Barely.
Zeus was known to cheat.
And there were simply more of them.
I didn’t miss it, I just didn’t care for it. Nothing you say will prove that god exists. I’ve read and heard enough arguments from people like William Craig who could make a much stronger case than anyone on SRK can, and I still remain unconvinced.
As far as nitpicking the Einstein references, you did say that the reason he didn’t believe in a personal god is because of the evil in this world, which is flat out wrong. Moreover, Einstein was never specific in what he meant by god. At times he seemed pantheistic even though he did deny this in one letter and at other times panentheistic. What we do know for sure however is that he saw god in nature and scientific discovery as understood in the following quotes.
“If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it”
“I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.”
So while he may have said that he wished to understand the mind of god, this may very well have been metaphorical in meaning that he wanted to understand the physical world in its entirety. Even his autobiographer wasn’t exactly sure what he meant by god.
No, it wasn’t his arguments that won him the debates. It was his ability to push his points across in a more organized and prolific manner while flustering his opponents who often understimate him in thinking that he’s a mere creationist. And they’re wrong. But you’re right in saying that he is more than justified in repeating his same 5 arguments each time and he does exactly that! Which is why I cry a little inside every time an atheist does lose to him. However don’t mistake his ‘win’ as incontovertible validation of his assertions because his arguments aren’t nearly as strong as you think they are. They’ve each been picked apart by other atheists who are more thoughtful than the “four horsemen”. If you think that Dawkins, Harris and the like are the best that atheists have to offer then you, along with many atheists admittedly, are simply mistaken. Take a look at the Shelly Kagan VS Craig debate on whether nor not god is necessary for morality in which Kagan thoroughly spanks his ass. Why is this debate topic important? Well it provides the basis for Craig’s moral argument for the existence of god which can be stated as follows:
- Objective morality cannot exist without god
- Objective morality does exist
- Therefore god exists
So by kicking Craig’s ass in this debate, Kagan essentially destroys one of WLC’s 5 arguments for the existence of god. But that’s not all, another prominent atheist, Wes Morriston, has also thoroughly dismantled Craig’s moral argument for god. It’s long and wordy but if you’d like to take a look here you go: http://spot.colorado.edu/~morristo/DoesGodGround.pdf
Now if you can just explain how “sociology logic” substantiates the claim of Jesus’ resurrection, I’m all ears.
I will agree with you that cisco is trolling.
Nothing i can say can make you change what you want to believe. That’s never an intention for me anyway. I’m not debating to bag converters, i debate when atheists go religion bashing as to how theists are stupid. So i present actual academic examples to challenge them.
Why didn’t you check the link of Professor Kaku? Because that link and Kaku himself explains what the Universal theory is. Einstein was never metaphorical God, he even said it directly what specific god he believed in. Spinoza’s god. Please look at the link and don’t pretend you did.
“In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human understanding, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views. I was barked at by numerous dogs who are earning their food guarding ignorance and superstition for the benefit of those who profit from it. Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source. They are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional “opium of the people”—cannot bear the music of the spheres. The Wonder of nature does not become smaller because one cannot measure it by the standards of human moral and human aims.”
If you still trying to push that Einstein is being metaphorical then i am convinced that you just don’t want God to exist.
You are discrediting Craig’s deserved respect. Lets take in note that this Craig went against 2 of the 4 horseman, there is no excuse as to how he won, he won because his arguments had more weight. You can’t push points with out any good arguments and the reason why he was able to push points was because the atheists he went against eventually started going into blabbering with no sense at all. Please watch the whole Hitchens debate to see why hitchens won. LOL at you trying to build excuses as to why those atheists lost in academic/official debates. Which is very weird since when you look around in every forum and on youtube, there are a bunch of atheist crictizing christianity to destroyed by facts/science and logic therefore in a real debate you can not build excuses as to how Craig because doing this is also self-ownage because it shows that Hitchens and Harris are just plain stupid when they are one of the most famous anti-theists today.
Thanks. I’ve seen that debate and sorry, Kagan didn’t win that. I don’t understand what made you think Kagan “kicked his ass” because in the actual debate Kagan ended up like Harris did. I think you just started googling “Who beat William Craig” and found this PDF with out even watching it yourself. Kagan did not do well in the debate infact even Atheist sites didn’t have anything supporting to Kagan’s debate.
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1810
I can give you a link to the full debate but it’s around 6 parts and each of them extend from 14-16 min long if you are interseted.
As for the resurrection (which is a useless and aggravating argument) go research on how Cults start and how history separates legend to historical.
I’m getting tired of debating. The person i wanted to debate with is Fishjie and the first subject both he and I engaged in. You can respond via-pm if you wish.
Yeah but remember Chronos literally feared Zeus, because of a prophecy that he’d be overthrown
And Zeus lucked out, because an X squiggled its way into his prophesied bane, and made him a nice firecracker of an eternal virgin goddess of war, who became a total daddy’s girl.
Except for, y’know, that one time, during, the whole Trojan war thing, where he laid the tough love down on her.
But everyone was pissing him off with that fiasco.
Why is every post in this thread a damn novel? Off topic novels none the less.
Don’t worry too much about that because the Greek love plotholes. Any time you hear a god speak say that something will happen in any of the classics it means that it will happen. One of the professors at my college had a term for it. Either way it doesn’t matter how underpowered you are in a battle, if a god said “Yo, that nigga gonna hold it down” it will magically happen.
Was there ever a black greek god? The thought just came to my head and that would be so awesome if there was.
Nothing I say, nor any refutations I can post that have already destroyed WLC’s arguments will make you even second guess his conclusions so I don’t really care to debate either. You’re probably already blindly following his word. I did check the Kaku link and I’ve already explained to you what the unified field theory is so what Michio said was not new information. Ok, not so much metaphorical - though it could have been - as having a completely different definition of god than you or anyone else may think. His own biographer wasn’t sure of what he meant by god so I don’t understand how you believe that you do - that you somehow from reading a couple of quotes that support your own view think you know more about Einstein than even his own biographer. Mostly we only know of what he didn’t believe in, but not exactly what he did, even with the Spinoza quote.
I’m not discrediting Craig. I’m saying that he did win but only because his arguments were clearer. Did I not mention in my post that he flusters his opponents? He’s an amazing debator, but his actual arguments do not hold up to further scrutiny. They’ve each been dismantled by other atheists. With respect to his debating performance, you can close your eyes as much as you want. In your mind, WLC has probably never lost a single debate against an atheist whereas my eyes are wide open and I can admit that he’s won a strong majority of the ones he’s engaged in. But not against Kagan. He got his ass handed to him there and the fact that you can’t accept this proves that you’re not willing to take an objective stance. At least I actually listen to Craig’s arguments. lol, I’m glad that you posted Luke Muehlhauser’s review of the debate who actually says at the end, “I don’t know who won.” Yet you use this as proof positive that an atheist site “didn’t have anything supporting Kagan’s debate.” Holy shit do you even read your own links? It seems like you’re the one who just googled “who beat William Craig” and pulled the very first atheist blog that SEEMED to have supported your view but were too lazy to actually read said review before drawing the wrong conclusion.
Luke Muelhauser, btw, has described on many occasions exactly how WLC is able to win against his atheist opponents and he’ll tell you exactly what I’ve said. He’ll tell you that Craig wins not through the validity of his arguments, because they’ve already been proven weak, but because of his debating skill.
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1437
I really don’t care to debate any further either. Any arguments that we can make have already been made by much more eloquent and qualified minds from both sides of the aisle. So unless you’d like to explain why you believe Craig’s arguments are winning arguments for the existence of god or if you could link me to GOOD resources that you’ve read which support the existence of god, I won’t pursue the matter any longer.
If you can look at this world and universe and even entertain the idea that an omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving god worthy of worship created it and watches over it, then you are a fucking moron.
WLC is still known to be the best debater of our time, even pro atheist sites have cited that WLC never actually lost in a one on one debate. Your arguments are a bias. You don’t just win debates because of clear arguments you win debates when your opponent can’t give anything valuable. Your arguments concerning this Unified theory is by far the most ignorant post in this thread, it’s like you are just forcing around what you want to be true. Einstein was clear about believing in a designer of the universe. His quote towards atheism solved the question of what he specifically believed in. Stop forcing down what you wish to be true.
This is the worst religion debate ever in shoryuken… i don’t think my absence from it is the main reason it sucks but because the arguments are highschool IQ…
lets stick on topic with the greek gods.
It’s clear alot of people here have never seen Immortals or Clash of The Titans
cool story bro! when you’re ready to return to reality lemme know
disapprove: Have or express an unfavorable opinion about something
disprove: Prove that something is false
Please learn to use correct words in your arguments otherwise it makes you look bad. We’re talking about disproving things.
No. Einstein is not a theist, he is a deist. Please stop peddling your nonsensical trolling.
Deists don’t believe in a personal god. Because it is for children.
Now as for other older scientists believing in god, that’s because they didn’t know as much about the universe as we did today. Also probably because if they had admitted to being atheist, they would’ve been burnt at the stake.
Ok, my bad science has shown with 99.99999% certainty. You got me there. Nothing is ever certain in science. Given what we know about the world today, its not possible for there ever to have been a global flood, or for the universe to have been created in 7 days … But science is ok to admitting it is wrong. It might turn out tomorrow we all live in the matrix. Just like its entirely possible for Santa to exist.
Silly nitpicking. The bottom line is there are still retarded creationists today. Those christians who aren’t, are a direct result of a better understanding of the world, one that religion tried and failed to stunt with their anti-evolution laws. A few centuries ago, 100% of christians believed in literal adam and eve because there was no reason not to. science forces them to change their beliefs, not the other way around. because one is based on superstition and ignorance, and the other on evidence…
And if you had said that a few centuries ago you would have been burned at the stake. There’s nothing that makes your particular interpretation of the bible any more valid than any other christian’s because the bible is a made up mythology. all of it. its not real. even a guy like cisco admitted to me last time he didn’t even believe in “hell”. can you believe that? a christian who doesn’t believe in hell. kix didn’t either! a few centuries ago cisco would’ve been burned at the stake for arguing that. and they could argue all day about why it doesn’t exist and come up with tons of verses to support their particular beliefs. christians cherry pick what they believe, not the other way around. that’s because the bible was written by multiple different humans with different agendas. so there are billions of possible interpretations. that is why there are ten billion denominations today.
:lol:
Your arguments consisted of nothing more than canned responses from your sunday school. I could simulate an entire debate between us because everything you say is predictable and shows no independent thought (except the fact you don’t believe in hell)
Me: Atrocities in bible
You: ITS OK THEY WERE ALL EVIL TRIBES! THEY SACRIFICED THEIR CHILDREN TO PAGAN GODS SO ITS OK THAT ISRAELITES SLAUGHTERED THEM
Me: Shebears
You: NO THEY WERE ACTUALLY DANGEROUS TEENS!!!
Me: Flood
You: GODS WAYS ARE ABOVE OURS YOU CANNOT QUESTION HIM
Me: Burning in hell for eternity
You: NAH HELL DOES NOT EXIST!!!
cool story bro. now the last time we talked you were able to admit that the bible was written by regular human beings with political agendas and should not be treated as the literal inerrant word of god and should rather be interpreted, so i left it at that. are you going to retract that statement now?
Reading this kind of ass/keyboard interaction really pisses me off. You just know the kind of guy who typed this is the one who sits around waiting for someone to say “Thank God” just so he can come around the corner and say “God doesn’t exist”.
Seriously. Did this post add anything? Did it give anybody something to think about? Was it at least original? No, no and no.
It is literally there just so he can say “fuck theists” for no reason other than to say “fuck theists”.
Well fuck you too.
All arguments against theism aren’t really original, they’ve been around for a long time. This includes the problem of evil. Mind boggling how some christian praises god when he finds a parking spot, yet there are millions of kids dying horrible deaths in africa. sounds like god has his priorities fucked up.
There does this add more value?
Exactly, which is why I’ve been an active participant in this thread, attempting to refute each theist argument one by one, making sure my opinion was right there next to anyone else who gave one…
…oh wait
Also it’s 2012. Two thousand-freakin-twelve. Ridicule and mockery is really the only logical response to any sky daddy believer at this point.
[media=youtube]QFlrg22GjM8[/media]
I want to have sex with whoever created this… (no homo?) </fishjie>
Wow did you come back eh. I bet you wouldn’t even have responded if i didn’t set a toe in the debate, it looks like you have been itching for a rematch with me ever since that last argument were i flunked your ass. But yes, anyone who thinks the Isrealites didn’t have a right to primitive-nuke those tribes is an idiot and that bear part was a complete embarrassment, you girly-men atheists need to stop requoting religion tolerance sites. It’s obvious Fishjiz that your entire religion bashing gimmick was only for the sole purpose of resummoning me back in this board and look what happen, you couldn’t get a great post instead you got Marvin lol. If i wanted to, i could start refuting both of you and turn you into friends just to take me down and end up as a bunch of girly men who are both uneducated and wipe their piss off public toilet seats.
If you really want this rematch, i will give it you and you know you want me to give to you because you know for a fact that i am the best religion debater that ever went in this site and i am the only one who you have full interest in, seeing that you were an actual fan of mine.