The Case for God (page 11)

Spook

Spook said:

"Your claim that science is "silent" on the matter [of whether God exists] is clearly false."

Science points to a beginning of the Universe, but science cannot describe what caused the Universe to come into existence.

Science (according to evolution) points to life developing gradually over time, but science cannot describe how life could come into existence from non-life.

Has the scientific method ever disproved God, as He is described in the Bible? If not, then science truly is silent, at least when it comes to disproving God's existence.

So, from a debate standard here you are doing something I'd request you not do. You are taking a very specific and clearly worded statement like I made above and taking a "yeah but" tack that doesn't address the comments directly. So please, can we at least agree science is not silent on the matter of God, with respect to claims made about the real world and the purported causes of events I've mentioned. Being non-conclusive does not entail silence. When you make your Kalam argument, by all means please elaborate on the meaning of the phrase "POINTS TO."

Spook said:

"While there is no argument that should rationally convince one to accept theism from a neutral state"

Based on what? Have you heard every argument? And what exactly is a "neutral state"?

C.S. Lewis said that he had been a staunch Atheist, but then, because of rational arguments, he eventually became a Christian.

And how would you be able to make that claim since you are NOT in the "neutral state" yourself?

I understand the position that God's existance cannot be proven on reason alone to be uncontested by theists. Yes, I have heard every common argument. I am up to date on the philosophical community and am well informed about the historical context of the debate. The state of a "neutral observer" is obviously a thought experiment which I am not asserting could obtain as the situation of an individual.

BurnTheShips

The cognitive tool of science can make claims with respect to the epiphenomena of God or the supernatural, and can be used to explain away contradictions to any apparent affronts to a purely naturalistic worldview.

BTS

Spook

I don't know if I follow you burn. How could naturalism make claims about the supernatural, given that naturalism entails the non-existance of the supernatural?

leavingwt

I enjoyed John W. Loftus' comments, concerning debates between Christians and Atheists...

Christianity will not be debunked in proportion to the degree with which atheists win against Craig anyway. Debates are both entertaining and educational. Like a boxing match we get to watch two people spar for the approval of the audience. But truth is not decided by debate. I think atheists know this, but the words they use say otherwise.

There is a liberalizing tendency with evangelicals over the years. It won’t be atheists that lead them down this road, which can and does lead to atheism. The liberals do this just fine without us. The real debate isn’t between atheists and evangelicals anyway. It’s just that both groups in America seem the most passionate about these issues. The real debate is between evangelicals and other conservatives within the Lutheran, Methodist, Catholic, Presbyterian, Baptist and Disciples of Christ churches, and so forth. Then the debate switches to the evangelicals against the liberals, and the liberals will literally clean their clocks. Ever wonder why Craig doesn't debate liberals? That's why I use the arguments of the liberals in my book so often. Further down the road the debate becomes one between evangelicals and every religion in the world. Evangelicals cannot even win the debate between themselves, much less with the liberals, and even less with the many other world religions. But as soon as they apply the same skepticism against their own evangelical faith that they use against other religious faiths they will become agnostics and atheists. This is what I think will happen if they apply my Outsider Test for Faith.

So relax atheists. Religion is here to stay, probably as long as there are human beings. In the meantime let's enjoy the debates and learn from them how to effectively debunk the Christian faith, since after all, that's the one we're most familiar with in the English speaking world.

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2009/05/on-recent-debate-losses-to-william-lane.html

BurnTheShips

I enjoyed John W. Loftus' comments, concerning debates between Christians and Atheists...

I read the whole thing, it sounds like he was licking his wounds after Craig cleaned some clocks.

BTS

BurnTheShips

I don't know if I follow you burn. How could naturalism make claims about the supernatural, given that naturalism entails the non-existance of the supernatural?

Not claims about, but alternative explanations.

BTS

leavingwt

I read the whole thing, it sounds like he was licking his wounds after Craig cleaned some clocks.

Burns,

He does mention that a few folks seem to be licking their wounds. However, I didn't conclude that he considers himself to among that group. He is publicly asking from Craig to debate him.

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2009/04/calling-for-debate-with-william-lane.html

-LWT

BurnTheShips

Is Christianity more probable than atheism?

The subject sounds more than a little contrived to me. Are multicellular sentient eukaryotes more probable than nonsentient prokaryota?

Then we have to define which particular Christianity we are talking about, as well as which particular Atheism.

Or I could be a smart ass and say, "Christianity is much more probable than Atheism, by a factor of 20 to 1" then pull out the latest Pew poll on religion.

BTS

Spook

As I have said before, Craig's rhetoric is excellent. He is not taken particularly seriously by academic philosophers, including theists. Most philosophers would need about a 30 second debate with him, at which point they would conclude both parties have mutually incompatible non-falsifiable assumptions.

I liked Drange's debate vs. craig. The evidential case was a good one. Craig made numerous data claims which remain dubious.

leavingwt

This seems to be true...

"...atheists often attack Christianity by pointing out the many problems with the Bible. Such a line of argument can be effective with Christians who believe in the primacy of Biblical authority, or Biblical inerrancy, but is less compelling to those who hold more liberal versions of Christianity."

The Case for God

Share this