The Black Vault

humphreys wrote:Atheism wins because it invokes no magical beings so does not complicate the problem.

Stating that the universe was created, does not necessarily invoke any "magical beings," nor does it complicate anything. In fact, it's the simplest answer.

frrostedman wrote:

humphreys wrote:Atheism wins because it invokes no magical beings so does not complicate the problem.

Stating that the universe was created, does not necessarily invoke any "magical beings," nor does it complicate anything. In fact, it's the simplest answer.

Any being acting outside of our space and time is rightly deemed "magical", and it complicates things because such a being is more complex than the Universe and therefore more difficult a problem to solve, unless we just throw our hands up and say "well, he's God, what more is there to say?",which is just a cop-out and admittance that we cannot solve the problem.

Being an infinite being, it's as complicated an answer as they come.

Here is an excellent summary of Craig from a scientist called Lawrence Krauss (who is more qualified on cosmology, greeney, if you want to listen to credentials!) and someone who has debated him.

Explains it perfectly, Craig's aim is to "win the debate" by whatever skills or tactics possible, rather than to come to any real consensus on truth through discussion. Part of his tactics is dumbing down the argument into things like "Explain the existence of the Universe! Oops, you can't, so I win".

It highlights a genuine problem with these debates in the first place, that of the need to dumb down the argument and summarize it to a layman crowd in 15-20 minute intervals, it really is not suited to a scientific discussion of the Universe's origins, another thing Craig jumps on to prove his "success" in the debate.

It's a good read and relevant to the thread.

"It sometimes surprises me, although it shouldn’t, how religious devotees feel the need to regularly reinforce their own convictions in groups of like-minded individuals. I suppose this is the purpose of regular Sunday church services, for example, to reinforce the community of belief in between the rest of the week when the real world may show no evidence of God, goodness, fairness, or purpose.

Continued..."

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/6121 ... lane-craig

humphreys wrote:

frrostedman wrote:

humphreys wrote:Atheism wins because it invokes no magical beings so does not complicate the Any being acting outside of our space and time is rightly deemed "magical", and it complicates things because such a being is more complex than the Universe and therefore more difficult a problem to solve, unless we just throw our hands up and say "well, he's God, what more is there to say?",which is just a cop-out and admittance that we cannot solve the problem.

Being an infinite being, it's as complicated an answer as they come.

Actually, the term is "trancendant" being, and not "magical" being.

I hope you have the 20 minutes to watch this -- it addresses our exact dilemma. And ultimately, as RC Sproul concludes... your materialistic view and my theological view boil down to what the name of the self-existant "being" or "force" is. You might call it Charlie or Jimmy. Or maybe you call it "TOE" for short, meaning "table of elements." I call it Yahweh.

http://www.ligonier.org/rym/broadcasts/ ... eing-1576/

Being an infinite being, it's as complicated an answer as they come.

Then your materialistic view of a universe that exists infinitely, is likewise overly-complicated.

I can't watch it at work, I should be able to later.

My immediate response without watching yet would be that the differences between my "Charlie" and your "Yahweh" are tremendous, and are similar only in that they may be deemed the first cause.

Charlie does not answer prayers, or comfort you when you're lonely.

I apologize if that is covered in the video, but it jumps out at me as being a very significant objection.

Humphreys,

You are illustrating clearly here ..the limits of your Public School Education.


Here is the first problem...Provinciality.

3) Lack of objective morality in an atheist worldview

Here..this...Humphreys,

I disagree, I think you give the arguments in these debates far too much credit.

It's exactly like politics. Obama convinced a nation that he was the man for the job in brilliant style, just like Craig, who could win a debate arguing that the sky was brown.

Not enough credit... since what is going on on forums like this is a religion...a religious debate..on both sides.

And Politics too is a religion..this is obvious to thinking people because more and more ..politics is shown not to be the product advertised.

Thus there is something hidden and concealed about politics and putting it under the onus of Occult/Hidden and concealed devout zealous religion...which is from very ancient religious doctrine and dogma. Unfortunately ..most Public School Educated people know very little about Occult Religions, as it is never taught, and must therefore bash the religions they mostly have been taught to hate and put down.
Their thinking set is incomplete and most Atheists don't even know it.
This followed by the obvious...that most Atheists know even less history ...but get by on people ..even Believers who know even less history than they.

That is ...until they run into a StumblingStone like the individual you are describing in your OP here Humphreys.

That this individual is a StumblingStone is obvious in your writings but I think you lack the tools to handle it...much less understand it. Thus you come up with all the logical/reasonable techniques to explain it away.

To those who know it's origins...what you are doing Humphreys is Politic and thus religious in its origins. The other very popular word for what you are attemptig to do ...is Spin. And you are back to politics/religion again.



Suggest you go into fields where you have never sowed or reaped for answers.
Because where you are currently working is not sufficient.
Perhapsed you will acquire Understanding/Wisdom there in these new fields.

I will Pray for you Humphreys.

Thanks for your posts,
Orangetom

humphreys wrote:I can't watch it at work, I should be able to later.

My immediate response without watching yet would be that the differences between my "Charlie" and your "Yahweh" are tremendous, and are similar only in that they may be deemed the first cause.

Charlie does not answer prayers, or comfort you when you're lonely.

I apologize if that is covered in the video, but it jumps out at me as being a very significant objection.

Well sure, my self-existent being has a purpose and a personality. Yours is rather boring. But, that's about it for the difference. Please watch and I highly doubt that anything said in the video should cause you any problems.

Reading your condescending post and the offer to "pray for me" only enforces my opinion of you that you are, to put it bluntly, "scum", orangetom.

Please don't ruin what is an interesting discussion with your nonsense.

Craig is no stumbling block to me, his tactics are described perfectly in the article I linked to by Lawrence Krauss, I suggest you read it.

frrostedman wrote:

humphreys wrote:I can't watch it at work, I should be able to later.

My immediate response without watching yet would be that the differences between my "Charlie" and your "Yahweh" are tremendous, and are similar only in that they may be deemed the first cause.

Charlie does not answer prayers, or comfort you when you're lonely.

I apologize if that is covered in the video, but it jumps out at me as being a very significant objection.

Well sure, my self-existent being has a purpose and a personality. Yours is rather boring. But, that's about it for the difference. Please watch and I highly doubt that anything said in the video should cause you any problems.

I will watch it when I get home, I promise, but my "force" is in fact "nothingness as a realm of absolute possibility spawning an infinite number of parallel Universes", and I consider that far from boring!

humphreys wrote:Reading your condescending post and the offer to "pray for me" only enforces my opinion of you that you are, to put it bluntly, "scum", orangetom.

Please don't ruin what is an interesting discussion with your nonsense.

I am serious about Praying for you Humphreys. Also that you are plowing in the wrong fields to understand how he wins the debates.

When you go back and read this thread from the beginning there is obviously something missing from the Scientific point of view. It is incomplete.

Therefore it is vulnurable to the debate technique used. And you want to argue the debate technique?? That doesn't even make good nonsense.

But it is politic...and we are back to religion again.

You need some Prayers olde man. And I am serious about this.

Thanks,
Orangetom