Dr. Craig contradiction.

[athrock]

The problem of evil was one attempt at this, but it has been refuted by Plantinga, and no one considers the intellectual problem of evil to be the knock-down argument that it was previously. The emotional problem of evil still seems to have some punch simply because hearts ARE obviously moved by the pain they experience and observe.

Maybe Plantinga considers it to be "refuted", but I certainly do not, and there are atheistic philosophers who do not agree with Plantinga on this.  It's a sidebar, yes, but I have listened to Plantinga (on the Closer to Truth series), and I find his arguments wanting, if not somewhat pathetic.

Pathetic?   That doesn't seem to be the consensus among professional philosophers.

However, to be fair, what can you tell me about the position of ATHEIST philosophers who have interacted with Plantiga's work on the Problem of Evil? 

Are there any websites, blogs or online articles that you recommend from one or more of the "big boys"?

[JuliaL]

[SteveII]

[robvalue]

7. He can do just enough to be really, really cool but has enough restrictions so you can't punk him out or blame him for anything.

[Whateverist]

Now, I haven't spent any time on this, but perhaps Craig has had a personal experience of meeting the Risen Jesus and therefore knows (assuming he was not hallucinating, etc.) that Jesus is alive. Okay, fine. But what can Craig say of value to you about what is a non-verifiable, non-repeatable experience? Just "See for yourself?"

But what I wonder about from these reported meetings with Jesus is how the believer goes from the private, intra-psychic experience of being with .. something -> to verifying the alleged omni powers of God.  Presumably it is the immediacy of the meeting which seals the deal, but the content of what gets believed comes from elsewhere.  On account of the experience one becomes resolute in believing a number of things about the nature of God which was in no way conveyed by way of the experience.  Shouldn't that bother people?  What if they're having a genuine experience of some significance and immediately misattributing it out of some pre-existing bias?

Put God in the natural world as an intra-psychic phenomenon or else leave Him in the round file of the supernatural zone.  Your choice.

[robvalue]

Oh wait...

I've really done it now, huh.

This is a list of things I can do that God cannot. They are individually based on information different people have given me about God, or on my own observations. It's supposed to be the same being, right?

Feel free to add your own

1) I can demonstrate that I exist.

2) I am easily recognised as being me.

3) Everyone sees me the same way.

4) I can reply to any question put to me, by different people, with the same answer.

5) I can stand in front of people.

6) I can be near people without them dying instantly.

7) I can have an immediate and unambiguous effect upon reality, on request.

8) I can lie.

9) I can do "evil".

10) I can forgive people without first killing another version of myself.

11) I can provide useful information to people that they didn't already know.

12) I have a physical form.

13) I can create things without getting angry and punishing them because I dislike the way I've made them.

14) I can die.

15) I can communicate with people directly and clearly.

16) I can instantly clear up any misunderstandings about my intentions or desires.

17) I can learn.

18) I can take responsibility for my actions.

19) I can have a meaningful relationship with an atheist.

20) I can clearly exist without causing people to lose their free will.

[athrock]

[athrock]

Now, I haven't spent any time on this, but perhaps Craig has had a personal experience of meeting the Risen Jesus and therefore knows (assuming he was not hallucinating, etc.) that Jesus is alive. Okay, fine. But what can Craig say of value to you about what is a non-verifiable, non-repeatable experience? Just "See for yourself?"

But what I wonder about from these reported meetings with Jesus is how the believer goes from the private, intra-psychic experience of being with .. something -> to verifying the alleged omni powers of God.  Presumably it is the immediacy of the meeting which seals the deal, but the content of what gets believed comes from elsewhere.  On account of the experience one becomes resolute in believing a number of things about the nature of God which was in no way conveyed by way of the experience.  Shouldn't that bother people?  What if they're having a genuine experience of some significance and immediately misattributing it out of some pre-existing bias?

Put God in the natural world as an intra-psychic phenomenon or else leave Him in the round file of the supernatural zone.  Your choice.

W-

I would say this about that: If someone MEETS God, I don't think that it will be the case that he or she walks away from that encounter unmoved by the awesomeness of God. I mean, it won't be like striking up a casual conversation about the Mets with the vendor at the train station magazine stand, ya know?

But at the same time, your point is fair. As a result, I think that someone who has a genuine experience of God will still need to LEARN theology in order to understand what has been reasoned out and gathered from experiences like this from others over the course of several thousand years.

IOW, just because Jesus speaks to you in the shower, it does not mean that you will have anything intelligent to say about the hypostatic union or the filioque.

[athrock]

Oh wait...

I've really done it now, huh.

This is a list of things I can do that God cannot. They are individually based on information different people have given me about God, or on my own observations. It's supposed to be the same being, right?

Feel free to add your own

1) I can demonstrate that I exist.

2) I am easily recognised as being me.

3) Everyone sees me the same way.

4) I can reply to any question put to me, by different people, with the same answer.

5) I can stand in front of people.

6) I can be near people without them dying instantly.

7) I can have an immediate and unambiguous effect upon reality, on request.

8) I can lie.

9) I can do "evil".

10) I can forgive people without first killing another version of myself.

11) I can provide useful information to people that they didn't already know.

12) I have a physical form.

13) I can create things without getting angry and punishing them because I dislike the way I've made them.

14) I can die.

15) I can communicate with people directly and clearly.

16) I can instantly clear up any misunderstandings about my intentions or desires.

17) I can learn.

18) I can take responsibility for my actions.

19) I can have a meaningful relationship with an atheist.

20) I can clearly exist without causing people to lose their free will.

Well, rob, I could take this list apart point by point, but then Stimbo would accuse me of being condescending again. He likes that word.

[Jehanne]