3
   

God kills through random chance.

 
 
mikeymojo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Apr, 2014 10:35 pm
@Krumple,
If he wasn't Christian he probably would've died in the elevator shaft. God just spared the Christian so He could get a few extra minutes of 'servitude' out of him before correcting fate. And if that's 'God's plan' at work, then God is as crazy as the best of em. Then again, I'm sure no unearthly force caused the incident. He probably knocked it on himself, being all scared and happy at the same time.
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Apr, 2014 10:50 pm
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

Part of the problem with the question of evil in the world is the question of what is meant by the term 'omnipotence'. The evidence indicates that God does not interfere directly with physical reality. If he were to bend one of the laws of physics just once for the benefit of one particular person, the whole thing would collapse, i.e. EVERYBODY would be demanding exemptions the next day...


Alright. I won't argue but at the same time this would also mean prayer is pointless. Because prayer would have the same impact. It would require that god intervene in some way that effected the world.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Apr, 2014 04:33 am
@Krumple,
Don't pray for violations of physical laws; pray for the strength and wisdom to deal with whatever you need to deal with.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2014 10:25 pm
Theism vs Naturalism best debate so far :



Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Apr, 2014 09:34 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Theism vs Naturalism best debate so far :

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07QUPuZg05I[/youtube]




I have seen my fill of william lane craig videos. As far as I am concerned he is a used car salesman for christianity.

Here is one inconsistent logical error on his part.

He will use the kalam cosmological argument to get to the point of saying a god exists. Then he makes a huge leap from there and suggests this god is the same christian god. You can't honestly go from point A being supported by the KCA to Yahweh. It is dishonest and insulting to anyone who understands the tools of logical and deductive reasoning.

Also WLC has been noted to saying to the effect of.

(This is a broken quote)

"If I had a time machine and went back to witness the resurrection of Jesus and yet when I was there and saw nothing happen, I would still believe that the resurrection took place."

This shows that WLC doesn't care about reality. Doesn't care about truth. He wants to believe it is true. So all these debates are nothing but a way for him to make money spreading his delusional ideas. In other words he is a con-artist.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Apr, 2014 01:10 am
@Krumple,
I don't like him either, and yes I agree with you that he is dishonest. But at the same time one has to admit the man is brilliant. In here he doesn't need to make a case for the Christian God n he doesn't make it, rather he argues about a transcendental cause which to some extent he does very well. When he argues for the Christian God he shifts for the historicity of Jesus Christ, which is the natural smart move...in any case he has had the merit of constantly beating up most atheist spokesman I saw, formally speaking that is. This is actually the only case I remember on which I didn't think he clearly won the debate. I am glad someone has prepared well this time around.

PS - If you consider his starting position and all the nonsense he has to defend you have to grant him credit. WLC is also a perfect good example on the power of well trained philosophers and to an extent a good lesson for some people in Science.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Apr, 2014 08:18 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

I don't like him either, and yes I agree with you that he is dishonest. But at the same time one has to admit the man is brilliant. In here he doesn't need to make a case for the Christian God n he doesn't make it, rather he argues about a transcendental cause which to some extent he does very well. When he argues for the Christian God he shifts for the historicity of Jesus Christ, which is the natural smart move...in any case he has had the merit of constantly beating up most atheist spokesman I saw, formally speaking that is. This is actually the only case I remember on which I didn't think he clearly won the debate. I am glad someone has prepared well this time around.

PS - If you consider his starting position and all the nonsense he has to defend you have to grant him credit. WLC is also a perfect good example on the power of well trained philosophers and to an extent a good lesson for some people in Science.


He might be good at public speaking but that is about all I give him credit for. As for being a philosopher or utilizing logical reasoning he fails at completely. He is almost ALWAYS dishonest in the logical conclusions or claims and his premises NEVER support those conclusions. You don't get credit for being good at public speaking, you want to know who else is great at talking? Used car salesmen, lawyers and insurance salesmen. Pretty much all three of them are trying to scam you in some way. I see apologists just like them, dishonest and their underline motivation for what they do is to sell books and make money on public speeches.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Apr, 2014 11:35 pm
@Krumple,
Well Krumple I could agree with you up to the extent that what you saying speaks even more about his adversaries then it speaks about him in so far...but such is the state of our world nowadays...salesman beating up formal leaders of knowledge n science is a sad sight.
(...to me a wise reason to run of Universities like hell if you are seeking anything more then status quo...)
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Apr, 2014 02:26 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Well Krumple I could agree with you up to the extent that what you saying speaks even more about his adversaries then it speaks about him in so far...but such is the state of our world nowadays...salesman beating up formal leaders of knowledge n science is a sad sight.
(...to me a wise reason to run of Universities like hell if you are seeking anything more then status quo...)


I think it comes down to a few aspects. One is, I am willing for theists to convince me or to get me to see a piece of information that would change my mind. I am open to the possibility that I am wrong. Yet many apologists, WLC included claim that they would not change their minds.

This to me essentially says then why should I listen to what you have to say if no matter what I say in return you will completely ignore it? I know there are many theists who exercise the proverbial fingers in the ears attitude when having a discussion. They just want to dictate their beliefs but any counter arguments go ignored.

To me it has to be a two way street or I have no respect for a person trying to have a philosophical discussion. If WLC had said the opposite to his hypothetical story, that he would have to reconsider his beliefs, that would have launched him into more respect from me.
AugustineBrother
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Aug, 2016 02:31 pm
@Krumple,
Too bad you scorn the Eastern view on these things. You erroneously argue that you know what is good and bad and that God is implicated when either one happens. Simply false and everyday life shows it to be wrong.


This farmer had only one horse, and one day the horse ran away. The neighbors came to condole over his terrible loss. The farmer said, "What makes you think it is so terrible?"

A month later, the horse came home--this time bringing with her two beautiful wild horses. The neighbors became excited at the farmer's good fortune. Such lovely strong horses! The farmer said, "What makes you think this is good fortune?"

The farmer's son was thrown from one of the wild horses and broke his leg. All the neighbors were very distressed. Such bad luck! The farmer said, "What makes you think it is bad?"

A war came, and every able-bodied man was conscripted and sent into battle. Only the farmer's son, because he had a broken leg, remained. The neighbors congratulated the farmer. "What makes you think this is good?" said the farmer.
0 Replies
 
AugustineBrother
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Aug, 2016 03:46 pm
@Krumple,
Don't you see how insincere you appear and are. You are willing to be convinced but you think believers are not willing to be convinced WHICH MUST MEAN that if they convinced you you would have to be open to being wrong or else be al liar and a hypocrite.

But long years dealing with people like you gives me the answer. You don't believe reason is worth anything and you never will commit to anything your mind leads you to if you don't WANT to.;

Which is all to say: You despise reason and those who follow it.
0 Replies
 
CVeigh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2016 11:00 am
@Insty,
SUPERB ANSWER
0 Replies
 
CVeigh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2016 11:01 am
@prothero,
If I thought like you I'd be headed for the poison.
0 Replies
 
CVeigh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2016 11:03 am
@kennethamy,
Only Shakespeare himself did not think that.

Not only that, he drew the most of his profoundest thoughts from the Bible

See if I made this up :
Biblical References in Shakespeare’s Plays

by Naseeb Shaheen

"Hamlet and Othello each have more than fifty biblical references."

Hardcover: 879 pages <==============================
Publisher: University of Delaware Press
0 Replies
 
CVeigh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2016 11:04 am
@prothero,
Whly do people use Cocktail Party Talk like 'not necessarily' ?? Are you saying that sometimes God and Nature are the same? And what's with 'concept' God is not a concept as 'nature' is.

Gives me the shivers, reminds me of those dreadful grad school parties where Nerdo says things about Adorno so the pretty girl will go out with him.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2017 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 1.87 seconds on 05/29/2017 at 03:41:08