Looks like you missed this post, I’d like to see your reply
So can you explain, because being a partner with an ID group, how he’s gaining the negative reputation through it? I’ve stated already that he’s not bringing God into science, but trying to make sense of science with a philosophy. There is no problem with this.
If you want to use common sense and rationality here, how do you think the four facts I explained are best explained best in a naturalistic view? I gave specific reasons that the four facts are accepted and I’d like to see how you’d explain them all. The hallucination hypothesis is probably your best bet, but that’s even been majorly rejected and I included reasons why it doesn’t have explanatory power.
I guess this shows how much you know about philosophy. Do you think it’s all about things that are detected with the five senses? As I’ve already said earlier, atheism has been on a huge decline in the last 50 years. Things like verificationism are dead.
Are aesthetic judgments, moral judgments out of philosophy? Have you grabbed them or smelled them recently? How about mathematical or logical truths? Surely those haven’t been discussed or anything like that. So have you tasted or physically seen verification for science itself recently? Don’t forget that philosophy lies beneath even science itself.
A philosophical one?
Sure. But I think the facts could lead you to rationally believe its legitimate.
Well, what exact support are you talking about? Being in a group that stands for ID? Who says that’s his driving force or he works for them or something? Are you sure we’re talking about the same Craig? The Teleological argument is not even about life. It’s about the larger picture in the constants of the universe in the initial conditions of the Big Bang.
He’s not even in scientific circles. He’s a PHILOSOPHER, and good one. He’s using the leading scholarship but he isn’t making it off of his own authority.
I’d say it’s necessary, though. If Christian particularism is true, wouldn’t you think that if it could be done that it should be?
Dude, his viewpoints are simply the most accepted ones. You can call them bankrupt, but if doesn’t make the Big Bang, Fine tuning, historical Jesus, logical arguments go away. They’re still sitting there. He’s sitting comfortably in the midst of contemporary scholarship for the historical and scientific evidence. As I’ve said; he doesn’t have a beef with anything related to evolution. He’s just skeptical about certain aspects. He doesn’t feel threaten even if he’s been proven 100% that his skepticism isn’t an open scientific question. In his words, he doesn’t “have an axe to grind”.
Well there is no need to be skeptical because it seems like you don’t even realize his current position. I think you got the wrong idea about him.
Well, I’d say you probably could assume they were martyrs. I don’t know, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was largely historically accepted. I know there are myths about how they died (certain apostles). That wouldn’t convince me, sure, but it’s cumulative with the other factors. Standing alone of course it’s not convincing.
Well, so what if the gospels were simply a single thing outlining what the eyewitnesses say they witnessed? It’s not really a problem for historicity especially if you’ve been reading my point about how this happens all of the time with Greek and Roman history and the details are littered with myths.
Also as I’ve said, with other historical documents it’s not necessarily a problem for the historicity of a given thing due to inconsistency. The resurrection isn’t one of the historical facts, however, I’m just saying it’s reasonable given the facts, and many of the historians think so as well. Even the opposition accepts these facts, though.
Well let’s give Kalam a try.
- Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
- The universe began to exist.
- Therefore the universe has a cause.
That’s the short version. Why would you reject that?
It’s easy to sidestep the dilemma. Here:
Moral good is a part of God’s nature necessarily.
Okay, now that that’s over with… So, how do you know something God did in the OT is wrong? Did you grab or taste the truth of the evilness recently? How did it feel/taste?
Philosophy and logic are deemed tools of the devil. (According to Dante’s Inferno, philosophers and “moral” followers of other religions occupied the first circle of hell.)
Quite simply, no one can vouch for the authenticity of any event ever be it considered “fact” or “fantasy.” Especially if they weren’t there. The retelling of the event has the fundamental flaw of communication and interpretation. Person A experiences event 1 and tells person B about it. Person B then tells the story of “1x1” to person C who in turn tells person A’s story of “1+1” to person D. By the time person Z hears the story of the event that person A experienced, it is now the story of “1x1+1/3-42^677,000(anyone who is a non-believer is a heretic and must be purged for the sake of humankind).”
Nerd reference (AKA how perspective and interpretation dictates understanding): Warcraft 3
"Arthas purged an entire town of innocent people!“
vs
"Arthas was doing the best he could to prevent an unholy, undead plague from spreading to the rest of his kingdom”
Shit’s dumb. You weren’t there. You haven’t seen the “original” unedited books of the bible as they were written by people you’ve never met and have had full discourse with to fully understand their intended message. The best you can do is speculate on a story that has no verifiable basis.
In short: YOU JUST DON’T KNOW.
Then how can we know history? Was Hitler made up or is he real?
Despite invoking Godwin’s Law, you’re pretty much on the right track.
Let me put it this way:
The closer you get, the less the sources would have been tampered with, and (generally) the more sophisticated the technology and communications networks available.
When you consider that religious claims are the biggest there can be (the very PURPOSE OF LIFE no less), then you’d want a reliable source.
And yet religious sources are often very, very old. So what you require great evidence for, you actually get lame evidence.
There was video recordings of hitler, for fuck’s sake. C’mon people…
I think that it was already replied to.
It actually does matter, in this case. This is about a bunch of Jewish followers who believed that there leader proved himself to be God by rising from the dead. There has to be genuine reason to dismiss this and all i see is you grasping every skeptic like excuse, with examples of other believers and past cults. All those cults that had tragedies in the end where cults based on doctrinal influences, while the cult that was Christianity wasn’t a cohesive group who believed in a doctrine or their leaders doctrine. Their belief came from what they saw from there leader, and that was him coming back after being crucified.
For example, if i came to all of you here, to the Theists and to the Atheists, and told all of you that ii was the second coming of Jesus. Would i win any followers? No. Even if i had good charisma and talked wise philosophy and twisted it with religious or political doctrines… would that be convincing? But what if you saw me get brutally killed (just like the crucifixion or just shot in the head)? You saw the blood, you checked my pulse, and i was confirmed dead. Then 3 days after, i come to all of you and show myself to you? How can you make a mistake if all the evidence has shown that i was killed?
Jesus’ followers gained their commitment due to what they believed to have seen. The only logical way of showing that they where mistaken is by proving that Jesus was that good of a magician. Dismissing the whole thing with “ah, he was just a magician” is an assertion that must be academically defended otherwise it just shows you don’t want to look wrong. Cisco gave a good point, there was a huge cause for the life changing of Jesus’ followers. Saying that they made a mistake has to be proven. Is it plausible that the apostles are at error, that their leader didn’t actually rise after being crucified? It is plausible, yet very baseless.
How can a group of men mistake some one coming back after being CRUCIFIED? That is not an intelligent conclusion, it is simply a GUESS… and all you are doing is belittling the intelligence just because they believe in a god. You have to be a huge retard to mistake someone from returning after being crucified.
Giving examples of other cult followers who died in vain for their mistaken beliefs is a bad counter to show the possibility of fallibility from the Apostles. One reason is there has been no cult leader that pulled off a resurrection, the second and important reasons why is because what happened to all those cult followers that died? NOTHING.
Those cults vanished and never grew. The amount of followers was a small group that remained and ended as small group. Jesus’ followers where not just 12, there where actually more, and they grew dramatically. All of them where dead on about what they believed about their leader to have done. The legacy of Jesus started, and grew more from the resurrection event. There is no cult or religion that had this same occurrence. The majority of cults where off shots of other religions, their beliefs where elements, teachings, practices and oaths with in it’s parent religion(s). There is no cult leader who presented himself as the one and only God and successfully gained a legacy.
Lucian of Samosata
**?They took him for a god, accepted his laws, and declared him their president. The Christians you know worship a MAN to this day, the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account.
You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worshiped the crucified sage and lived after his laws?
Next after that other, to be sure, whom they still worship, the MAN who was crucified in palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world.
**
Jesus was known to have been died, and it was absurd to them that a man managed to live after the crucified. To them, the crucifixion ended his life, period. No one can revive after being executed by the Romans. Yet the christians believed he rose after that, and it was that resurrection where they were solidly convinced that he was God. The word grew and so did the believers; there is no cult in history that has the same.
Larry down the street was crucified and rose from his grave.
I saw it.
Larry is God.
Please believe.
Devote your entire existence to him.
He’ll give you everything good in life that you could possibly want.
After you die.
I totally saw this. It was amazing. He’s teachings are true! All you have to do is believe.
Praise be to Larry Our Lord!
P.S. …we need money to spread his ministry. So, like, send as much as you can <3
Indeed.
I’m pretty sure there were other witnesses too.
You know what we need to do now, B?
We need to get a tithe box running.
I heard Larry state that he only requires 5% of a follower’s total monetary wealth.
I am sooooo down!
I feel like we are ignoring the real possibility of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If we include ID in a discussion about biological history, the Flying Spaghetti Monster ought to be included as well seeing as how they are supported by the same factual basis, i.e., none.
imo.
Yes, brother jabhadouken. The tithe goes to a good cause!
Your 5% will help us spread the gospel to places that need it most.
Like the premium forums.
Surely, those souls are lost and in need of salvation and redemption. I will courageously spread the word of Larry to these unfortunates who are stuck in the shadows of ignorance.
Help me, brothers and sisters in Larry! Help me spread the word to the prems by tithing your 5% soon.
Your place by Larry’s side will be assured and you will be helping others to also bathe in his splendor!
^You guys would probably have more luck donating to Duc Vader, a leader with a proven track record
Preach, Sister B - preach!
Larry’s splendor is great.
He works miracles for less than Suzanne Sommers.
Whilst being infinitely more feminine.
Blasphemer!
Even Jesus has a better track record than Duc Vader.
For your Kalam challenge, I simply do not grant your condition that existence must have a cause. Causality requires time, where preceding events in time in the past influence events that occur in the future. If prior to the universe, there was no time, how do you reconcile the absence of causality with a creator that must necessarily have caused the universe? And this isn?t just some airy-fairy speculation on my part either?Big Bang theorists have said as much that time as a physical dimension only appeared after the Big Bang.
As to your point about Greek and Roman legend being littered with myths, it is because I regard the example of a man coming back from the dead as being firmly within the realm of mythology that I have dismissed the NT and other documents when it concerns the resurrection. I don?t see our discussion moving forward on this point, so I think we can agree to disagree already.
Your attempt to sidestep the Euthyphro paradox fails. Your saying, ?Moral good is part of God?s nature,? prompts me to ask if the punishment of the Canaanites and the testing of Isaac can be reconciled with moral good.
As to your insistence that I must not know much philosophy because I do not think abstract concepts are real, I must say it is YOU who have revealed YOUR ignorance of philosophy: naturalism is a branch of epistemological philosophy. ?Philosophy? is not a branch of epistemological philosophy.
As for WLC, I know that the man has no scientific background, and remarked as much. I don’t think the man is evil or anything, just misguided, and wrong. At the very worst, he is only a liar and shameless equivocator, which is not so bad as a crime really.
At the risk of belaboring points made in my previous posts, I do not have a problem with the Christian faith and only spoke up in this thread because you and many others seem to think that the best explanation of the historical evidence is the bodily resurrection of Jesus. I disagreed, because the linchpin of this explanation is divine agency, whose existence cannot be established with historical, philosophical, or scientific techniques. Acceptance of such an explanation requires a leap of faith, and as a personal decision, I don?t think there?s anything wrong with that. What?s your problem with this position?
That’s because it IS.
Time is merely the physical flow of matter at any given point.
The fact that we can observe this course does not mean we necessarily apprehended it for what it was, for quite a period of what we percieve as time moving on - which is really the movement/shifting of densities of matter.
Now all we need to do is kill you, and have your buddies say you died for your beliefs.
And bingo bango!
Lebowsk1, runaround, I’ve got a lot to do but I really want to get back to this (specifically for Lebowsk1). I also wanted to say I’m sorry if I’ve been an ass in my posts to you, runaround, and specifically fishjie. For fishjie: it’s just ridiculous if you know anything about what historians think on the subject, that’s why I kind of went super sarcastic on you. I should have probably gone a different route with that.
Why?
I never claimed to be the Son of Larry…
Plus, I was never convicted of sedition by the Roman Empire.
You really should be going after Just-B.
Larry made Just-B into a real girl.
And he did it for free.
She’s much more obligated than I.
Of course, she’s paid her 5%.
You, on the other hand…
Pony up that 5% - Larry is not normally a jealous or wrathful God, but he needs his Sony fix just like any other deity.
I assume then, since you are familiar with the proceedings of the trial, you are aware that Behe remarked at one point that he does not consider as convincing the wealth of papers published in the last few decades describing evidence for the evolution of the immune system, and that, in spite of the absolute dearth of papers published or any other objective evidence in support of ID, he is nevertheless supportive of it? I think we can reasonably say at this point that he objects to abiogenesis and evolution more out of sympathy to his religious views than out of any sense of scientific responsibility.
As you said, Behe is a pretty smart guy, and I have never dismissed his viewpoints because I thought he endorsed astrology. I dismiss his viewpoints because he isn’t forthright about the way his faith has compromised his scientific objectivity. Since he’s a scientist, I think it’s fair to criticize him on this point.
Actually, these are not the first posts we have exchanged directly, but they are for this thread. I entered the discussion here because I wanted to point out that the historical record does not say what apologists have been trying to make it say; in remarking that I was tired, I was referring to the lateness of the hour and my own reluctance to go back and forth on a topic where most people have made up their minds anyway.
I have not posted any links because most of those resources don’t address the cultural and social reasons for why some people support ID. Therefore, it doesn’t make sense to show theists those things since those arguments are usually inadequate to the task of convincing many theists who support ID.
Good luck with your programming.
Indeed! But you have forgotten that the temporal flux of the Hawkings paradox prevents us from knowing whether Kroemer’s constant will still hold before density of matter can even be defined!