Retired Boards (Archived)
Craig vs Enqvist
Posted by: jayceeii
« on: January 08, 2020, 02:57:31 PM »What truly disturbed me was when I heard Enqvist saying we ought to abandon reason and rationality because of Quantum Mechanics. I've heard Kappal, Krauss, Hawking and Dawkins spout the same thing. They keep saying philosophy is dead, don't listen to philosophers, stop trying to reason with your mind, only listen to scientists and even then only the scientists that are atheists. What I'm seeing is reprehensible anti-intellectualism. They're saying, "Thinking leads to God, so stop thinking, let scientists do your thinking for you."This is actually extremely interesting, because you have identified “controlling” behavior, that connotes poor mental models for the others in the world. It’s a general human fault hence going unnoticed, and the religions certainly gave no instruction regarding it! The controlling mentality can be seen especially easily in the theories of utopian schemers, whose systems in the end are treating the masses like automatons who will follow their individual will, instead of living persons who think and make their own decisions. In this case spotting a controlling mentality in Enqvist throws the rest of his thinking into question. When the mind forms poor mental models for others, in this case expecting them to stop thinking and only listen to scientists, it proves it is not a very logical mind.
Posted by: baranbaran
« on: June 07, 2015, 02:30:24 AM »hell no.....
Posted by: FNB - Former non-believer
« on: July 11, 2012, 03:54:41 PM »Copleston wrote: Like the debate with Klemens Kappel, this one seemed like both speakers were on two different boats in fog. But I think the most radical position taken by Dr. Kari Enqvist was that the very question of the debate is meaningless. It seems like many atheist scientists simply hate philosophy. At least Dr. Enqvist and Peter Atkins do. No wonder for the past 50 or so years, there has been a large increase in Theist philosophers, and we are moving away from the old ways of Bertrand Russell and his gang of atheists who ruled Philosophy departments for the first half of the 20th century. I think Dr. Craig needs to seriously have a one-on-one debate with Daniel Dennett who is a philosopher and is trained in logic.
Though Dr. Craig has debated many philosophers trained in logic, but he did also have an exchange with Dennett, though it wasn't a traditional debate. The link for the audio is here, http://apologeticsorg.blogspot.com/2009/07/william-lane-craig-vs-daniel-dennett-on.html
Posted by: Anthony
« on: July 07, 2012, 05:51:41 PM »Like the debate with Klemens Kappel, this one seemed like both speakers were on two different boats in fog. But I think the most radical position taken by Dr. Kari Enqvist was that the very question of the debate is meaningless. It seems like many atheist scientists simply hate philosophy. At least Dr. Enqvist and Peter Atkins do. No wonder for the past 50 or so years, there has been a large increase in Theist philosophers, and we are moving away from the old ways of Bertrand Russell and his gang of atheists who ruled Philosophy departments for the first half of the 20th century. I think Dr. Craig needs to seriously have a one-on-one debate with Daniel Dennett who is a philosopher and is trained in logic. 
Posted by: Lawlessone777
« on: July 03, 2012, 07:21:32 AM »Fact, Dr. Craig claims the universe is fine tune. Fact, the universe is not fine tune. Fact, Dr Craigs re-uses a debunked arguement. This is what my post was about.
Now that I can post on something other than my phone I think it'll be easier for me to be clear. Here, Sequence, I think you're running into a bit of confusion. The universe actually is fine tuned for life. This isn't some kind of theistic conspiracy, the discovery of the fine tuned constants and quantities was an independent discovery by secular science. In fact if you read Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time he lays this out quite plainly, as does almost every modern day physicist.
The fact is, they're crafting cosmological models which include this fine tuning in its' design so that we can explain it, they're not at all denying the existence of it. Theories of Cosmology which have been largely abandoned such as loop quantum gravity, quantum vacuum fluctuation, or cyclical models have fine tuning in mind, that's why they expand the probabilistic nature of randomly ordered universes in order to account for ours. They try for the "anything + infinity = anything" style of logic. Currently the darling theory is the multiverse hypothesis and superstring theory, which still posits 10 to the power of 500 varying universes on the cosmic landscape, not even close to doing away with fine tuning, and is largely unproven. On some grounds it's unprovable, so I really don't see where you're deriving this statement that Craig is using a "debunked" theory. At most atheists have tried to do away with the Fine Tuning Argument by either appealing to the anthropic principle, which is frankly just lazy philosophy, or this new attempt by Hawking to marry the quantum wave collapse with "top down" history into a sort of weird anthropic quantum principle which has been largely admonished as a philosophical argument, not scientific, and a bad one at that.
So again...don't really know where you're getting this idea from beyond your own need to attack Craig for his belief system.
Also your claim that there is no objective research that's been done into religions and their claims of miracles is plainly false, I honestly think you just haven't bothered to study this subject objectively. I highly recommend Lee Strobel's work as a good jumping off point, such as the Case for Christ, or the Case for a Creator. Also if you're looking into continuing to make the claim that there has been no objective historical study into the miracles of Christ I recommend the work of Mike Licona, or C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity. These are all good jumping off points for study, which I suggest you do, as it seems you're hopping onto an apologetic board with a great deal of vitriol and condescension, but not much substance or study.
Posted by: FNB - Former non-believer
« on: July 02, 2012, 11:38:37 AM »sequence46 wrote: I love how you can only reply to "whether or not Jesus existed" but not anything else I raised. Dont you know mohamed has been confimed to also exist too. Does this not pose a problem. They cant both be the only truth, the way, and the light.
I don't believe God intends us to believe he exists based on arguments, this is why I didn't respond to the other stuff. I don't agree with a lot of things Dr. Craig says such as his use of probability theory in the Krauss debate. As for the miracles, as I don't argue that Jesus is the son of God because his miracles can be historically proven. If you say that the miracle stories are plagiarized from other myths, I would ask you to provide evidence. I think you are speaking from a past generation of historical Jesus scholarship. Now people realize that the right way to see Jesus is through first century Judaism, and not greek mythology. I also was not arguing that Jesus existed therefore he is the son of God.
Posted by: sequence46
« on: July 01, 2012, 03:37:22 PM »Not only did you misrepresent my thoughts on Jesus but you misreprsent Krauss's "something from nothing theory". Also nice way to cherry pick what I said. Fact, Dr. Craig claims the universe is fine tune. Fact, the universe is not fine tune. Fact, Dr Craigs re-uses a debunked arguement. This is what my post was about. I wont waste my time slashing through you ignorant response for the sake of length because my point still stands. Dr. Craigs re-uses debunked arguements. Secondily, I am NOT holding to a jesus myth theory. What i kept trying to point out is that Jesus existented(according to some historians) but historians also say Mohammed existed so what does that mean? That means absolutely nothing because their existence is not the problem its false claim of miracles (the same miracles people claim to do today). You also talked about objective research and this is where you show your true ignorance. There is no objective research of any kind for any truth of any religion ever. there is only fact and fiction and thats all. Something cant be both true and false (research is research). btw Dr. Craig has also suggest in two debtes that morals come from God and this is simply not true no matter how you spin it yet he continues to spread these lies.. praise be to allah lol.
Posted by: sequence46
« on: July 01, 2012, 03:37:20 PM »Not only did you misrepresent my thoughts on Jesus but you misreprsent Krauss's "something from nothing theory". Also nice way to cherry pick what I said. Fact, Dr. Craig claims the universe is fine tune. Fact, the universe is not fine tune. Fact, Dr Craigs re-uses a debunked arguement. This is what my post was about. I wont waste my time slashing through you ignorant response for the sake of length because my point still stands. Dr. Craigs re-uses debunked arguements. Secondily, I am NOT holding to a jesus myth theory. What i kept trying to point out is that Jesus existented(according to some historians) but historians also say Mohammed existed so what does that mean? That means absolutely nothing because their existence is not the problem its false claim of miracles (the same miracles people claim to do today). You also talked about objective research and this is where you show your true ignorance. There is no objective research of any kind for any truth of any religion ever. there is only fact and fiction and thats all. Something cant be both true and false (research is research). btw Dr. Craig has also suggest in two debtes that morals come from God and this is simply not true no matter how you spin it yet he continues to spread these lies.. praise be to allah lol.
Posted by: Lawlessone777
« on: July 01, 2012, 10:37:33 AM »Dude you should really do some objectivestuffy into thesubject before declaring the battle won a long time ago. For one Krauss is being massively dishonest when he says the universe came fromtoting. He's present a Vacuum Fluctuation Model which presupposes the existence of space, time, energy, laws of physics, and the quantum vacuum, none of which are "nothing". His theory imposes that 4/5 of the univer pre-exists matter and work to create it.
Secondly if you honestly are going to hold to the Jesus myth theory then you obviously haven't bothered to even google this subject before hopping onto an apologetics board and mashing both caps lock and exclamation points. There's more than half a dozen non-Biblical ancient historians who speak about Jesus such as Pliny the Younger, Josephus, the Babylonian Talmud, Mara Bar Sarpion, and others. Anyone who claims Jesus never existed is either uneducated on the matter, or deliberately presenting misinformation.
Also try to avoid presenting the case that somehow these arguments were defeated in the past. They really haven't been defeated, and typically the only people I'm quoted as having done so are vitriolic YouTube atheists who don't have a real grasp on the subject. Thunderfoot, or Amazingatheist as examples.
If you've got questions there's a bunch of people who'd love to answer them here, but if you're going to pre-maturely declare victory off misinformation I'm going to have to suggest you study more into the subject.
Secondly if you honestly are going to hold to the Jesus myth theory then you obviously haven't bothered to even google this subject before hopping onto an apologetics board and mashing both caps lock and exclamation points. There's more than half a dozen non-Biblical ancient historians who speak about Jesus such as Pliny the Younger, Josephus, the Babylonian Talmud, Mara Bar Sarpion, and others. Anyone who claims Jesus never existed is either uneducated on the matter, or deliberately presenting misinformation.
Also try to avoid presenting the case that somehow these arguments were defeated in the past. They really haven't been defeated, and typically the only people I'm quoted as having done so are vitriolic YouTube atheists who don't have a real grasp on the subject. Thunderfoot, or Amazingatheist as examples.
If you've got questions there's a bunch of people who'd love to answer them here, but if you're going to pre-maturely declare victory off misinformation I'm going to have to suggest you study more into the subject.
Posted by: sequence46
« on: July 01, 2012, 09:48:35 AM »Paul L. Maier, The Russell H. Seibert Professor of Ancient History, Western Michigan University
These are historians that dont belive jesus existed. Just goes to show that not %100 of historians are convinced.
Posted by: sequence46
« on: July 01, 2012, 09:46:54 AM »I love how you can only reply to "whether or not Jesus existed" but not anything else I raised. Dont you know mohamed has been confimed to also exist too. Does this not pose a problem. They cant both be the only truth, the way, and the light.
Posted by: FNB - Former non-believer
« on: July 01, 2012, 09:30:38 AM »sequence46 wrote: yes this is true SOME historians do confirmed that he traveled but NONE have confirmed Jesus miracles. We also confirmed Mohammed existed!!!
It is not some historians, it is more like all. If it is not 100 percent, it is 99%. I am not aware of a single historian in the US or Britian with a teaching job that says he didn't exist.
As for the miracles, I don't see why one must have historical proof that Jesus did miracles.
Posted by: sequence46
« on: July 01, 2012, 02:10:13 AM »yes this is true SOME historians do confirmed that he traveled but NONE have confirmed Jesus miracles. We also confirmed Mohammed existed!!!
Posted by: FNB - Former non-believer
« on: July 01, 2012, 12:41:01 AM »Although jesus MAY have lived, his story of travel and miracles has been debunked by being written off as mostly mythological regardless of whether or not he lived.
Historians are pretty unanimous that Jesus lived and traveled around preaching, though certainly non-Christian historians will not admit that he did miracles.
Posted by: sequence46
« on: June 30, 2012, 07:03:51 PM »In the Krauss debate the fine tuning arguement is debunked. So that alone shows that Craigs re-uses debunked arguements, period but ill continue. YOUR WELCOME. Jesus has not been debunked been neither has mohamend. As for the cosmology arguement; "Something cant come come from nothing", I think we both seen in the krauss debate OVER AND OVER again that something can come from nothing. Although jesus MAY have lived, his story of travel and miracles has been debunked by being written off as mostly mythological regardless of whether or not he lived. I still find it funny that you think the scientific questions you ask cant be solved by scientist in said field. Any time Dr. Craig makes a claim about anything scientific be reminded he has no science knowledge of any kind.