I live in today. Mark 16:17-18 also talks about being able to heal the sick through laying on of hands and being able to talk in different languages without having learnt them. But if you go to 1 Cor 12:30 you will see that not all christians will show all these signs only some. At the end of the day I'm hardly going to drink poison or let myself be bitten by a snake on purpose because that would be putting God to the test and I would die as a result of my own sin. Matt 6:34 I do apologise I did kind of quote this verse to you in my previous post out of context and in a way that twists its meaning. So although it says not to worry about the necessities of life because who by worrying can add a single hour to their life (which is what you post reminded me of and why I posted this verse in response). It does go on to say seek God's kingdom and his righteousness first and then he will help us with those things like getting an education, paying our bills etc.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"Anyway this boils down to belief. Currently I, myself, think I can never believe in a personal god much less believe in Christianity ever. I can't believe these things because to me these things don't make sense. I can't force myself to believe (like many Christians think) because I truly can't believe in something that makes no sense to believe in.

And that's cool, I'm not here to tell you that you should force yourself, I'm simply answering your questions. If you truly want to know if he exists and you seek him out I believe you'll find him and if not then you'll know that all I'm speaking is twaddle.

Quote from: "mcm"Basically the different ways I hear from God are feeling convicted that what I did was wrong. A thought pops into my head out of the blue that I should do something and my heart starts to race (similar but different then when I feel nervous and sometimes it's to do something that would not make me feel nervous or fearful). Other times it might be deciding on a course of action and suddenly a strong feeling comes over me about which action to choose leaving no doubt in my mind even though I have not reasoned it through. By reading the bible and it's like something on the page jumps out at me and I understand it in a different way I never have before. When communicating something about christianity to someone and all of a sudden it seems like words just flow from my mouth that answers something or explains something in a powerful way without me even thinking about it first (in case you think I'm becoming conceited there is no way I can believe the words were from me). And so on. I have had a number of experiences like that although they don't happen regularly like every day, week or even months at a time and I'm not good at remembering what the message was because it's a bit like trying to remember how you first learnt a particular thing in science (a diary would solve that one). And it took me a while to hear from God because I was so busy trying to listen out for an audible voice which he has never communicated to me in that way yet.

And none of these things would be enough for me to be convinced there was a god.  All of these can be rationally explained and I see no divine work here.  But let me ask you how do you know this is from your god and no others?

Quote from: "mcm"Now in all those ways I have never felt convicted to do anything close to what you've suggested so is hard for me to answer the question because I've never been put in that situation of feeling like God was telling me to do something that I felt was wrong. Certainly everyday thoughts come into my mind and a number of those I've acted on. So usually what I try to do with those is test them against scripture. So if a thought came into my mind to kill someone all I have to do is look at the 10 commandments and see thou shalt not kill. Now the killing of the abortion doctors kind of reminds me when Jesus warned his disciples that a time will come that anyone who tries to kill them will think they are offering a service to God. His answer is that they will do such things because they have not known God or him (John 16:2).

First off i'm glad you've not felt convicted to do any of these things.  This is a hypothetical and the thou shalt not kill was only referring to not killing your fellow Jews.  God kills millions of people in the bible, and is not above killing children and babies, (I can name a ton of bible verses here but I will only do 2 [2 Kings 2 where God sends 2 bears to tear apart 42 children for calling his prophet bald] and [the killing of the first born sons Exodus 11 - 12]).  The thing is God often times demands these killings.  So let me ask again if you were sure God wanted you to kill a person (say your mother) would you do it?  Again I hope your answer is no.  

Quote from: "mcm"... As for you other question, which I think is a very good question, I guess we believe no one can truly come to God unless he calls them. So although I believe reason and critical thinking serves a purpose in helping explain things which they find difficult to accept that might stop them believing the message. No amount of reason or critical thinking is going to help them accept the message if their mind is firmly made up unless God convicts them in their heart.

You've just explained the reason why I think religions are so dangerous.  In order for someone to get something that they have been made to believe is better then anything that can ever possibly exist on the earth (heaven), then they need to suspend their reason and critical thinking skills and just believe.  And thats why we have abortion doctor shootings and suicide bombings.  Because people have been taught to suspend these necessary skills (at least when it comes to matters of faith) and do what they have been lead to believe is right in God's eyes.  

 

Quote from: "mcm"As for me going the other way I've explained a little how I believe I hear from God and would be interested to know the way in which they think they hear from Allah?

People all over the world make the same claims Christians do only they attribute them to their deities.  People being miraculously healed or peoples convictions that their god is talking to them, etc..   A book you might like is called "50 reasons people give for believing in a god" by Guy P. Harrison.  He did reporting work in other countries and asked people why they believed in their god(s) and he took the top 50 responses he got and put them in a book and explained why they are flawed.  It's not a hard core atheist book don't worry and it sheds some light on other cultures and their religious practices.  Guy tells different stores about his travels in the book so it's a real good read.  I liked it when I labeled myself somewhere between agnostic and weak-theist.

Quote from: "mcm"This would be the prophet Elisha who was given the power and authority of God and who called down a curse upon these youths. Considering his authority it is a little like youths going up to the Queen of England rediculing her and if done a couple of hundred years ago would have resulted in their deaths. If you are after a lesson it's to respect those who are in authority (even when you don't agree with them).

And that justifies the murder of 42 children ... for calling him bald?  Petty is the word that comes to mind here and it applies to God since he sanctioned it.

Quote from: "mcm"Numbers 5:11-28 ... and the priest is to utter a curse over the water which the women is to agree to before drinking. At the end of the day this is one part that forms part of the legal system for early Israel. So although it's a useful book to study to know right from wrong I'm hardly going to seek legal redress for my complaint from there. I would go through the legal system for the country where I live in today.

Depends on the translation you have the exact words.  Anyway i'm sure the women who were needlessly murdered for "cheating" would agree with you that they'd rather live in this country too.

Quote from: "mcm"Mark 16:17-18 also talks about being able to heal the sick through laying on of hands and being able to talk in different languages without having learnt them. But if you go to 1 Cor 12:30 you will see that not all christians will show all these signs only some. At the end of the day I'm hardly going to drink poison or let myself be bitten by a snake on purpose because that would be putting God to the test and I would die as a result of my own sin.

So you are basically saying this is a contradiction in the bible?

Quote from: "mcm"Matt 6:34 I do apologise I did kind of quote this verse to you in my previous post out of context and in a way that twists its meaning. So although it says not to worry about the necessities of life because who by worrying can add a single hour to their life (which is what you post reminded me of and why I posted this verse in response). It does go on to say seek God's kingdom and his righteousness first and then he will help us with those things like getting an education, paying our bills etc.

So again another contradiction.

Quote from: "mcm"And that's cool, I'm not here to tell you that you should force yourself, I'm simply answering your questions. If you truly want to know if he exists and you seek him out I believe you'll find him and if not then you'll know that all I'm speaking is twaddle.

I'm sorry if I implied that you were trying to force me or whatever.  I was just stating that it takes more for me to believe stuff like this and I was trying to imply that I don't understand how you can accept these things.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"And none of these things would be enough for me to be convinced there was a god. All of these can be rationally explained and I see no divine work here. But let me ask you how do you know this is from your god and no others?

I guess if there were other gods playing tricks on me like the greek gods were known for, I wouldn't know. I wouldn't expect it to convince you. For me it took time for me trust that voice and sometimes it's bore fruit I've seen like feeling compelled to talk to someone on a particular topic which I think is completely random and even rude of me to do but did so and turned out to be of big help to that person, while other times nothing unexpected has happened. They are things I can't explain but if you haven't experienced them yourself then it is going to be easier to come up with some explanation that is more rational to you.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"God kills millions of people in the bible ... The thing is God often times demands these killings.

Correct in judgement, for example: "Ge 18:20 Then the LORD said, 'The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know'". And I'm only aware of it where God has asked the nation of Israel to execute judgment on another nation or to those who have been set apart as leaders or as punishment for those breaking the law as judged by the priest or elder. Not in cases of a simple citizen taking the law into their own hands like your example of those christians who killed an abortion doctor.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"So let me ask again if you were sure God wanted you to kill a person (say your mother) would you do it?

I've never killed anyone before so I would find it too difficult to bring myself to do it.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"You've just explained the reason why I think religions are so dangerous. In order for someone to get something that they have been made to believe is better then anything that can ever possibly exist on the earth (heaven), then they need to suspend their reason and critical thinking skills and just believe.

How so? I just explained that mens hearts are hard and even if reason and ciritical thinking lead them to admit God could possibly exist, they still wouldn't believe. If your friend has been faithful to you then it's hardly suspending reason and critical thinking to believe what he promises will happen.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"And that justifies the murder of 42 children ... for calling him bald?

Our understanding is that one day everyone will be raised to life and judged and even if you committed just one sin you will be condemned to eternal death. So given that standard God is just whenever he executes judgment. I think showing disrespect to leaders is a serious thing because it causes others to do the same (because of the mob mentality where people like to follow others as evidenced by the number of youths), and that leader is unable to do their job because they no longer command respect. This punishment was also in line with the law Dt 21:18-21.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"Mark 16:17-18 So you are basically saying this is a contradiction in the bible?

Good question (I didn't read the verse that carefully before, but indeed it looks as if it's saying all the signs will apply). From the looks of verse 20 it looks like Jesus was referring to those who believe of the disciples he was talking to and commissioning since it only mentions the signs accompanying the word the disciples were preaching and doesn't mention it accompanying those who heard their word and believed.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"Matt 6:34 So again another contradiction.

Explain?

Quote from: "LoneMateria"I was just stating that it takes more for me to believe stuff like this and I was trying to imply that I don't understand how you can accept these things.

And is anything I'm sharing helping you understand? If not is there much point to this conversation? I'm happy enough to agree to disagree and respect what you believe.

Quote from: "mcm"I guess if there were other gods playing tricks on me like the greek gods were known for, I wouldn't know. I wouldn't expect it to convince you. For me it took time for me trust that voice and sometimes it's bore fruit I've seen like feeling compelled to talk to someone on a particular topic which I think is completely random and even rude of me to do but did so and turned out to be of big help to that person, while other times nothing unexpected has happened. They are things I can't explain but if you haven't experienced them yourself then it is going to be easier to come up with some explanation that is more rational to you.

Even if they happened to me I doubt I would jump to a supernatural conclusion.  As for the voices in your head, I think Stan from South Park said it best in the John Edwards is the Biggest Douche in the Universe episode, "We all hear voices in our head dude it's called intuition."

Quote from: "mcm"Correct in judgement, for example: "Ge 18:20 Then the LORD said, 'The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know'". And I'm only aware of it where God has asked the nation of Israel to execute judgment on another nation or to those who have been set apart as leaders or as punishment for those breaking the law as judged by the priest or elder. Not in cases of a simple citizen taking the law into their own hands like your example of those christians who killed an abortion doctor.

These two events are identical because both parties KNOW that their god wants them to kill people.  In the Sodom and Gomorrah story it's on a bigger scale then the abortion doctor shootings.  But both parties are doing what they think is God's will.  Both are needlessly killing people, be they innocent or not, over the word of their creator (or in reality those in charge of their church or spiritual elders).  This is what scares the crap out of me about your religion (and almost every other religion), under no normal circumstances would killing be the correct course of action unless God sanctioned it.  Then murder, rape, genocide, infanticide, torture, etc. become okay.  

Quote from: "mcm"I've never killed anyone before so I would find it too difficult to bring myself to do it.

Then there is hope for you.  I frequently tell Christians this and unfortunately a lot of the time it's a conversation ender since they don't want to face this truth, but you, mcm, are more moral then the god you worship.  The god you worship advocates, murder, genocide, infanticide, rape, slavery, and mass slaughters.  You and I would like to think most Christians would be appalled by any of these things in modern society.  But these things are all sanctioned by the god of the bible.  I can't see you (granted I really just met you) advocating the slaughter of all the Hindu's for worshiping false Gods and when your men bring back prisoners I can't ever picture you saying, kill the women and the young boys but keep the young virgins as sex slaves, like Moses did with God's blessing.  You are more moral then the god you worship mcm!

Quote from: "mcm"How so? I just explained that mens hearts are hard and even if reason and ciritical thinking lead them to admit God could possibly exist, they still wouldn't believe. If your friend has been faithful to you then it's hardly suspending reason and critical thinking to believe what he promises will happen.

Because they suspend their reason and critical thinking skills.  And when their religious leader tells them bombing abortion clinics is what God wants then they will do it because they think they are doing his will, and after all this life isn't that special, heaven will be way better.

Quote from: "mcm"Our understanding is that one day everyone will be raised to life and judged and even if you committed just one sin you will be condemned to eternal death. So given that standard God is just whenever he executes judgment. I think showing disrespect to leaders is a serious thing because it causes others to do the same (because of the mob mentality where people like to follow others as evidenced by the number of youths), and that leader is unable to do their job because they no longer command respect. This punishment was also in line with the law Dt 21:18-21.

And that makes it morally justified?

Quote from: "mcm"Good question (I didn't read the verse that carefully before, but indeed it looks as if it's saying all the signs will apply). From the looks of verse 20 it looks like Jesus was referring to those who believe of the disciples he was talking to and commissioning since it only mentions the signs accompanying the word the disciples were preaching and doesn't mention it accompanying those who heard their word and believed.

I feel like you dodged my question.  So is it a contradiction and why or why not?

Quote from: "mcm"

Quote from: "LoneMateria"Matt 6:34 So again another contradiction.

Explain?

One verse says live for today, the other says live for the kingdom in the future.

Quote from: "mcm"And is anything I'm sharing helping you understand? If not is there much point to this conversation? I'm happy enough to agree to disagree and respect what you believe.

Not really, however i'm always interested in what people believe and why.  Though I can't make sense of your logic that doesn't mean that i'm not interested in learning about your beliefs.

Jesus Christ, did I miss this for this long?

Well, I'm sure you guys know my position on set theory in relation to the cause of the universe by now, so I'd like to ask why nobody has considered the possibility that nothing and something as we know it might turn out to be the same thing. I've already expressed how this might be possible elsewhere, but if you guys don't remember ask.

Anyways, it's allready the case that as science has progressed, we now know that extremely early forms of the universe possessed a type of super-symmetry that is not present today. In fact, the earlier we go, the more we find that the various laws of physics turn out to be the same law. As far as we are right now, we've merged all the laws of physics except for gravity. But almost everyone believes that eventually there will be a way to merge gravity with the super-symmetry law.

Anyways, what of the possibility of an even more consistent symmetry, whereby the different concepts of "something" and "nothing" merge into one uni-concept at the so called "beginning" of the universe, in which case, it really wouldn't be a "begining" at all. I have a big hunch on this. We need to test it.  

Quote from: "LoneMateria"These two events are identical because both parties KNOW that their god wants them to kill people.

Well if we consider a more similar situation in the bible where God has instructed that someone should be put to death. The difference as I tried to explain is that one has authority and one does not. The only way I could see these two stories being similar is if the execution of the abortion doctor was under the authority of a judge in America. But even then Israel is the nation that God has set apart for himself and was trying to purify the people through the Levitical law not America with it's own law. The only jurisdiction that I can see christians having today and through whom God can direct is to put someone out of the church, since we don't live in our own country on earth like Israel, and must adhere to the law of the land where we live which even Jesus commanded. And putting someone out of the church is exactly what was commanded for a couple of situations in the New Testament.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"kill the women and the young boys but keep the young virgins as sex slaves, like Moses did with God's blessing

These were the instructions given to the soldiers before going into battle against Midian for their role in seducing the Israelites into committing sin against God so that they would become liable to destruction because God would no longer be with them in order to conquer them. A sin which continues to this day (Num 25, Rev 2:14). Also none of the translations I've read have the words "sex slave" and Duet 21:10-14 makes it clear they were to become wives and not treated as slaves.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"And that makes it morally justified?

If we define morality as what the majority of people living in a country think is right or wrong (since christians normally define it on what God woud say). Then for America today I would say no, for Israel in it's time I would not know.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"I feel like you dodged my question. So is it a contradiction and why or why not?

I'll try again. I said verse 20 suggests that those who believe was referring to those who believe of the disciples he was speaking to (Matt 28:17 indicates some doubted) and if to the disciples then not necessarily to all believers in which case it wouldn't be a contradiction.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"One verse says live for today, the other says live for the kingdom in the future.

Matt 11:12 indicates that the kingdom of heaven has been advancing since the days of John the baptist. So although the location of the kingdom is in heaven we are considered citizens of this kingdom so seeking his kingdom means building up the community on earth now that are a part of this kingdom.

Quote from: "Renegnicat"Jesus Christ, did I miss this for this long?

Well, I'm sure you guys know my position on set theory in relation to the cause of the universe by now, so I'd like to ask why nobody has considered the possibility that nothing and something as we know it might turn out to be the same thing. I've already expressed how this might be possible elsewhere, but if you guys don't remember ask.

Anyways, it's allready the case that as science has progressed, we now know that extremely early forms of the universe possessed a type of super-symmetry that is not present today. In fact, the earlier we go, the more we find that the various laws of physics turn out to be the same law. As far as we are right now, we've merged all the laws of physics except for gravity. But almost everyone believes that eventually there will be a way to merge gravity with the super-symmetry law.

Anyways, what of the possibility of an even more consistent symmetry, whereby the different concepts of "something" and "nothing" merge into one uni-concept at the so called "beginning" of the universe, in which case, it really wouldn't be a "begining" at all. I have a big hunch on this. We need to test it.  

To be honest, no one wants to discuss this with you because set theory of "something is nothing, and nothing is something" seems so opposite to what reality shows us, along with being really only supported and pushed by guesses of pure conjecture by a relatively small amount of experts in the fields that are most closely related with it that it isn't really worth discussing yet.

The concept of god has more actual solid philosophic reasons for believing in than what you talk of.  The guesses you speak of might excite you because it would lend validity to your beliefs, but that's not very good arguments for its truth.

-Ihateusernames

PS: I have dealt a little academically with set theory and what you talk of, and, perhaps I'm wrong with this post, but honestly I don't think I am. : )

It seems to me that  the potential infinity is the actual one. Craig is ever trying to get a finite out of the infinite. He states that if there is an infinity of books, then one cannot add any more, but he counts them. That begs the question of a staring point! As Aquinas and Kyle William note, it is day by day to  this day on forever. Michael Martin and others suggest that one  starts over with the count, and Craig claims that flaunts the issue, but  [ I'll have to check that out; he is probably wrong.], but why the count as noted anyway?  :secret: