Dr Carrol doesnt have much .

[Rick Dawkins]

Sean carrol starts off on a blank fire, and seemingly continues , i should make time to watch it all, because he does  seemingly appear to be genuine, but then again ,he is bordering on  being abullying control freak also.

He also commits the typical Atheistic fallacy of,- if u cant beat an arguement , narrow things down and put the blinkers on, and persuade as many people as you can to agree with your own narrow. and i do mean tiny  infinitly small narrow , like an infinitly small, infinitly dense,infinitly narrow singularity.

one of his early points / arguement is a straw man straight away, with his naturalism and theism pictures of the world view

There is only really one world and uniiverse as such for simplicity but many models and models acn fit inside models, the serious theistic and atheist world picture , if there is such a thing as serious, both have to fit the same facts.... and seemingly its always the Atheistic pictures which come out narrower , and - unquestiong and unquestionable and there fore facist, in many of there arguements.

sean carrol 31.01 - " these are not the right vocabulary words to be using"  who does he think he is ? Just because he is some dr in theortical physics, doesnt give him a right to pull craig up  on using the word transcendant .

He is a fallacy from the off ,seemingly, and you know, he doesnt even say "the word trancedant cant be used because"

No, he seemingly goes off  using a scantliy clad mockery attack on the word transendant, the mans a book burner in disguise.

Typical atheist, he must be good at certain things, probaly just good at wrote learning, ah well, the world cant be filled with quality all the time.

-------
I Certainly hope he isnt a Teacher- because he is useless, because he is full of fallacies and more about shoveling rubbish into your brain with no real thought, hes all about persuasion .

Least thats what i make of sean carrol in 5 to 10 mins.
------------------------

Allsofor the record, Mr Sean carrol , Transendant is the a very good word and perhaps the only word to use , in craigs context.

---
If you cant beat an arguement, say the words are invalidated...Lol---

----------
Sean carrols arguement for theism world view and naturalism world view, is totally invalidated, because he is not allowed to use the word naturalism, since, the theistic world view model contains the naturalistic world model and builds upon it.

so in reality, there is no naturalistic world view.

------

[dorel]

Atheists-believers or wrong primarily because they believe they have no faith.
If you believe the big bang theory, science, you believe that matter, energy, time, space and natural laws began to exist.
what atheist-believers proposed, a world without God, can only be believed on faith, not evidence or reason.
the main argument of the atheist-believers is that everything in the universe is the result of a natural process, known or not yet known.

atheist-believers do not need faith to believe the laws of nature.

Christians-believers do not need faith to believe the laws of nature, we learn it in science classes.

therefore there is no difference in this.

another point in common is that both the atheist-believer as the Christian-believer believes that the universe, all "the natural", has a beginning or what is the same "the natural" is not eternal.
where is the difference?
the difference is in how we explain the origin of "all natural" even the laws of nature.

a Christian must believe that God created the universe, is an important affirmation that makes the Bible.
You can not be a Christian and not believe that God created the universe.

an atheist-believer believes that the world exists without God, and that everything that exists has his origin in a natural process.
the big bang theory tells us that "all natural" even the laws of nature comes into existence, is not eternal.
therefore you have to appeal to "other natural" and "other laws of nature" to explain our "natural"
therefore beyond the big bang, the atheist argument "everything is caused by a natural process" can not be invoked because there is no "natural" beyond this point, beyond the big bang.
invoke an "other natural", for example a multiverse, can be done just based on faith because there is not the remotest evidence of something as "other natural"

dear atheist-believers you are welcome in the group of believers.

[Rick Dawkins]

Atheists-believers or wrong primarily because they believe they have no faith.
If you believe the big bang theory, science, you believe that matter, energy, time, space and natural laws began to exist.
what atheist-believers proposed, a world without God, can only be believed on faith, not evidence or reason.
the main argument of the atheist-believers is that everything in the universe is the result of a natural process, known or not yet known.

atheist-believers do not need faith to believe the laws of nature.

Christians-believers do not need faith to believe the laws of nature, we learn it in science classes.

therefore there is no difference in this.

another point in common is that both the atheist-believer as the Christian-believer believes that the universe, all "the natural", has a beginning or what is the same "the natural" is not eternal.
where is the difference?
the difference is in how we explain the origin of "all natural" even the laws of nature.

a Christian must believe that God created the universe, is an important affirmation that makes the Bible.
You can not be a Christian and not believe that God created the universe.

an atheist-believer believes that the world exists without God, and that everything that exists has his origin in a natural process.
the big bang theory tells us that "all natural" even the laws of nature comes into existence, is not eternal.
therefore you have to appeal to "other natural" and "other laws of nature" to explain our "natural"
therefore beyond the big bang, the atheist argument "everything is caused by a natural process" can not be invoked because there is no "natural" beyond this point, beyond the big bang.
invoke an "other natural", for example a multiverse, can be done just based on faith because there is not the remotest evidence of something as "other natural"

dear atheist-believers you are welcome in the group of believers.

at least 1 interesting thing that can be gleaned from this post fairly easily ,is that ,  why is God not natural, super natural by defintion amounts to natural + more  and the more by defintion must be natural once it is understood imo.

Atheists would say ofc God isnt natural since Humans " made up God" - But then its a 2 handed sword, since if  things made up by humans are intrinisically natural , then humanities progress isnt natural- so if its not not natural then what is it- it also cant be super natural on their picking and choosing of words imo.


It imo leads to a mares nest for atheism.

or maybe they would consider God to be  natural and super natural  just not possible ? so then where does this leave atheists?

if they are deemed naturalists ? surely they should give some thought to the natural - super natural?

[dorel]

the first battle with atheist-believer have to be about if atheism need faith to be believed or not.
the main argument of the atheist-believers is that the religious people are guided by faith not reason
i claim that since the big bang theory atheism is also a belief system guided by blind faith.
and the argument is this:
atheism with an eternal universe need not faith to be believed.
atheism with an universe that begin to exist need faith to be believed.
atheist-believers say that don't need faith, they do not believe anything about how the universe came into existence, they will expect science to prove the process through which the universe began to exist.
this is false
they may not believe THIS or THAT process.
but they have faith that A NATURAL PROCESS will be the answer to the question about how the universe came in to existence, because there is no such thing like god or gods

[Rick Dawkins]

the first battle with atheist-believer have to be about if atheism need faith to be believed or not.
the main argument of the atheist-believers is that the religious people are guided by faith not reason
i claim that since the big bang theory atheism is also a belief system guided by blind faith.
and the argument is this:
atheism with an eternal universe need not faith to be believed.
atheism with an universe that begin to exist need faith to be believed.
atheist-believers say that don't need faith, they do not believe anything about how the universe came into existence, they will expect science to prove the process through which the universe began to exist.
this is false
they may not believe THIS or THAT process.
but they have faith that A NATURAL PROCESS will be the answer to the question about how the universe came in to existence, because there is no such thing like god or gods

1 ATheists typically do claim we are guided by faith and not reason, but i would specifically say that what they really mean is  it is in direct conjunction with a belief to God, just that they are to sloppy to state it as such.
Meaning that when it comes to God we have faith God exists , so the belief isn't guided by logical conclusions , its more like we believe God exists because the bible says so, or we just want to believe God exists so therefore God exists.

2.Atheism with an eternal universe maybe said to not require faith to be believed  since its just a fact that the universe is eternal.

3.a universe with a start requires faith in god,,because god by definition is the creator. meaning it has a start.

4.atheists require more faith that the universe is eternal than the theists who believe the universe isn't in fact  eternal, because they  are basing it on lack of evidence and a rejection of science.

this is where there logic kills them. imo.

They reject science because of new science meaning they reject the big bangs data because of quantum gravity , i suppose then they also have to reject the second law of thermodynamics also.

And thats the second law of thermodynamics they use to base the claim that the universe doesn't begin because matter just changes from one state to another.

Thats at least what i think on the matter in one way.

no matter how the universe came to be will be natural to the atheists , because they simply are deaf to how super natural and natural co exist, what once was supernatural to humans is now natural.

God in one way, is as natural to humans as growing crops is natural to humans.

i personally believe that the data suggests , although i am properly ignorant of the science in many ways, that it suggests the universe has an absolute start  and is eternally dieing and being reborn.

This fits in with pretty much with life, a flower dies but typically is reborn, in a constant cycle of life and death. and how could eternal be done any other way ? It just is isnt a god explanation imo.