Dr. Craig is a liar.

[Huggy Bear]

Allow me to demonstrate:


*emphasis mine*
The answer to your last question brings us right back to the beginning, hence going in circles.

Ok, we're half way there. I was confused, because in the first part of that post, you also said that God was eternal and timeless, but you haven't explained how you can know this and not know this at the same time.  Remember? You said that my pointing out the contradiction in your statements was a "snide comment" and you've been filibustering ever since.

---

God is eternal, which is the very definition of timeless (no beginning and no end) since it cant be measured.

You listed two very abstract and supernatural qualities. You then attributed them to "God". Either you know what God's essence is and can affirm that these qualities have/do not have to do with his essence, or you do not know anything about God's essence and should refrain from ascribing properties to God and giving it names...such as God.

I don't presume to know what the essence of God is, I haven't reached that level of arrogance just yet.

Contradiction to the statement at the top which, coincidentally, came from the exact same post on the timeline. You're kind of in a box here, bro. Try something new...humility, perhaps? Honesty, maybe?

Once again, and I quote:

I know nothing more than what the bible states.

I'm only stating what the bible says, it's not like I'm making it up out of whole cloth.

Deuteronomy 33:27
The eternal God is thy refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms:

1 Timothy 1:17
Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

It's funny how you guys will latch onto a subject that has nothing to do with the original point being made when you think you've somehow have me cornered.

[The Reality Salesman01]

ok! You took the tail-between-the-legs route rather than admit you stuck your foot in your mouth...

Huggy, you do not have any priveledged access to bibles. If we wanted to know what the bible has to say, we can read it ourselves. It would be better for all of us if you'd get it through your head that many of us have and do read the bible. I come on this forum to hear what people think, not hear you regurgitate what you've been trained to think. Say what you mean, and mean what you say. If you fail to do one of those things, don't be a bitch. Own it and move on.

[The Reality Salesman01]

And by the way, what you see as "hanging on to one little thing..." We see as honest intellectual dialogue. You spew out tons of verbal diarrhea and it's impossible to get you to nail down a specific thought long enough to consider whether you've made a point. When someone engages something you say, it's courteous to respond honestly. The way you've just behaved, from beginning to end, is embarrassing for adult standards. And your right, you have to recognize that there's are rules in rational discourse to know when you are cornered, but you don't need to worry about that...

[Huggy Bear]

ok! You took the tail-between-the-legs route rather than admit you stuck your foot in your mouth...

Huggy, you do not have any priveledged access to bibles. If we wanted to know what the bible has to say, we can read it ourselves. It would be better for all of us if you'd get it through your head that many of us have and do read the bible. I come on this forum to hear what people think, not hear you regurgitate what you've been trained to think. Say what you mean, and mean what you say. If you fail to do one of those things, don't be a bitch. Own it and move on.

So if you acknowledge the fact that the bible states that God is eternal, why are you pretending that it's my own personal opinion?

[Silver]

So if you acknowledge the fact that the bible states that God is eternal, why are you pretending that it's my own personal opinion?

The bible can state all it fucking wants, it does not mean what is in the book is real.

The bible is fiction.

[wiploc]

... no one is using the KCA alone to prove God's existence. There are additional reasons to think that God exists. 

Natural Theology:

• Cosmological Argument from Contingency
  
• Basis for Moral Absolutes
  
• Teleological Argument from Fine Tuning
  
• The Ontological Argument
  

These are all total failures.  I don't want to hijack this thread, but if you'd like a new thread on whichever one of these you think is strongest (or on all of them, but one at a time) then I'll be happy to explain what's wrong with them.  

Revealed Theology:

• The OT
  
• The NT
  
• Miracles
  

The OT is shot thru with absurdities, atrocities, and self-contradictions.  

The NT likewise, I assume.  

I assume that miracles are all lies or delusions, and that whatever you think is proven by your miracles is just as strongly disproven by other miracles.  

None of these seems to me even slightly persuasive.  

Individual's personal experience

A friend of mine said she experienced god.  She felt/knew his presence.  That's how she knows that trinitarian doctrine is wrong.  She essentially met god, and it was only one person, not three.  

This is, I assume, the quality of argument we get based on personal experience.  If we accept personal experience as proof, then we wind up believing contradictory things, both A and not-A, both trinity and not trinity. 

The only way to reach a conclusion based on these subjective events is to cherry pick them, relying on the stories that seem to confirm whatever it is that you want to believe.  

While you may debate as to how much evidence each gives, they mostly stand or fall together so if someone wants to say there is no proof for God, you would have to dismantle all of them to support that statement.

I'm happy to start.  I think it should be in a new thread.  I enjoy the first group of arguments, natural theology, so I'd greatly prefer to start there.  

I am sure there are some people here who think they can do that, but what it really comes down to is that it takes an extremely high level of skepticism to deny all of them.

No, I disagree.  I think that reasonable and open-minded people will reject all of those arguments based on their obvious unsoundness.  I think only motivated believers--those who have a belief they desperately want to believe is justified--can think these arguments are reasonable.  

At that level of skepticism, you have to start asking if it possible to believe in anything.

That's a familiar argument.  I frequently use it myself, but aimed the other direction.  The arguments you list are patently flawed.  It doesn't take any great skepticism to dismiss them.  It takes only logic.  

OR, is it more often the case that non-belief  is a result of an emotional response...perhaps because suffering exists or some related objection?

The existence of suffering makes a specific type of god (tri-omni: omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent) impossible.  But that isn't why we disbelieve in gods generally.  As a general rule, we don't believe in gods for the same reason we don't believe in Santa Clause.  Gods are implausible.  When they aren't actually impossible (like the tri-omni god who coexists with suffering, or the omnipotent god who can't defeat iron chariots) they are extraordinarily unlikely (like the god who flies by throwing a hammer so hard that it pulls him wherever he wants to go, or the god who was born twice, once from her father's forehead).  

If I say I can walk on water and change water into wine and raise people from the dead, you won't believe me.  And your nonbelief will be entirely reasonable.  So I don't believe you when you tell the same stories, and my nonbelief is equally reasonable.  

That's not evidence of "an extremely high level of skepticism."  It's just how rational minds work.  

[/quote]

[Jehanne]

ok! You took the tail-between-the-legs route rather than admit you stuck your foot in your mouth...

Huggy, you do not have any priveledged access to bibles. If we wanted to know what the bible has to say, we can read it ourselves. It would be better for all of us if you'd get it through your head that many of us have and do read the bible. I come on this forum to hear what people think, not hear you regurgitate what you've been trained to think. Say what you mean, and mean what you say. If you fail to do one of those things, don't be a bitch. Own it and move on.

So if you acknowledge the fact that the bible states that God is eternal, why are you pretending that it's my own personal opinion?

It is also states that the early Hebrews were henotheistic:

http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/henotheism.htm

[The Reality Salesman01]

So if you acknowledge the fact that the bible states that God is eternal, why are you pretending that it's my own personal opinion?

Because regardless of where you read the thing you said, in your original post, it didn't come out like a quote, it came out as an assertion without reference. And I don't think it was an accident. I think you said it as if it were a statement of fact because you believe it to be. No? And, I think you believe it to be, because you read it in the bible. You say you don't want to go around in circles, but that's the direction this line of thought is destined to run.

If you are willing to concede that you believe what you've read in the bible to be true, then you are co-signing it, and I would be correct to address your defense of it as if it is your own personal opinion. If not, what the hell are you defending, exactly?

[Huggy Bear]

So if you acknowledge the fact that the bible states that God is eternal, why are you pretending that it's my own personal opinion?

Because regardless of where you read the thing you said, in your original post, it didn't come out like a quote, it came out as an assertion without reference. And I don't think it was an accident. I think you said it as if it were a statement of fact because you believe it to be. No?  And, I think you believe it to be, because you read it in the bible. You say you don't want to go around in circles, but that's the direction this line of thought is destined to run.

If you are willing to concede that you believe what you've read in the bible to be true, then you are co-signing it, and I would be correct to address your defense of it as if it is your own personal opinion. If not, what the hell are you defending, exactly?

Wait... Because I believe what the bible says about god being eternal, somehow equates into me knowing the essence of God?

Let me turn your logic back onto you a second, I'm sure you believe life started on earth through abiogenesis, go ahead and explain the exact process; preferably in a way that can be reproduced scientifically.

[LadyForCamus]

Well, isn't that a terrible analogy...