U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-14-2019, 01:49 PM
 
11,379 posts, read 11,378,054 times
Reputation: 3551

Advertisements

I'm a YouTube theology debate junkie. I really love to watch these things. Naturally I've watched all of idiot Craig's, Licona's, Ehrman's, Carrier's, Robert Price's, Dan Barker's, and a hundred atheists and theists in between like Sean Carroll and Christopher DiCarlo and Hitchens for atheism, and Justin Bass, Frank Turek, and D'Souza for theism.

Craig is famous for having introduced the Kalam cosmological argument as his point #1 for proving the existence of God. In a nutshell, the Kalam argument goes:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3 Therefore, the universe had a cause

The incredible leap in logic Craig makes however is to get from this "Cause" that must have formed the universe to "Yahweh is that cause!"

Craig is not alone. In watching all of these debates by scientists who are Bible-believing Christians a question constantly occurs to me:

How do these otherwise extremely intelligent and accomplished scientists land on a brutal genocidal god like Yahweh to believe in????? I mean, can't they be theists and believe in a God--who can construct something as complex as the code contained with a single DNA strand which would fill a set of Enyclopedia Britannica---without having to default to someone as patently man-made as the god of the Old Testament [edit: to clarify in respect of Mike555's confusion I now change "God" to "Old Testament" hence "the god of the Old Testament"]? Why is it we must believe in THEIR god if we are to follow their scientific argument for Intelligent Design? I just don't get this. Odd that there are no deists among them, at least professed deists--which is the most logical God for a scientist to believe in.

Last edited by thrillobyte; 08-14-2019 at 02:23 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-14-2019, 02:05 PM
 
22,217 posts, read 16,895,720 times
Reputation: 8976
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte View Post
I'm a YouTube theology debate junkie. I really love to watch these things. Naturally I've watched all of idiot Craig's, Licona's, Ehrman's, Carrier's, Robert Price's, Dan Barker's, and a hundred atheists and theists in between like Sean Carroll and Christopher DiCarlo and Hitchens for atheism, and Justin Bass, Frank Turek, and D'Souza for theism.

Craig is famous for having introduced the Kalam cosmological argument as his point #1 for proving the existence of God. In a nutshell, the Kalam argument goes:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3 Therefore, the universe had a cause

The incredible leap in logic Craig makes however is to get from this "Cause" that must have formed the universe to "Yahweh is that cause!"

Craig is not alone. In watching all of these debates by scientists who are Bible-believing Christians a question constantly occurs to me:

How do these otherwise extremely intelligent and accomplished scientists land on a brutal genocidal god like Yahweh to believe in????? I mean, can't they be theists and believe in a God--who can construct something as complex as the code contained with a single DNA strand which would fill a set of Enyclopedia Britannica---without having to default to someone as patently man-made as the god of the Bible? Why is it we must believe in THEIR god if we are to follow their scientific argument for Intelligent Design? I just don't get this. Odd that there are no deists among them, at least professed deists--which is the most logical God for a scientist to believe in.
And yet, right at this moment you have a thread in the Christianity forum in which you defend the Calvinistic view of the God of the Bible in which God decides who to save and who to leave in damnation. A view which you said appeals to you.

Per John 6:44, Can A Man Come To Jesus Without The Father Drawing Him?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2019, 02:10 PM
 
11,379 posts, read 11,378,054 times
Reputation: 3551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
And yet, right at this moment you have a thread in the Christianity forum in which you defend the Calvinistic view of the God of the Bible in which God decides who to save and who to leave in damnation. A view which you said appeals to you.

Per John 6:44, Can A Man Come To Jesus Without The Father Drawing Him?

What's your problem, Mike? Do you love stirring up trouble? If you would just think this out to its logical conclusion you wouldn't be fraught with all this confusion that haunts you. Hint: there are about 4 gods mentioned in the Bible. One is Yahweh, the pagan Jewish god.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2019, 02:16 PM
 
22,217 posts, read 16,895,720 times
Reputation: 8976
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte View Post
What's your problem, Mike? Do you love stirring up trouble? If you would just think this out to its logical conclusion you wouldn't be fraught with all this confusion that haunts you. Hint: there are about 4 gods mentioned in the Bible. One is Yahweh, the pagan Jewish god.
I'm simply pointing out your inconsistent mindset and lack of credibility. But don't worry. I have no intention of participating in this thread beyond this post. Knock yourself out. You can even say nasty things about me if you want to.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2019, 02:24 PM
 
11,379 posts, read 11,378,054 times
Reputation: 3551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
I'm simply pointing out your inconsistent mindset and lack of credibility. But don't worry. I have no intention of participating in this thread beyond this post. Knock yourself out. You can even say nasty things about me if you want to.

No, no. Don't run away like a scared rabbit. Dialogue with me. Perhaps I can assuage some of your confusion. And I NEVER say nasty things about people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2019, 04:08 PM
 
12 posts, read 1,803 times
Reputation: 18
I have met The Father God Ten Thousand Times & He is every bit as Ferocious, Angry & Terrifying as The Old Testament depicts. And He demonstrated to me how He creates universes out of the living light that people call "God". He demonstrated so much that is not in The Bible clearly enough. He demonstrated His Science to me & how He manipulates the wavelength of the universe to control all its space & time, & everything contained in them. God uses science to perform all His wonders.
Still it is pointless arguing about God. You have to meet God for yourself & then you will know The Truth about Him. He always has His Good Son Jesus with Him & Jesus is always gentle, loving, kind & forgiving. Jesus is the opposite of The Father in temperament & you really need to be like Jesus if you want to get on The Father's Good side.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2019, 04:38 PM
 
Location: Oklahoma
6,991 posts, read 6,291,954 times
Reputation: 6283
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte View Post
I'm a YouTube theology debate junkie. I really love to watch these things. Naturally I've watched all of idiot Craig's, Licona's, Ehrman's, Carrier's, Robert Price's, Dan Barker's, and a hundred atheists and theists in between like Sean Carroll and Christopher DiCarlo and Hitchens for atheism, and Justin Bass, Frank Turek, and D'Souza for theism.

Craig is famous for having introduced the Kalam cosmological argument as his point #1 for proving the existence of God. In a nutshell, the Kalam argument goes:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3 Therefore, the universe had a cause

The incredible leap in logic Craig makes however is to get from this "Cause" that must have formed the universe to "Yahweh is that cause!"

Craig is not alone. In watching all of these debates by scientists who are Bible-believing Christians a question constantly occurs to me:

How do these otherwise extremely intelligent and accomplished scientists land on a brutal genocidal god like Yahweh to believe in????? I mean, can't they be theists and believe in a God--who can construct something as complex as the code contained with a single DNA strand which would fill a set of Enyclopedia Britannica---without having to default to someone as patently man-made as the god of the Old Testament [edit: to clarify in respect of Mike555's confusion I now change "God" to "Old Testament" hence "the god of the Old Testament"]? Why is it we must believe in THEIR god if we are to follow their scientific argument for Intelligent Design? I just don't get this. Odd that there are no deists among them, at least professed deists--which is the most logical God for a scientist to believe in.
Good points all:

I think even the smartest guys in the world still have deep seated issues that draw them to belief. These issues transcend the fact that the ancient Hebrew god story is crazy on it's face. Yet in western society that's pretty much our only option in polite society.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2019, 02:41 AM
 
39,905 posts, read 11,163,130 times
Reputation: 5158
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte View Post
I'm a YouTube theology debate junkie. I really love to watch these things. Naturally I've watched all of idiot Craig's, Licona's, Ehrman's, Carrier's, Robert Price's, Dan Barker's, and a hundred atheists and theists in between like Sean Carroll and Christopher DiCarlo and Hitchens for atheism, and Justin Bass, Frank Turek, and D'Souza for theism.

Craig is famous for having introduced the Kalam cosmological argument as his point #1 for proving the existence of God. In a nutshell, the Kalam argument goes:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3 Therefore, the universe had a cause

The incredible leap in logic Craig makes however is to get from this "Cause" that must have formed the universe to "Yahweh is that cause!"

Craig is not alone. In watching all of these debates by scientists who are Bible-believing Christians a question constantly occurs to me:

How do these otherwise extremely intelligent and accomplished scientists land on a brutal genocidal god like Yahweh to believe in????? I mean, can't they be theists and believe in a God--who can construct something as complex as the code contained with a single DNA strand which would fill a set of Enyclopedia Britannica---without having to default to someone as patently man-made as the god of the Old Testament [edit: to clarify in respect of Mike555's confusion I now change "God" to "Old Testament" hence "the god of the Old Testament"]? Why is it we must believe in THEIR god if we are to follow their scientific argument for Intelligent Design? I just don't get this. Odd that there are no deists among them, at least professed deists--which is the most logical God for a scientist to believe in.
It's an ongoing spot in Christian apologetics. The idea that, if a god can be made credible, it must be the Christian god. We've even heard it when we ask 'Which god?'.

"There is only One God."

Then we either get the Leap of faith to the Bible (which is really what the debate is about) or we may be vague talk about various paths to God. But that's often a Ploy like the New Creationist ploy of arguing that their ID argument is not linked to any particular religion. But it is One god, and of course they thing the 'god' is the one in the Bible.

Kalam itself does fail because it is essentially applying what Theists call 'imperfect and limited human perceptions' to a Universe of Unknowns. We just know too little about what it is or what it was to be be able to start from Newtonian human assumptions and argue from there. by implication, the whole argument rests on argument from the absurdity of Infinite regression and postulating an 'uncreated creator' as a solution. But the Uncreated creator is as logically absurd as Infinite regression. Admitting that there is no credible explanation is the most honest answer, but it does not leave the 'god' -claim in place as the only other answer, which is essentially what Kalam is arguing from. And that is of course assuming as a given what one is attempting to prove.

But as you said, that only leaves you with a postulated intelligent creator. It takes a leap of Faith to get to any particular personal god, Holy Book and religion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2019, 03:45 AM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
15,455 posts, read 10,442,154 times
Reputation: 2639
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocean777 View Post
I have met The Father God Ten Thousand Times & He is every bit as Ferocious, Angry & Terrifying as The Old Testament depicts. And He demonstrated to me how He creates universes out of the living light that people call "God". He demonstrated so much that is not in The Bible clearly enough. He demonstrated His Science to me & how He manipulates the wavelength of the universe to control all its space & time, & everything contained in them. God uses science to perform all His wonders.
Still it is pointless arguing about God. You have to meet God for yourself & then you will know The Truth about Him. He always has His Good Son Jesus with Him & Jesus is always gentle, loving, kind & forgiving. Jesus is the opposite of The Father in temperament & you really need to be like Jesus if you want to get on The Father's Good side.
I think you should seek professional help.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2019, 03:47 AM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
15,455 posts, read 10,442,154 times
Reputation: 2639
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte View Post

Craig is famous for having introduced the Kalam cosmological argument as his point #1 for proving the existence of God. In a nutshell, the Kalam argument goes:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3 Therefore, the universe had a cause
Craig fails on point 2 of course.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top