Retired Boards (Archived)
Craig vs Atkins
Posted by: jayceeii
« on: March 06, 2020, 08:08:36 AM »ss: perhaps because you are not actually looking for truth and explanation and understanding. You just want to confirm your beliefs.How does that follow?
perhaps because you are not actually looking for truth and explanation and understanding. You just want to confirm your beliefs.
Really being open to the truth is a very uncomfortable feeling. Recognising that there is no certainty, we know nothing for sure, we just do the best we can, this is scary.
Jesus is a very ambiguous figure. If he brought anything it wasn't certainty. Abandon your families and everything you have - how many so called christians do this? You all want your nice homes, comfortable lives, big cars and the promise of heaven at the end of having done nothing.
jc: Christian closed-mindedness is just a subset of general human closed-mindedness. Humans claim to have an open mind, but really they are just open to more selfish desire. In a human, desire moves first and then reason makes excuses for it, never the other way.
ss: Really being open to the truth is a very uncomfortable feeling. Recognising that there is no certainty, we know nothing for sure, we just do the best we can, this is scary.
jc: You can’t open a door to open-mindedness and expect people to step through that door! There are degrees of knowledge, and all minds are limited to a certain degree. Specifically, all metaphysical knowledge is blocked off to minds physically entangled.
ss: Jesus is a very ambiguous figure. If he brought anything it wasn't certainty.
jc: As I have said, Jesus was the King of Vague, and Master of Unfinished Sentences. All depends upon one’s audience. I’m sure to caring persons, Jesus could speak more openly. To finish the sentences of Jesus condemns man, exposing the actual nature of original sin.
ss: Abandon your families and everything you have - how many so called christians do this?
jc: Actually this is an invitation to a state of power and bliss. The family and possessions fall away naturally from the pure and powerful. These are replaced by the community of souls and value taken in relationships, even relationships that are expected to last forever.
ss: You all want your nice homes, comfortable lives, big cars and the promise of heaven at the end of having done nothing.
jc: Wow! Isn’t this an echo of the prophets? There’s only one error, but it’s the usual error made by a mind not seeing the real alternative in a world which choked this off. The wise lead comfortable lives, but without private homes, cars, or dreams of sterile heaven.
Posted by: samberry
« on: April 26, 2017, 01:26:57 AM »Any audio/video available yet?I think yes.
Posted by: hatsoff
« on: October 03, 2013, 05:52:20 PM »1 The infinity that doesn't exist is different the the infinite that God is. You can't have an infinite sequence of events, but the statement 'God knows all knowable things' is not the same infinity.
Craig believes that God has no parts, and so he is not infinite in the sense of being composed of infinitely many actually existing objects, which is what Craig argues is impossible. But one might say in a nonliteral sense that God has infinite knowledge, and this does not imply infinitely many existing objects.
Of course, if you will permit me to harp on this point, Craig's argument against an actual infinite is totally ridiculous. Sobel, Oppy, and others have already explained why.
Could you share what is Oppy´s argument in favor of the infinite?
what is their argument against Craig´s? Is it shown to be ridiculous or just wrong?
Do you have a referece book or article I can check?
thanks.
Sobel attacks Craig's argument from Hilbert's hotel, noting that Craig has failed to establish a contradiction or incoherence in what goes on with its guests checking in/out. He observes that we require an additional assumption in order to get the contradiction Craig requires. In Blackwell Craig agrees with Sobel's critique except to say that he thinks we are justified in making that additional assumption. But the reasoning he gives consists in claiming it is "innocuous." Needless to say, Craig thinking it innocuous does not constitute justification.
Oppy attacks Craig's claim that an infinite cannot be formed through successive addition. He points out that Craig does not actually give an argument for this claim. As Oppy puts it, Craig merely expresses a prejudice against infinity. You can Google to find Oppy's paper---I'm not sure exactly which one it is. Craig did respond to some of the points in that paper, but not to my recollection the crucial one about his prejudice against the infinite.
For my own part, I would add that even if we grant Craig his prejudice, that's still not enough, since a past-infinite timeline is not formed (in the sense Craig needs) through successive addition anyway. This seems to me an obvious criticism so it probably appears in the literature somewhere.
Posted by: hatsoff
« on: October 03, 2013, 10:18:41 AM »1 The infinity that doesn't exist is different the the infinite that God is. You can't have an infinite sequence of events, but the statement 'God knows all knowable things' is not the same infinity.
Craig believes that God has no parts, and so he is not infinite in the sense of being composed of infinitely many actually existing objects, which is what Craig argues is impossible. But one might say in a nonliteral sense that God has infinite knowledge, and this does not imply infinitely many existing objects.
Of course, if you will permit me to harp on this point, Craig's argument against an actual infinite is totally ridiculous. Sobel, Oppy, and others have already explained why.
Posted by: ixthus116
« on: September 28, 2013, 05:25:58 PM »Mr Craig proved that infinite God does not exist as infinity as he suggested is impossible. Nothing comes from nothing that means nothing should have qualities as modern science and quantum mechanics suggest. God is a more complicated problem than the solution it applies and don't solve anything as the question remains how God came from nothing. Morality is very clear that is not objective and alter depending on the physiology of humans, culture, environment the illusion of objectiveness on morality comes from morality being the evolution of our the two basic instincts ho are essential for every species to exist.
1 The infinity that doesn't exist is different the the infinite that God is. You can't have an infinite sequence of events, but the statement 'God knows all knowable things' is not the same infinity.
2. Quite often more complicated problems result from simple conundrums- an apple falling is simple. Gravity? Whoa- very not simple!
3. God is a necessary being, that is to say his existence is uncaused. If he was caused the thing which caused him would be God- at least try and attack the God based on a shared definition. A created god is by definition a false god. Asking what created God is like asking what the number 7 smells like. God just is in the way that numbers just exist.
4. you're here committing the genetic fallacy- attempting to say that because objective moral views were developed by society they are therefore false. Just because you can explain a belief's origin does nothing to falsify that belief. I'm sure you once thought something because your parents told you so- does that make the thing your parents told you false? Not at all!
5. Objective morals are needed for species to exist
No animals except humans have (or even 'have developed') morality! Fish eat each other, animals regularly kill each other, have incest, all kinds of things that are both morally wrong from our point of view and detrimental to their collective survival. Dawkins showed in the Selfish Gene how only individual DNA matters, the survival of the group is only incidental. (You know you're flawed when I'm even citing Dawkins against you!) So if you think that harming other humans for pleasure is wrong whether the harm-er and harm-ee think so or not then you observe objective morals. Even if you say 'I think people should act in the way their culture says is right" you're still affirming a way of acting that is binding in all circumstances and on all contrary views- an objective moral law.
Posted by: Anthony
« on: June 18, 2012, 10:21:09 PM »Peter Atkins stated in this debate that Philosophy was a complete waste of time. Big mistake. What about his fellow atheist philosophers like Daniel Dennett, Stephen Law, and Shelly Kagan? Are they wasting their time, or are they not because they are atheists. Like the 1998 debate with Dr. Craig, Peter Atkins once again did not refute the arguments and simply asserted that science and religion are incompatible. Sorry Atkins, you failed. 
Posted by: Kostas Spiliotopoulos
« on: May 30, 2012, 09:05:37 AM »Mr Craig proved that infinite God does not exist as infinity as he suggested is impossible. Nothing comes from nothing that means nothing should have qualities as modern science and quantum mechanics suggest. God is a more complicated problem than the solution it applies and don't solve anything as the question remains how God came from nothing. Morality is very clear that is not objective and alter depending on the physiology of humans, culture, environment the illusion of objectiveness on morality comes from morality being the evolution of our the two basic instincts ho are essential for every species to exist.
Posted by: Leonardo Oliveira
« on: May 08, 2012, 12:55:27 PM »And Craig called Atkins "Richard Dawkins" twice or three times, it made the public laugh and made me very very embarrassed. Then he in fact quoted Dawkins, showing that he was with his name in mind because he had this quotation to do.
But Atkins, who was nervous but more prepared than in the first time, made a point that should be explored: the application of causation notion in a time that we don't know how it works. And again, as in many debates, the opponent shows that doesn't understand how metaphysical argumentation can be true and refer to reality. I miss some showing of this important lesson when they do it.
Posted by: clarkgriswold
« on: May 06, 2012, 08:16:28 PM »Corioa wrote: Yet regardless of his self-assurance of wisdom, he however was at a complete loss to address a single argument Dr. Craig gave.
That is an interesting and cogent observation. I have heard Dr. Craig remark on several occasions how many of his atheist debate opponents appear not to be schooled in the art, style, or rules of debate, or that they are sufficiently trained in philosophy to present in debate a coherent argument. Yet, in some cases, as with atheist author and apologist Sam Harris, at least some of his opponents have at least some formal training and debate experience.
I am coming to the belief that these atheists use the forum as nothing more than a foil, a sounding board, a bully pulpit, with emphasis on the bully. They also attempt to stack the audience with rhetorical bullies, as well. This I believe is regarded as merely a free opportunity to rail in public against theism in general and against Christianity in particular. They certainly have a religion (atheism), but use the debate forum as an ersatz Sunday congregational gathering.
Posted by: Chris Dotson
« on: May 05, 2012, 01:43:00 AM »That was hilarious.
Edit: If I were Dr. Craig, I'd have likely walked over and poked Dr. Atkins on the shoulder to prove my point.
Edit: If I were Dr. Craig, I'd have likely walked over and poked Dr. Atkins on the shoulder to prove my point.
Posted by: Pieter
« on: May 01, 2012, 03:54:51 AM »I have much more respect of the likes of Peter Millican and Stephen Law who actually make me think.
Posted by: Pieter
« on: May 01, 2012, 03:52:49 AM »I only watched half way through and I was just shocked how Atkins STILL holds to the idea that "Nothingness is separated into opposites". Easily rebutted: Nothingness has no properties to do anything or to produce anything. Atkins: Well we should not use philosophical arguments, but only observation and science. Really? You mean, do not use philosophical arguments when it is inconvenient for atheism. Arguing that using philosphical arguments are invalid is a philosophical statement as the truth of this assertion cannot be observed by science.
I think Atkins is often very rude and patronising towards Christians, but actually being taken under proper scrutiny himself, he has nothing to offer other than rethorical banter.
I think Atkins is often very rude and patronising towards Christians, but actually being taken under proper scrutiny himself, he has nothing to offer other than rethorical banter.
Posted by: Lawlessone777
« on: April 27, 2012, 01:31:11 PM »I agree I just finished this and Atkins was massively unprofessional. He was just talking down to believers and never engaging the arguments. "I can say that there will possibly be eventually an answer to the questions given by science." Seriously? We're supposed to discard your opponents arguments because you're saying that there might one day possibly be proof they're wrong?
Posted by: Stephen
« on: April 24, 2012, 07:04:58 AM »I was really dissappointed with Atkins performance here. I would have thought, being a chemist and all, Atkins would be more than prepared to take on these arguments- Craig seemed to invite it by selecting those 3 particular arguments out his typical 5! Instead, Atkins chooses to attack philosophy in general, purporting how useless it is? Isn't that a philosophical stance on its own?
Posted by: Aaron Massey
« on: April 13, 2012, 04:47:44 AM »Debate dosnt seem to be linked yet... here: