Posts: 8731
Threads: 425
Joined: October 7, 2014
Reputation:
37
RE: Dr. Craig is a liar.
May 4, 2016 at 10:44 am
(May 4, 2016 at 4:01 am)robvalue Wrote: How exactly do you study theology? I would believe it's a lot of mental masturbation
Atheism is a non-prophet organization join today.
Code: <iframe width="100%" height="450" scrolling="no" frameborder="no" src="https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/255506953&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&visual=true"></iframe>
Posts: 43162
Threads: 720
Joined: September 21, 2008
Reputation:
133
RE: Dr. Craig is a liar.
May 4, 2016 at 10:52 am
(This post was last modified: May 4, 2016 at 10:52 am by Edwardo Piet.)
(May 3, 2016 at 5:24 pm)SteveII Wrote: (May 3, 2016 at 5:07 pm)ApeNotKillApe Wrote: And how do you know all that?
inductive reasoning
You do realize that the very nature of inductive reasoning means it cannot ever lead to knowledge right?
It doesn't matter how many white swans you find, you can never induce from that that all swans are white.
One black swan and BOOM you were wrong and realize "Oops I never knew all swans were white I just thought I did."
Posts: 8149
Threads: 47
Joined: September 12, 2015
Reputation:
41
RE: Dr. Craig is a liar.
May 4, 2016 at 11:25 am
(May 4, 2016 at 4:41 am)Stimbo Wrote: (May 4, 2016 at 3:51 am)Constable Dorfl Wrote: So thinking about finding a watch on a moor lead to all that? I'd like to see a map of you thought process.
How does one map a desert? It'd be like looking at a sheet of sandpaper.
There are different types of desert you know, you can get sand duney deserts (which are hard to map because the sand is very bold and keeps moving), rocky deserts and even icy deserts (most of Antartica is actually a desert). So you could map it, if you try hard enough.
Urbs Antiqua Fuit Studiisque Asperrima Belli
Home
Posts: 25314
Threads: 239
Joined: August 26, 2010
Reputation:
156
RE: Dr. Craig is a liar.
May 4, 2016 at 12:38 pm
This is all true.
Just not as funny.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
Posts: 3045
Threads: 14
Joined: July 7, 2014
Reputation:
14
RE: Dr. Craig is a liar.
May 4, 2016 at 3:37 pm
(May 3, 2016 at 6:43 pm)Jehanne Wrote: (May 3, 2016 at 5:37 pm)ApeNotKillApe Wrote: Fixed.
There is no "one" natural theology; theologians disagree over the nature of "god", say, whether he/she/it is omnipotent or not, or omniscient or not. There is no way to test any of these ideas, none of which are falsifiable.
Show me a theologian who denies God is omnipotent or omniscient--including the reasons they give. Regarding "falsifiable"--this is natural theology. This is inductive reasoning. "Falsifiable" has nothing whatsoever to do with the scientific method--which by definition cannot even comment on non-physical issues.
Posts: 43162
Threads: 720
Joined: September 21, 2008
Reputation:
133
RE: Dr. Craig is a liar.
May 4, 2016 at 3:39 pm
(May 4, 2016 at 3:37 pm)SteveII Wrote: [...]the scientific method--which by definition cannot even comment on non-physical issues.
Agreed. Can anything else?
Posts: 3045
Threads: 14
Joined: July 7, 2014
Reputation:
14
RE: Dr. Craig is a liar.
May 4, 2016 at 3:39 pm
(May 3, 2016 at 7:01 pm)Time Traveler Wrote: (May 3, 2016 at 5:03 pm)SteveII Wrote: God existed timelessly and changeless causally prior to the universe. Atemporal. There was no stream of consciousness or successive chains of thoughts. He knew all truths intrinsically.
But this directly contradicts what you said earlier in this thread...
(May 3, 2016 at 5:03 pm)SteveII Wrote: If timelessness is not an essential, but rather a contingent characteristic of God, God could have decided to exist timelessly in the past and then decide to create the universe and in doing so became temporal.
[emphasis mine.]
Which is it? Did God "decide" things one after the other, or not? Is timelessness essential, or contingent? You seem very confused for someone who so strongly asserts knowledge of God's nature. My later comment. I had no idea the "Craig is a liar" thread was turning into a technical discussion on time and I would have been more careful in word choices had I thought it was going that way.
Posts: 25314
Threads: 239
Joined: August 26, 2010
Reputation:
156
RE: Dr. Craig is a liar.
May 4, 2016 at 3:40 pm
(This post was last modified: May 4, 2016 at 3:41 pm by Cyberman.)
(May 4, 2016 at 3:37 pm)SteveII Wrote: "Falsifiable" has nothing whatsoever to do with the scientific method--which by definition cannot even comment on non-physical issues.
It can if non-physical issues supposedly cause physical effects. Then we can test for those.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
Posts: 7568
Threads: 20
Joined: July 26, 2013
Reputation:
54
RE: Dr. Craig is a liar.
May 4, 2016 at 3:49 pm
(May 4, 2016 at 3:37 pm)SteveII Wrote: (May 3, 2016 at 6:43 pm)Jehanne Wrote: There is no "one" natural theology; theologians disagree over the nature of "god", say, whether he/she/it is omnipotent or not, or omniscient or not. There is no way to test any of these ideas, none of which are falsifiable.
Show me a theologian who denies God is omnipotent or omniscient--including the reasons they give. Regarding "falsifiable"--this is natural theology. This is inductive reasoning. "Falsifiable" has nothing whatsoever to do with the scientific method--which by definition cannot even comment on non-physical issues.
Well, as long as you have toppled Karl Popper to your own satisfaction, I guess that's all that matters. 
Posts: 43162
Threads: 720
Joined: September 21, 2008
Reputation:
133
RE: Dr. Craig is a liar.
May 4, 2016 at 3:54 pm
(May 4, 2016 at 3:40 pm)Stimbo Wrote: (May 4, 2016 at 3:37 pm)SteveII Wrote: "Falsifiable" has nothing whatsoever to do with the scientific method--which by definition cannot even comment on non-physical issues.
It can if non-physical issues supposedly cause physical effects. Then we can test for those.
I think for something to affect the physical world implies it is physical.
|
