|
Post by bjorn on Jan 29, 2011 18:49:49 GMT
davedodo007 wrote:Craig also said that an experiencial approach to the resurrection is a perfectly valid way to know that the Christ has risen and that's the way most Christians today know that Christ has arisen and is alive. That is complete nonsense. There are hundreds of religions where people have personal experiences with their gods. Does that also validate all of them? Thinking people sometimes don't think. One thing thinking people does is to refrain from thinking they have understood other thinking people unless they have read them in context, especially when their conclusions seem puzzling. You have the right to remain silent until you can show you have read Craig properly here.
|
|
|
Post by gymnopodie on Jan 30, 2011 16:38:54 GMT
That's nearly word for word what he said. It is within its own context. Craig is a born-again Christian. Born again Christians go through some sort of mental breakdown where they believe the Holy Spirit has entered their body. That's first and foremost what Craig is. Armed with that god-experience, he went out and tried to prove via other methods that god exists. This is exactly what I've been saying all along and Craig is a prime example of it. He didn't discover god through philosophy; he discovered god through his god-experience and then set out to rationalize it through philosophy.
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on Jan 30, 2011 16:54:49 GMT
That's nearly word for word what he said. It is within its own context. Craig is a born-again Christian. Born again Christians go through some sort of mental breakdown where they believe the Holy Spirit has entered their body. That's first and foremost what Craig is. Armed with that god-experience, he went out and tried to prove via other methods that god exists. This is exactly what I've been saying all along and Craig is a prime example of it. He didn't discover god through philosophy; he discovered god through his god-experience and then set out to rationalize it through philosophy. Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously when you write like this? And precisely what didn't you understand in the sentence "You have the right to remain silent until you can show you have read Craig properly here"? I can't see any no difficult words in it.
|
|
|
Post by captainzman on Jan 30, 2011 18:07:35 GMT
And precisely what didn't you understand in the sentence "You have the right to remain silent until you can show you have read Craig properly here"? I can't see any no difficult words in it. It's sad and frustrating, because if we concocted a just-so story about ex-cult members that allowed us to write off anything he'd said, he'd scream bloody murder
|
|
|
Post by captainzman on Jan 30, 2011 18:21:19 GMT
Is it really necessary to be a philosopher or a student of philosophy to understand that just about any idea you can think of, some philosopher has said it? It's a fantastic mental exercise that few people can grasp and I admire those who can, but for them to suppose they have some special knowledge of truth is nonsense. You can't summon up gods with words alone. I know very little about astrology but I believe it is nonsense. I'm not an expert on astrology, therefore I cannot offer a formal argument, philosophical or otherwise, so how can I come to such an ignorant conclusion? Millions of people believe in astrology. Many live by it; they make decisions by it. But try to tell the astrological believer that it is nonsense. Heh. Oh yes, you can argue that there's no scientific proof that astrology can be used to predict the future or have any effect whatsoever on anyone, but then you'll get all sorts of eyewitness accounts that says it does. And you'll get people who will tell you how it has changed their lives and how astrology supported science and helped develop it. Substitute the word 'Christianity' for astrology in the above paragraph. This is ridiculous. I recall that you once believe that the conflict theory was right. Why did you believe it was right? Because people told you it was right. You didn’t study history and familiarize yourself with how it works. Consequently, you were dead wrong about it. Your beliefs about God, ethics, epistemology, etc. are philosophical beliefs. If you want to defend them, and if you want to criticize those who have different beliefs, you have to use philosophy. The alternative isn’t a recipe for reason and knowledge. It’s an excuse to mentally check out and believe whatever you want to believe.
|
|
|
Post by gymnopodie on Jan 30, 2011 19:25:50 GMT
Would you like me to make the same post in an atheist forum and see how many disagree with me? Also, I would guess that nearly all Christians in the US would agree that the god-experience is a valid argument for god, and they could care less about the philosophical arguments. Come right down to it, I would guess that there are very few who would not agree with me.
|
|
|
Post by gymnopodie on Jan 30, 2011 19:38:55 GMT
captainzman wrote:
So, exactly what is a cult, captainzman? It is interesting that several ex-JWs have tried in vain to get the Jehovah's Witnesses Watchtower Bible and Tract Society labeled as a cult. The reason they were unsuccessful is because it cannot be shown that the same characteristics exhibited by the JWs are not present in other Christian religions. I've said it here in this forum twice before, all Christian religions have cultic characteristics. You can easily recognize it in other religions, but not your own. Heh.
|
|
|
Post by captainzman on Jan 30, 2011 19:57:27 GMT
captainzman wrote:So, exactly what is a cult, captainzman? What about actually addressing my point? Your continued just-so stories about people's psychological states don't prove your point in any way.
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on Jan 30, 2011 19:59:04 GMT
Would you like me to make the same post in an atheist forum and see how many disagree with me? Also, I would guess that nearly all Christians in the US would agree that the god-experience is a valid argument for god, and they could care less about the philosophical arguments. Come right down to it, I would guess that there are very few who would not agree with me. How come you prefer evoking emotion to arguing logically for your conclusions, mate? Instead of reading Craig and explaining what is wrong with his arguments (in context) you ramble on about his "mental breakdown" and "god-experience" as why he says what he does. If it is easy to disprove his arguments, do it. If not, calm down. To be very clear: I see no reason at all to take you on authority, at least not until you have earned it. And that will take some time. So far you haven't shown a single thing about Craig at all. For what anyone who hasn't read him knows, you are making up even what's there of half truths. The only thing you do show consistently is that you seem rather desperately trying "to prove via other methods" than reason that God does not exist and "rationalize" your position with amateur psychology. Something that leads exactly nowhere in this forum.
|
|
|
Post by gymnopodie on Jan 30, 2011 20:14:05 GMT
Only to a non-thinking Christian.
captainzman wrote:
I don't ever remember saying that it was right; I did say several times that that was what I was taught in the US and my wife was taught the same in the UK. Why is that such a difficult concept for you to grasp? And why are you saying that neither of us studied history? I have said several times that that was what was taught. Flip through any history book written in the early 1960s and see what they say. And why do you say I was dead wrong about it? I didn't write the history books. I didn't give the lectures. And if the historians were wrong at that time it wasn't because they didn't know how history works.
captainzman wrote:
That is complete nonsense. No one has to use philosophy to discuss the possibility of god's existence. You're the believer - not me. Believers are the ones who have to use philosophy because that is the only method that allows them to rationalize what they believe. You can't philosophize up a god by using words. Get real. You can't present to me any tangible evidence that some god is directly involved in your life or anyone elses. It's a feeling you have; a faith you have.
|
|
|
Post by captainzman on Jan 30, 2011 20:32:33 GMT
Seriously? Are you kidding me? You dare say that I'm non-thinking? I thought you were going to knock off the ad hominem attacks. There goes the last bit of good will I had towards you. But that's the beauty of the Internet. It allows people like you to say things to me that they would never dare to say in person.
EDIT: This is also rather ironic. First you admit that most people are unable to argue in a philosophical manner. This would imply some sort of educational advantage, i.e., something that involves thinking. Then you say that I am non-thinking because I use philosophy. Wow. I know some pretty fierce atheists, people who are very critical of Christianity, and even they see the value in philosophy.
Frankly, your anti-intellectualism is an embarrassment to thinking people everywhere. The existence of God has always been considered a philosophical question by theists and atheists alike. I guess one of the benefits of dismissing an entire subject as "a bunch of opinions" is the ability to make up your own facts.
|
|
|
Post by gymnopodie on Jan 30, 2011 20:36:53 GMT
bjorn wrote:
I wasn't evoking emotions, pal. You must be thinking of someone else. As I said, most people would agree with me.
bjorn wrote:
The descriptions that many people give of their born-again experience is not unlike a mental breakdown. Certainly something happens to those people. Many can tell you the exact day and hour that they became born again and became filled with holy spirit. It instantly transforms their life and thoughts. What I wrote about Craig's god-experience is exactly what he said. I posted a link to it before. I didn't make it up. I wrote just what he said. If you have a problem with what he said, you might want to discuss it with him.
bjorn wrote:
Why would I want to waste time trying to prove that something doesn't exist when no one has ever proven that it does exist? As I've said before, if you have irrefutable proof that god exists, you should contact the news agencies immediately. I'll be looking for the headlines in tomorrow's papers.
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on Jan 30, 2011 22:12:32 GMT
bjorn wrote:I wasn't evoking emotions, pal. You must be thinking of someone else. As I said, most people would agree with me. Talking about someones' "mental breakdown" do evoke emotions last I checked with most people, old sport. Why would I want to waste time trying to prove that something doesn't exist when no one has ever proven that it does exist? As I've said before, if you have irrefutable proof that god exists, you should contact the news agencies immediately. I'll be looking for the headlines in tomorrow's papers. The headlines in the papers are only big when someone "disproves" God's existence, as proven by the Hawking book release this autumn. If one took those headlines seriously it would look as if God's existence had been proven until Hawking insisted that his theory of the universe didn't need God. More important than this is that I have never stated that God has been proven. That is another of your strawmen. Our discussion stem from the fact that you and Dave have shouted from the rooftop time and again that it is easy and obvious to disprove the arguments that makes the existence of God a rational and probable belief. I am still waiting for you to prove this. Empirical evidence indicates that I will have to wait a long time.
|
|
|
Post by davedodo007 on Jan 31, 2011 12:39:55 GMT
bjorn wrote:I wasn't evoking emotions, pal. You must be thinking of someone else. As I said, most people would agree with me. Talking about someones' "mental breakdown" do evoke emotions last I checked with most people, old sport. Why would I want to waste time trying to prove that something doesn't exist when no one has ever proven that it does exist? As I've said before, if you have irrefutable proof that god exists, you should contact the news agencies immediately. I'll be looking for the headlines in tomorrow's papers. The headlines in the papers are only big when someone "disproves" God's existence, as proven by the Hawking book release this autumn. If one took those headlines seriously it would look as if God's existence had been proven until Hawking insisted that his theory of the universe didn't need God. More important than this is that I have never stated that God has been proven. That is another of your strawmen. Our discussion stem from the fact that you and Dave have shouted from the rooftop time and again that it is easy and obvious to disprove the arguments that makes the existence of God a rational and probable belief. I am still waiting for you to prove this. Empirical evidence indicates that I will have to wait a long time. Stephen Hawking only said "God was not necessary for the creation of the universe" If you disagree go and critique his book. he can't be held responsible for the hype and headlines. Though since over three quarters of the world believe in god then the hype might be justified, I personally don't like it. Name one conclusion philosophy has come up with let alone the question of god/s. It may be a good way of marshalling thought but It has been found wanting when conclusions are necessary. Yet you want us to believe that it has answered one of the oldest questions of mankind. If god/s exist and interact with this world then their would be evidence of their interaction, there isn't. Words and logic are fine but they have their limitations. Nobody is going to prove anything by mental gymnastics.
|
|
|
Post by gymnopodie on Jan 31, 2011 14:05:12 GMT
captainzman wrote:
No matter how educated a person is, they still can overlook the obvious. One of my chemistry professors stressed this. He said that sometimes chemical engineers when faced with an unsolvable problem would ask advice from an outsider - someone who is not even a chemist. The reason being, the solution can be right there in front of them, yet they may miss it because they‘ve wrongly assumed that a complicated problem must have a complicated solution, therefore they overlook the obvious. The god-solution must be also complicated, right? Why do you assume that? Is it because philosophers and theologians have been struggling for years with complicated solutions without solving the problem, so therefore the solution must be even more complicated? If you look at the history of mankind and try to invoke a god into it, it becomes extremely complicated. All sorts of complicated problems pop up. Why is there suffering? Why are there natural disasters? Why do religious people do bad things? Yet, all these questions and thousands more can be answered quite simply by one simple solution; there is no god. See, how simple that is? If there is no god, then everything makes perfect sense, all the evidence falls right into place. So, tell me, why do you continue to struggle with complicated, nonsensical solutions that can never solve the problem? Is it because you want to believe in a god so much that come hell or high water you're going to spend the rest of your life trying to prove the unprovable?
|
|