Posts: 977
Threads: 11
Joined: July 17, 2015
Reputation:
9
RE: Dr. Craig is a liar.
May 10, 2016 at 10:06 am
(May 10, 2016 at 10:02 am)Rhythm Wrote: What prevents god from doing so? What constrains god within those logical boundaries, if god is so constrained? Perhaps you could elaborate upon this force or power that surrounds and limits a god?
Rhythm, good day to your sir.......Mario, in your avatar; he must have some size of an appendage to be getting through that frock.
Lucky girl.
You may refer to me as "Oh High One."
Posts: 67172
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Dr. Craig is a liar.
May 10, 2016 at 10:08 am
I've been pulling weeds, and my back. Good to see yall too.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 9915
Threads: 53
Joined: November 27, 2015
Reputation:
92
Dr. Craig is a liar.
May 10, 2016 at 10:11 am
Yeah, yeah, some of you guys have actual lives outside of AF...I knew you were going to say that. Damn...[emoji12]
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Posts: 3709
Threads: 18
Joined: September 29, 2015
Reputation:
10
RE: Dr. Craig is a liar.
May 10, 2016 at 10:38 am
(May 9, 2016 at 8:04 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: (May 9, 2016 at 3:50 pm)wiploc Wrote: P1 has problems:
- We don't know that it's true; it's an arbitrary assumption.
- Physics (quantum mechanics) rejects P1 as false. Very tiny things do not seem to have causes, and the beginning of the big bang would have been very tiny. To claim otherwise is to renounce science, or to proclaim that one is smarter and more authoritative than science.
- P1 is arbitrary and self serving. If, instead of an unbegun god, you worshiped a blue god, P1 would read, "Everything that isn't blue has a cause of its existence." And, thus modified, the argument would be exactly as strong as it is in WLC's version
Ah, yes. This reminds me a bit of that "maximally great being" (ontological?) argument, where we can substitute "maximally great" with "maximally smelly", or whatever suites your fancy, and it works out exactly the same. Perhaps we have a maximally smelly, blue, uncaused God! Thanks for your insight.
If you ignore the reasons for the claim, you could do that. Can I take evolution, and just substitute in other things, to show that the claims are absurd?
Posts: 3101
Threads: 10
Joined: September 7, 2015
Reputation:
49
RE: Dr. Craig is a liar.
May 10, 2016 at 10:42 am
(May 10, 2016 at 10:38 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: (May 9, 2016 at 8:04 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: [*]
Ah, yes. This reminds me a bit of that "maximally great being" (ontological?) argument, where we can substitute "maximally great" with "maximally smelly", or whatever suites your fancy, and it works out exactly the same. Perhaps we have a maximally smelly, blue, uncaused God! Thanks for your insight. [*]
If you ignore the reasons for the claim, you could do that. Can I take evolution, and just substitute in other things, to show that the claims are absurd? [*]
If we were simply defining evolution into existence, as you're effectively doing with the God of this first-mover argument, then yes you could. However, since evolution describes demonstrable phenomena to which we simply assign names and descriptions, it wouldn't really work the same way.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
Posts: 9915
Threads: 53
Joined: November 27, 2015
Reputation:
92
Dr. Craig is a liar.
May 10, 2016 at 10:42 am
(This post was last modified: May 10, 2016 at 10:43 am by LadyForCamus.)
@Roadrunner
The reason for the claim is that the claimant believes God exists. How does this lend it credit? My point isn't that the argument is absurd, it's that philosophical argument alone without supporting evidence is meaningless and of no practical use.
Sure, go ahead with the evolution example; I'm interested in seeing what you come up with.
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Posts: 9915
Threads: 53
Joined: November 27, 2015
Reputation:
92
Dr. Craig is a liar.
May 10, 2016 at 10:44 am
(May 10, 2016 at 10:42 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: (May 10, 2016 at 10:38 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: [*]
If you ignore the reasons for the claim, you could do that. Can I take evolution, and just substitute in other things, to show that the claims are absurd? [*]
If we were simply defining evolution into existence, as you're effectively doing with the God of this first-mover argument, then yes you could. However, since evolution describes demonstrable phenomena to which we simply assign names and descriptions, it wouldn't really work the same way.
Oh, let him try. It might be fun. :: popcorn :: [emoji56]
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Posts: 3709
Threads: 18
Joined: September 29, 2015
Reputation:
10
RE: Dr. Craig is a liar.
May 10, 2016 at 10:45 am
(May 9, 2016 at 10:04 pm)Jehanne Wrote: If the set of natural numbers is an actual infinite set (most mathematicians say that it is), does "god" have an infinite number of thoughts in his head? Or, is there a natural number that "god" does not know about?
Are we discovering new numbers, that we previously did not have knowledge of? It doesn't seem to me, that knowledge of (in this case) constitutes an actual infinity.
Posts: 7259
Threads: 506
Joined: December 12, 2015
Reputation:
22
RE: Dr. Craig is a liar.
May 10, 2016 at 10:55 am
(May 10, 2016 at 9:58 am)SteveII Wrote: (May 9, 2016 at 10:04 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Notice how Steve is ignoring my posts; perhaps someone else can answer for him.
You are asking the same thing as "can God make a rock so big that he can't pick it up". No, God cannot do logically impossible things like count all the natural numbers.
Seems like special pleading to say that god can create something out of nothing, as others have pointed out. But, as I have asked (as have others), when did god go from being "timeless" to being "timely" (sorry if that is not the correct word); what caused god to change states?
Posts: 3709
Threads: 18
Joined: September 29, 2015
Reputation:
10
RE: Dr. Craig is a liar.
May 10, 2016 at 10:59 am
(May 10, 2016 at 10:42 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: (May 10, 2016 at 10:38 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: [*]
If you ignore the reasons for the claim, you could do that. Can I take evolution, and just substitute in other things, to show that the claims are absurd? [*]
If we were simply defining evolution into existence, as you're effectively doing with the God of this first-mover argument, then yes you could. However, since evolution describes demonstrable phenomena to which we simply assign names and descriptions, it wouldn't really work the same way. [*]
Yes.... I am still waiting for my kit, in which I can reproduce common descent evolution (probably should send you an address). However, I think that it really shows a lack of understanding of the premise "everything that begins to exist... has a cause" to think that "begins" can arbitrarily be replaced with "blue". I can understand the case being made, concerning the ontological argument; however, I think it is misguided here.
|