Posts: 25314
Threads: 239
Joined: August 26, 2010
Reputation:
156
RE: Dr. Craig is a liar.
May 4, 2016 at 5:44 pm
(May 4, 2016 at 5:25 pm)SteveII Wrote: (May 4, 2016 at 3:40 pm)Stimbo Wrote: It can if non-physical issues supposedly cause physical effects. Then we can test for those.
So you can falsify the beginning of physics? How would you do that?
Where did I claim that? We were talking about science's alleged silence regarding non-physical things.
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 6:21 pm
(May 4, 2016 at 3:57 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: (May 4, 2016 at 3:54 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: I think for something to affect the physical world implies it is physical.
The Abrahamic religions all claim to worship a god who is non-physical but who (once upon a time) interacted directly and often with the physical world. Hell, he ate lunch with fucking Abraham!
Such a being, if it existed and affected the world through its interaction with it, would presumably leave effects that could be studied.
And he has. what do you think the Bible is?
Posts: 3045
Threads: 14
Joined: July 7, 2014
Reputation:
14
RE: Dr. Craig is a liar.
May 4, 2016 at 6:28 pm
(May 4, 2016 at 4:46 pm)dyresand Wrote: (May 4, 2016 at 4:08 pm)SteveII Wrote: Why can't a timeless entity do anything? Even a series of mental events is enough to form a before and after (therefore some measure of "time"). Why does causation need space-time to work? Further, why can't a cause can be simultaneous with its effect?
I don't think you are right about the B theory of time. You might not prefer to call it a beginning, but it will have a front edge. You still have cause and effect to measure a before and after all the way back to that front edge. I merely pointed out that if the B theory of time is correct, it would actually be a more simple relationship between God and time than on the A theory.
Depends if god is anything god himself would need simple like a photon. Even then photons are visible but
are in a timeless state for how fast they move. So if god is in a similar state of a photon how could said being
do anything at all and also how would said being not be visible if it emits any sort of light.
I would respond if I understand anything at all in that paragraph.
Posts: 3045
Threads: 14
Joined: July 7, 2014
Reputation:
14
RE: Dr. Craig is a liar.
May 4, 2016 at 6:50 pm
(May 4, 2016 at 5:44 pm)Stimbo Wrote: (May 4, 2016 at 5:25 pm)SteveII Wrote: So you can falsify the beginning of physics? How would you do that?
Where did I claim that? We were talking about science's alleged silence regarding non-physical things.
Jehanne brought up that God should be falsifiable in response to my discussion on God existing timeless until the creation of the universe.
Posts: 25314
Threads: 239
Joined: August 26, 2010
Reputation:
156
RE: Dr. Craig is a liar.
May 4, 2016 at 7:04 pm
However, I did not.
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: 8237
Threads: 47
Joined: September 12, 2015
Reputation:
42
RE: Dr. Craig is a liar.
May 4, 2016 at 7:25 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.
True that, the scientific method has no way to inspect what is not real. Next piece of nonsense, please.
Urbs Antiqua Fuit Studiisque Asperrima Belli
Home
Posts: 7259
Threads: 506
Joined: December 12, 2015
Reputation:
22
RE: Dr. Craig is a liar.
May 4, 2016 at 7:26 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.
Richard Swinburne:
http://www.closertotruth.com/series/god-all-knowing
Posts: 7259
Threads: 506
Joined: December 12, 2015
Reputation:
22
RE: Dr. Craig is a liar.
May 4, 2016 at 7:27 pm
(May 4, 2016 at 7:25 pm)Constable Dorfl Wrote: (May 4, 2016 at 3:37 pm)SteveII Wrote: 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.
True that, the scientific method has no way to inspect what is not real. Next piece of nonsense, please.
"god?" Here's a good book for you, "36 Arguments for the Existence of God: A Work of Fiction":
http://www.amazon.com/36-Arguments-Exist...0307456714
Posts: 3045
Threads: 14
Joined: July 7, 2014
Reputation:
14
RE: Dr. Craig is a liar.
May 4, 2016 at 8:57 pm
(May 4, 2016 at 7:26 pm)Jehanne Wrote: (May 4, 2016 at 3:37 pm)SteveII Wrote: 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.
Richard Swinburne:
http://www.closertotruth.com/series/god-all-knowing
Did you actually listen to the interview??? This is a discussion on how free will interacts with God's knowledge and doctrinal distinctions. It is not proving what you think it does. Are you going to try again or do you just move on to another ridiculous assertion because that one didn't stick.
Posts: 3045
Threads: 14
Joined: July 7, 2014
Reputation:
14
RE: Dr. Craig is a liar.
May 4, 2016 at 9:03 pm
(May 4, 2016 at 7:25 pm)Constable Dorfl Wrote: (May 4, 2016 at 3:37 pm)SteveII Wrote: 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.
True that, the scientific method has no way to inspect what is not real. Next piece of nonsense, please.
"what is not real" huh. What do you mean by real?
|
