Retired Boards (Archived)
Craig vs Kappel
Posted by: jayceeii
« on: January 08, 2020, 02:48:50 PM »Let's start with his assertion that the question of God is the most important question we can ask - if Christianity is true.Yes, Christianity appears as a threat against the other religions, “Follow our ways or go to hell,” as the Bible warns repeatedly of the worst fate for unbelievers. “The ways” of Christians amount to an indirect interpretation by Paul and committees, to assertions by Jesus that should have been understood to be vague from the very beginning. Indeed, the first century Christians should have noticed immediately that if Jesus was God then He deliberately chose to give a weak, noninvasive teaching, not genuine, careful guidance.
Everyone who denies Christianity, insofar as they are aware of the threat this religion makes against all other religions, should notice they are standing against the settled opinion of two billion Christians. Of course also, many Christian sects believe the other sects are damned. In fact this becomes one of the proofs that the two billion are wrong, that this idea “the others are damned” is somehow being generated from native human hatred. The Christians are not united against the other religions, and whatever Jesus said, the humans are not able to come together behind Him, without damning other Christians.
To stand against the edifice of the religions and feel secure is not easy, if you have awareness of the myriad humans you stand against, and some respect for the human intellect. In general those opposing the religions are not seeing what they are opposing, telling themselves merely “those other people are worthless,” ignoring the teeming masses of doctors, lawyers, scientists and professors, who adopt religion. Yet a secure position can be found if these teeming masses are indeed found worthless, though not in the sense anyone is expecting. Human technology is ferocious; personality not so much.
It’s possible God could set up a religion saying, “Follow it or perish in everlasting fire.” To neutralize the threat of the Christians, it can be shown Christianity is not such a religion. The key is that Jesus set up no meaningful standards, only very vague ones. You can’t disobey if God didn’t tell you what He wanted (at least) and the reasons for it (at best). Nobody can follow Jesus, because He didn’t say anything that has a clear and obvious interpretation. If Jesus was leading nowhere, then His was not a saving religion.
Posted by: ixthus116
« on: September 29, 2013, 03:28:52 AM »Hi Rossi
From memory (ie I might have this wrong), Kappel conjured up three Magical Stars, something like the magical causal star, the magical design star and the magical ontological star. Each star was invisible and had never been directly detected by any astronomer. But the causal star was the first cause of all other stars, so explained the origin of the stars we can see: the design star had been the template for other stars, so that was why stars are so well designed to be stars: the ontological star was why the visible stars exist at all.
Kappel's point being that none of the above argument gives any direct evidence for such stars - and of course the stars paralleled the arguments for God.
The ontological argument justifies the existence of one maximally great being AND forbids the existence of more than one maximally great being, because otherwise two omnipotent beings trying to do different things would be a logical contradiction (possible in no possible world). As a result, if the ontological argument succeeds there is 1 MGB. This, however, does not mean that say the Jehovah's Witness interpretation of "God created the Angel Jesus, Jesus created the world" (Don't ask me how they read Genesis 1:1- or the rest of the bible for that matter!) cannot be refuted by the KCA. However, even in this sense, if an angel created the world then we can ask "what caused the angel" and so on to get back to the MGB defined by the ontological argument with the property of necessary existence. The case for the biblical God is cumulative, and while the moral, KCA and ontological can prove there are not many MGBs to get to Yahweh you need to see the success of the argument for the resurrection of Jesus. If you post a 'bringing back Jesus' star, then you're just being silly and refusing to look at what the evidence points to.
Posted by: grosso
« on: September 19, 2013, 10:00:12 AM »Hi Rossi
From memory (ie I might have this wrong), Kappel conjured up three Magical Stars, something like the magical causal star, the magical design star and the magical ontological star. Each star was invisible and had never been directly detected by any astronomer. But the causal star was the first cause of all other stars, so explained the origin of the stars we can see: the design star had been the template for other stars, so that was why stars are so well designed to be stars: the ontological star was why the visible stars exist at all.
Kappel's point being that none of the above argument gives any direct evidence for such stars - and of course the stars paralleled the arguments for God.
I see. That's an interesting response.
Is Kappel saying "the existence of the three stars does not give any direct evidence for real stars"?
Or "the existence of real stars don't provide any evidence for the existence of the three magical stars"?
Posted by: Steve Hopker
« on: September 19, 2013, 03:08:48 AM »Hi Rossi
From memory (ie I might have this wrong), Kappel conjured up three Magical Stars, something like the magical causal star, the magical design star and the magical ontological star. Each star was invisible and had never been directly detected by any astronomer. But the causal star was the first cause of all other stars, so explained the origin of the stars we can see: the design star had been the template for other stars, so that was why stars are so well designed to be stars: the ontological star was why the visible stars exist at all.
Kappel's point being that none of the above argument gives any direct evidence for such stars - and of course the stars paralleled the arguments for God.
From memory (ie I might have this wrong), Kappel conjured up three Magical Stars, something like the magical causal star, the magical design star and the magical ontological star. Each star was invisible and had never been directly detected by any astronomer. But the causal star was the first cause of all other stars, so explained the origin of the stars we can see: the design star had been the template for other stars, so that was why stars are so well designed to be stars: the ontological star was why the visible stars exist at all.
Kappel's point being that none of the above argument gives any direct evidence for such stars - and of course the stars paralleled the arguments for God.
Posted by: grosso
« on: September 19, 2013, 12:08:27 AM »Hey Steve, that's an interesting analysis. Can you tell me what the Magical Stars was about? I haven't watched the debate in a long time.
Posted by: Steve Hopker
« on: September 18, 2013, 04:36:56 PM »Just come on here, so well after event. I am an atheist, so would naturally support Dr Kappel. Unfortunately (from my angle) I was not very impressed. In terms of presentation, Dr Craig was miles ahead - clear, structured, impressive delivery. By contrast poor Dr Kappel was far less structured, did not engage with the audience and seemed to admit he'd not had time to prepare - though I think Dr Craig used a ploy to wrong foot Dr K by challenging him for specific responses to his case before anything else, when he would have known his opponent would have prepared his first speech beforehand without seeing Dr C's text. But even so, Dr K's style (and the content of the first half of his talk) did not impress.
However, I thought he did score against Dr C's case with the 'Magical Stars'. On the downside, I did not like his seemingly disingenuous non-challenge theism on account its usefulness - some might say this would be one person encouraging others to hold beliefs for some general benefit, despite the one person being atheist (Sam Harris has attacked that view).
But I think Dr Kappel did provide an insightful view of such debates - that if protagonists cannot mutually agree premises (eg the necessity of scientific evidence - or (for theists) the possibility of direct revelation. This arguably shows the limits of these debates - though I think they are valuable.
However, I thought he did score against Dr C's case with the 'Magical Stars'. On the downside, I did not like his seemingly disingenuous non-challenge theism on account its usefulness - some might say this would be one person encouraging others to hold beliefs for some general benefit, despite the one person being atheist (Sam Harris has attacked that view).
But I think Dr Kappel did provide an insightful view of such debates - that if protagonists cannot mutually agree premises (eg the necessity of scientific evidence - or (for theists) the possibility of direct revelation. This arguably shows the limits of these debates - though I think they are valuable.
Posted by: Viennacon
« on: July 21, 2013, 11:11:37 PM »Oh, no! Craig assumes people know what 'God' means. What a big mistake. /sarc
Posted by: grosso
« on: July 10, 2013, 06:28:56 AM »Was Kappel's definition adequate? My understanding is that there are any number of definitions of atheism floating out there, depending on which definition is preferred by whom at which point in time.
I prefer to think of atheism as a lack of belief in gods. Some people like Bill Craig define atheism as the belief that there are no gods. I would call that anti-theism rather than atheism. My definition works well because it can categorize people who simply don't believe in any gods yet don't deny their existence either. If we go with Craig's definition, then such people have no category that they fall into! They're neither theists nor atheists nor agnostics.
Jagella--HAPPILY FREED from all the gods
I don't buy the "lack of belief" definition.
It's not intellectually rigorous.
Posted by: Jagella
« on: July 09, 2013, 09:55:46 AM »Was Kappel's definition adequate? My understanding is that there are any number of definitions of atheism floating out there, depending on which definition is preferred by whom at which point in time.
I prefer to think of atheism as a lack of belief in gods. Some people like Bill Craig define atheism as the belief that there are no gods. I would call that anti-theism rather than atheism. My definition works well because it can categorize people who simply don't believe in any gods yet don't deny their existence either. If we go with Craig's definition, then such people have no category that they fall into! They're neither theists nor atheists nor agnostics.
Jagella--HAPPILY FREED from all the gods
Posted by: grosso
« on: July 08, 2013, 05:35:01 PM »What did Kappel touch on that you think was missing in Craig's presentation, Jagella?Kappel defined atheism, for one thing.
Just for the record, I disagree with Kappel's definition. I define atheism as lack of belief in gods. As far as I know Craig does not accept that definition, and he then is out of synch with most atheists from the start. It would be like my defining Christianity as polytheistic!
Jagella--HAPPILY FREED from all the gods
Was Kappel's definition adequate? My understanding is that there are any number of definitions of atheism floating out there, depending on which definition is preferred by whom at which point in time.
Posted by: Jagella
« on: July 08, 2013, 05:02:47 PM »What did Kappel touch on that you think was missing in Craig's presentation, Jagella?
Kappel defined atheism, for one thing.
Just for the record, I disagree with Kappel's definition. I define atheism as lack of belief in gods. As far as I know Craig does not accept that definition, and he then is out of synch with most atheists from the start. It would be like my defining Christianity as polytheistic!
Jagella--HAPPILY FREED from all the gods
Posted by: grosso
« on: July 08, 2013, 08:08:17 AM »What did Kappel touch on that you think was missing in Craig's presentation, Jagella?
Posted by: Jagella
« on: July 08, 2013, 08:03:52 AM »This forum is open for discussion about William Lane Craig's debate with Klemens Kappel on October 18, 2011 in Copenhagen, Denmark.
I've only watched the opening presentations so far, but it seems to me that Kappel is doing a much better job than Craig at laying out the groundwork for the discussion. Craig just dives right into the debate evidently assuming that everybody knows what atheism and "God" is. I don't recall Craig even bothering to say much about what his god is or what atheism is. That's sloppy scholarship.
I will give Craig the nod regarding presentation, though. He seems more relaxed and focused than Kappel. None of us should be surprised at Bill Craig's poise because he is a professional debater, after all.
Jagella--HAPPILY FREED from all the gods
Posted by: whycatholic
« on: June 25, 2013, 11:41:40 PM »Sad to watch I couldn't even make it through the whole thing.
Craig should have been a better Christian , called it at night after about an hour and taken Kappel to dinner.
Craig should have been a better Christian , called it at night after about an hour and taken Kappel to dinner.
Posted by: TheJackel
« on: June 10, 2013, 09:51:00 PM »Quote
<span style="font-size: medium; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Given that all of Jesus' early followers were Orthodox religious Jews, it is very unlikely that they would use pagan myths to construct a fictional character called Jesus.</span>
Wrong, Judaism is Pagan in origin. In fact, the prophecy of Immanuel is a prophecy concerning the Canaanite god EL as a son of EL.. Immanuel means "El is with us" and is referred to as the land of Cannan. Even the Psalms are most likely the hyms of EL in which would be consistent with the Amorite deity EL Shaddai, the god of Abraham, a deity associated to the Cannanite GOD EL. You would know this GOD as Amurru :
Quote
Shaddai is a derivation of a [ur=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiticl]Semitic[/url] stem that appears in the Akkadian shadû ("mountain") and shaddā`û or shaddû`a ("mountain-dweller"), one of the names of Amurru.
Amurru/Martu was probably a western Semitic god originally. He is sometimes described as a 'shepherd' or as a storm god, and as a son of the sky-god Anu. He is sometimes called bêlu šadī or bêl šadê, 'lord of the mountain'; dúr-hur-sag-gá sikil-a-ke, 'He who dwells on the pure mountain'; and kur-za-gan ti-[la], 'who inhabits the shining mountain'. In Cappadocian Zinčirli inscriptions he is called ì-li a-bi-a, 'the god of my father'.[1] Accordingly, it has been suggested by L. R. Bailey (1968) and Jean Ouelette (1969), that this Bêl Šadê might be the same as the Biblical ’Ēl Šaddāi who is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the "Priestly source" of narrative, according to the documentary hypothesis. Amurru also has storm-god features. Like Adad, Amurru bears the epithet ramān 'thunderer', and he is even called bāriqu 'hurler of the thunderbolt' and Adad ša a-bu-be 'Adad of the deluge'. Yet his iconography is distinct from that of Adad, and he sometimes appears alongside Adad with a baton of power or throwstick, while Adad bears a conventional thunderbolt.
Amurru's wife is sometimes the goddess Ašratum (see Asherah) who in northwest Semitic tradition and Hittite tradition appears as wife of the god Ēl which suggests that Amurru may indeed have been a variation of that god. If Amurru was identical with Ēl, it would explain why so few Amorite names are compounded with the name Amurru, but so many are compounded with Il; that is, with Ēl.
Sources:
* The Targum from the Beginnings: "Tablet 1." Retrieved on September 12, 2010
* Bailey, L. R. (1968). "Israelite ’Ēl šadday and Amorite Bêl šadê", Journal of Biblical Literature 87, 434–38.
* Cross, Frank Moore (1973). Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, pp. 10, 57–58. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-09176-0.
* Jordon, Michael. Encyclopedia of Gods, Kyle Cathie Limited, 2002
* Ouellette, Jean (1969). "More on ’Ēl Šadday and Bêl Šadê", Journal of Biblical Literature 88, 470f.
* ETSCL: Narratives featuring deities: Other deities, including "The Marriage of Martu" in Unicode and ASCII.
* Iconography of Amurru (PDF-article)
* Amurru in Encyclopedia
This is a pretty good idea where El Shaddai comes from, and it's relationship with the "God of the Mountains", and "God Almighty". Not only is this Ammorite deity associated with common "GOD of my Father" in the bible, Also attested explicitly to the GOD of Abraham, and the city of Shaddai.. We know it's Pagan in origin, and we know Yahweh was equated with the Canaanite GOD EL to which includes being associated with El's wife Asherah.. This god was a mountain GOD, and most likely a Volcano GOD.. You can read a more in depth overview of this here to which is heavily backed by academic sources. It's a 3 part series to which goes over a ton of information on the subject:
1. Yahweh: The Worshiping Of A Volcano Fire God Of War?
2. Mountain GOD Worship: Yahweh, God of the Mountains.
3. Yahweh: The Rock of Israel
It's also important to note that Exodus was first written in the time of the Therah Eruption to which triggered the collapse of the Bronze age, and the eviction of the Hysksos from Egypt. An eruptions that would account for the narrative of Exodus, Psalms, Daniel, Deuteronomy, and even Revelations. An eruption that caused a volcanic winter, disease, the burial of much of Egypt in volcanic rock and ash ect.. An event that would have been visible to the entire region of Levant, and that includes as far as the Nile Delta and Israel. It's the single most notable event to which seem to have the largest impact on the evolution of religion. This to which likely lead to monotheism of a Mountain volcano GOD.