Does God exist? (2 Viewers)

[RANK 1]

I don't believe in a God until I see one, but without religion our ethics and morals would be up shit creek to say the least. You think Christianity's bad? Imagine if there wasn't.. It wouldn't be all sunshine and daises, it would be North Korea.

ethics and morals dont rely on religion they generally revolves around the needs and functions of society, basic things like don't kill everyone etc promote growth and hence the societies who generally follow this become larger and more dominant than the ones who don't so eventually the morals of the those societies becomes the standard

 

[BradCube]

Hi Guys,

Been years since I posted here, but just thought I would mention that William Lane Craig is just about to arrive for a 3 week speaking tour in Aus. Might be of interest to some of you. For those that don't know, Craig is a Christian philosopher, theologian and apologist. He holds doctorates in both Philosophy and Theology and typically debates on topics surrounding God's existence. During this tour it looks like he'll being doing multiple debates with Lawrence Krauss and one with Peter Slyzack as well as lectures throughout various campuses around the country.

For those that are interested, a full outline of the schedule can be found here:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/calendar/event/2621/2013/08/02

 

[Garygaz]

egh he's already been schooled by hitchens and harris. i don't know why krauss goes around debating and participating in public discourse like this, his strong point is in the lab and during pre-planned presentations. loses his cool against people who make claims outside the realm of reality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIGZsQTzgCI

anyways, just watch the first bit of that. every single argument he makes is on the presumption that god exists and the burden of proof is on an atheist/anyone else to prove god doesn't exist. that's right, he has the benefit of having the only entity in the universe that needs to be disproved rather than proved. why? cause he 'believes' it.

 

[BradCube]

Hey Gary,

I'm unsure whether you have watched all of the Craig v. Hitchens debate but I don't think I would have described it as Hitchens schooling Craig by any means. Even atheistic blogs from the time of the debate didn't seem to describe it like that from memory.

The link you have provided is from the closing of the debate during question time, so I'm unsure why you are surprised that he is talking under the assumption that God exists when responding to a question concerning the problem of suffering? The three opening arguments from Craig's debates (Kalam, Teleological and Moral) don't run on a presumption that God exists - after all, they wouldn't be arguments for God's existence if they did!

 

[Frostbitten]

Hey Gary,

I'm unsure whether you have watched all of the Craig v. Hitchens debate but I don't think I would have described it as Hitchens schooling Craig by any means. Even atheistic blogs from the time of the debate didn't seem to describe it like that from memory.

The link you have provided is from the closing of the debate during question time, so I'm unsure why you are surprised that he is talking under the assumption that God exists when responding to a question concerning the problem of suffering? The three opening arguments from Craig's debates (Kalam, Teleological and Moral) don't run on a presumption that God exists - after all, they wouldn't be arguments for God's existence if they did!

Apparently he is meant to be shit because he relies predominantly on his debating background (he is a master debater (ba dum chh oh! oh! but srs guys he is a master debater) instead of the content on the issue. But that's simply what I have heard.

 

[funkshen]

considering that the format specifically precludes the possibility of a dialectic, the outcome of debates is simply a measure of the skill and luck of the orator. a debate is, essentially, a sophistic skirmish rather than a rigorous and honest intellectual exercise.

consider william lane craig's opening sentence in the video linked, regarding the coexistence of evil and the three qualities of the abrahamic god (i.e. "he works in mysterious ways".

"god's purpose for human history is to bring the maximum number of people freely into his kingdom, to find salvation and eternal life. and how do we know that wouldn't require that is simply suffused with natural and moral suffering. it might be that only in a world like that would freely come to know god to find salvation. so they athiest would have to show..."

how could anyone, in three minutes, honestly rebut this argument? and if you fail to do so, you have conceded the point? ludicrous, which is why hitchens doesn't answer it all, and replies with rhetoric in kind.

people who, having watched this kind of shit, think they are personally closer to the truth, are fucking idiots. winning a debate is an intellectually shallow and moribund victory.

 

[BradCube]

I'm not sure many would take a debate as the whole story of truth - but at the very least, it gets people thinking and open to the idea that a particular position may have more to it than was once thought. If a debate encourages further research, investigation and general truth seeking, then I view it in a pretty positive light.

Personally I'm not too concerned that there are time limits on replies etc. That's a two edge sword that works against both participants and has to be there for the practicality of a time limit on a debate as a whole. Besides, both participants are likely to have their own body of written works which would flesh out the finer details of their positions anyway

 

[funkshen]

I'm not sure many would take a debate as the whole story of truth - but at the very least, it gets people thinking and open to the idea that a particular position may have more to it than was once thought.

when such a charged issue is being debated, and when character such as william lane craig participate, i am generally quite skeptical about the capacity of the debate format to promote free thought.

If a debate encourages further research, investigation and general truth seeking, then I view it in a pretty positive light.

this is a post-hoc justification of the oratory tactics of both parties, and obviously begs the question.

Personally I'm not too concerned that there are time limits on replies etc. That's a two edge sword that works against both participants and has to be there for the practicality of a time limit on a debate as a whole. Besides, both participants are likely to have their own body of written works which would flesh out the finer details of their positions anyway

no, this is patently false. i suspect that, because of your own biases, you are compelled to rationalise the flaws of the debate format, but i don't need to attack your character to make my point.

yes the time limits have to be there, but if you actually read what I or garygaz said, the debate format (including these time limits) is often stacked in the favour of one party, such as craig, who can exploit the format to impose unrealistic burdens on their opponents. craig, for instance, inserts a large number of assumptions, misrepresentations and ambiguities into his arguments. there are various reasons craig can get away with this, mostly because many of his tactics, such as assuming that god exists, equivocating between 'god' and 'the abrahamic god', are rendered relatively innocuous due to the cultural and philosophical context of this debate. mounting a defence against these tactics is an immense task, and is often pointless considering that you cannot rebut every argument or address every assumption, and the ones not rebutted will be claimed to be conceded. on top of this, if you do so, craig will accuse you of diverting the discussion and not addressing the question.

your final point, that participants have their own body of written works, is only half true. the benefit of debates is that they are accessible, and demand far less mental effort and cogitation than reading a book and really scrutinising an author's argument. if the debate was an impartial and honest means of exposing an audience to the philosophy and works of either participant, you might be right. but it's no surprise that william lane craig is far less impressive in paper than he is in person.

 

[BradCube]

this is a post-hoc justification of the oratory tactics of both parties, and obviously begs the question.

What question does it beg? I don't really care much for whether it's post hoc or a priori - if debate encourages self introspection and examination of beliefs, then I don't think it's really that much of a problem (pending any moral considerations). I can't really see all that many negatives for the format. If you don't personally enjoy it, no one is forcing you to attend.

no, this is patently false. i suspect that, because of your own biases, you are compelled to rationalise the flaws of the debate format, but i don't need to attack your character to make my point.

What is patently false? Personally I prefer reading books than watching debates anyhow, but I find debates do motivate me to research further.

yes the time limits have to be there, but if you actually read what I or garygaz said, the debate format (including these time limits) is often stacked in the favour of one party, such as craig, who can exploit the format to impose unrealistic burdens on their opponents. craig, for instance, inserts a large number of assumptions, misrepresentations and ambiguities into his arguments. there are various reasons craig can get away with this, mostly because many of his tactics, such as assuming that god exists, equivocating between 'god' and 'the abrahamic god', are rendered relatively innocuous due to the cultural and philosophical context of this debate. mounting a defence against these tactics is an immense task, and is often pointless considering that you cannot rebut every argument or address every assumption, and the ones not rebutted will be claimed to be conceded. on top of this, if you do so, craig will accuse you of diverting the discussion and not addressing the question.

Why is it stacked in favor of Craig? Surely an opponent is equally able to throw in their own assumptions etc to overwhelm Craig? Character bashing without specific reference and examples doesn't help to further your point.

your final point, that participants have their own body of written works, is only half true. the benefit of debates is that they are accessible, and demand far less mental effort and cogitation than reading a book and really scrutinising an author's argument. if the debate was an impartial and honest means of exposing an audience to the philosophy and works of either participant, you might be right. but it's no surprise that william lane craig is far less impressive in paper than he is in person.

To be honest, I find his written work far more impressive because he is afforded the space to defend each of his premises to the n'th degree. Which works of his have you read?

 

[funkshen]

What question does it beg? I don't really care much for whether it's post hoc or a priori - if debate encourages self introspection and examination of beliefs, then I don't think it's really that much of a problem (pending any moral considerations). I can't really see all that many negatives for the format. If you don't personally enjoy it, no one is forcing you to attend.

not sure if you understand what begging the question is. your conclusion - roughly, that debates are a net intellectual positive - is based on a number of premises (gets people thinking, promotes open thought, so on and so forth) that also require proof. given that i have written sufficiently about how free thought, honest exchange and intellectual growth are often severely limited by the debate format i would say this premise is not an unqualified truth, and in many debates craig participates in, a falsehood.

What is patently false? Personally I prefer reading books than watching debates anyhow, but I find debates do motivate me to research further.

reading comprehension

Why is it stacked in favor of Craig? Surely an opponent is equally able to throw in their own assumptions etc to overwhelm Craig?

reading comprehension. see my previous post for a good example of how craig constructs an argument that is effectively impervious to rebuttal.

consider this: in almost every, debate craig will employ the "the athiest has to" tactic where he constructs some false dilemma to distract and/or burden his opponent. as an audience member this has the effect of undermining the other party's credibility; of course, this is the intent. typically, the assumption that god (or to make it even more difficutl, the abrahamic god) exists underlies these false dilemmas. but think about someone doing so in any another circumstance. consider a debate about whether zeus exists or not, where the party answering in the positive says "well to prove zeus doesn't exist, the athiest has to explain heracles' superhuman strength!". in our cultural and philosophical context, to proffer such an argument, premised on the fact that heracles has superhuman strength or that his parentage need be assessed, would be ludicrous.

Character bashing without specific reference and examples doesn't help to further your point.

this is not character bashing. in fact, i have made no disparaging comments about craig's character at all. his performance in debates and his oratory tactics are well documented.

To be honest, I find his written work far more impressive because he is afforded the space to defend each of his premises to the n'th degree. Which works of his have you read?

i didn't say his written work wasn't impressive. my point was that he is an excellent debater. his written work, however, is as full of holes as the next metaphysical text. this is why his real success has been and will always be as a public intellectual and as a theist attack dog, and why his audience will always generally be confined to the more reasonable creationist.

i'm glad that you agree that written works are a much more appropriate medium for intellectual communication.

 

[BradCube]

not sure if you understand what begging the question is. your conclusion - roughly, that debates are a net intellectual positive - is based on a number of premises (gets people thinking, promotes open thought, so on and so forth) that also require proof. given that i have written sufficiently about how free thought, honest exchange and intellectual growth are often severely limited by the debate format i would say this premise is not an unqualified truth, and in many debates craig participates in, a falsehood.

I understand what question begging is - I just don't see why it's such a stretch to think that debate can promote thought and investigation of ones own beliefs. Guess I'm just talking from personal experience and assumed others would also find it similar. Perhaps I am wrong.

see my previous post for a good example of how craig constructs an argument that is effectively impervious to rebuttal.

The reason it is impervious to rebuttal is because it's very difficult to show God could not have morally sufficient grounds for allowing suffering. This isn't a slight of hand or trickery by Craig however, it's just logical conclusion from what he is saying.

consider this: in almost every, debate craig will employ the "the athiest has to" tactic where he constructs some false dilemma to distract and/or burden his opponent. as an audience member this has the effect of undermining the other party's credibility; of course, this is the intent. typically, the assumption that god (or to make it even more difficutl, the abrahamic god) exists underlies these false dilemmas.

I'm not sure that this is a fair representation of his strategy. Typically Craig lists out a few or more separate arguments for Gods existence. If those arguments hold water then they constitute good reasons for believing God exists. Craig simply asks his opponent to show where those arguments don't work and/or provide their own independent arguments for thinking God does not exists. The fact that Craig resuses the same arguments again and again for each debate should make it fairly easy for the opponent to become familiar with his work in advance so that they have time to prepare answers and think the arguments through for themselves.

but think about someone doing so in any another circumstance. consider a debate about whether zeus exists or not, where the party answering in the positive says "well to prove zeus doesn't exist, the athiest has to explain heracles' superhuman strength!". in our cultural and philosophical context, to proffer such an argument, premised on the fact that heracles has superhuman strength or that his parentage need be assessed, would be ludicrous.

I don't understand the comparison at all unfortunately. Craig's conclusions rely on premises that have nothing to do with mythology. Typically they are based on scientific evidence, philosophical truths or truths we apprehend intuitively (ie moral truths).

i didn't say his written work wasn't impressive. my point was that he is an excellent debater. his written work, however, is as full of holes as the next metaphysical text.

Do you have some specific examples or are you meaning to write off the study of metaphysics as a discipline?

PS. That isn't meant to read as harsh or abruptly as it probably does!

 

[braintic]

Yay, Atheism has taken the lead.

 

[Menomaths]

The world is coming to an end.

 

[Spiritual Being]

I think God exists!

 

[braintic]

The world is coming to an end.

No, only the world as we've known it is all too slowly changing for the better.

 

[braintic]

I think God exists!

You think!! God exists!!

 

[Menomaths]

No, only the world as we've known it is all too slowly changing for the better.

I don't see the world becoming better, it's becoming much worse than it ever was before.

 

[nerdasdasd]

Ok, some book says 'oh there was a god', hence god exists (SARCASM)...... There needs to be scientific evidence on any level to prove the existence of god...

YES, no one has seen atoms, but scientific tests have been undergone to prove its existence.

Note: I do respect other people's opinions in regards to this issue.

 

[Menomaths]

Ok, some book says 'oh there was a god', hence god exists (SARCASM)...... There needs to be scientific evidence on any level to prove the existence of god...

YES, no one has seen atoms, but scientific tests have been undergone to prove its existence.

Note: I do respect other people's opinions in regards to this issue.

Maybe we haven't got the technology to prove the existence of god yet? Like many other things yet to be discovered. You're saying it like we have absolute knowledge, and if we can't prove somethings existence it doesn't exist.

 

[braintic]

Maybe we haven't got the technology to prove the existence of god yet? Like many other things yet to be discovered. You're saying it like we have absolute knowledge, and if we can't prove somethings existence it doesn't exist.

And I believe you're saying if we can't prove something's non-existence then it must exist.

Do you believe in leprechauns? Can you prove they don't exist?

In this regard there is no difference between leprechauns and god, other than the scale of the delusion.

I don't see the world becoming better, it's becoming much worse than it ever was before.

Every society since the dawn of man has believed that they are on the decline. Because time dims the horrors of the past. I guess you are saying that we live in the worst time in history. No? The worst quartile? If you ranked all 200 decades of the last 2000 years, where would we fit? Bear in mind there have always been wars and pestilence - the only difference is that the whole world now gets to know about them all the moment they happen.