• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

My question to William Lane Craig

ChuckBerry said:
This is a perfect example of the dangers of relativism. If God is not your standard, you have to find some other standard, one which is unlikely to be achieved and requires you to violate your basic nature, leading to unhappiness in the least.
Click to expand...

God is my standard, and God gave me my nature. It was after I learned to accept myself the way I am, that I was able to grow and improve. It's one thing to say "I believe". It's another thing to actually live it.
 
ChuckBerry said:
This is a perfect example of the dangers of relativism. If God is not your standard, you have to find some other standard, one which is unlikely to be achieved and requires you to violate your basic nature, leading to unhappiness in the least.
Click to expand...

Do tell, what's my basic nature? I'm interested how you could possibly know.
 
lizzie said:
To me, God is a very pervasive concept. It is what moves and animates people and their actions. It is the source of energy for expression. Iow, it is something that we are a part of, as we are expressions of it. Hope that makes sense.
Click to expand...

Forever quantumly linked! The hot sun makes us seek shelter, like a strong rain, or perhaps a windy day. These are events that put into motion a series of subatomic correlations that set what we ultimately decide to do as a sentient being. The very first ideas of "God" must have come in many various forms, and the record demonstrates that events such as seeking shelter, or growing successful crops, or successful hunt were linked to an unknown force. The idea, even at this primitive level is not so hard to imagine. What is God? God is everything we cannot see, and is every explanation for everything we do. We cannot simply say that I did this because of God. God is not a thing, God is the representation of a first cause in any chain of events that lead to an neurological interpretation of an appropriate response; when we are quantumly defined not by our person, but rather our constituent parts, it makes sense that there may be a reason to seek God. We may indeed not have a choice in that regard. Atheists, and religious people of all strife are more closely related as either may wish to admit. In essence, we're all related, and everything in the universe is related to such a minute narrow specificity, there is no space for anything other than God to explain how incredibly complex quantum relationships appear tangential.

Tim-
 
Hicup said:
Forever quantumly linked! The hot sun makes us seek shelter, like a strong rain, or perhaps a windy day. These are events that put into motion a series of subatomic correlations that set what we ultimately decide to do as a sentient being. The very first ideas of "God" must have come in many various forms, and the record demonstrates that events such as seeking shelter, or growing successful crops, or successful hunt were linked to an unknown force. The idea, even at this primitive level is not so hard to imagine. What is God? God is everything we cannot see, and is every explanation for everything we do. We cannot simply say that I did this because of God. God is not a thing, God is the representation of a first cause in any chain of events that lead to an neurological interpretation of an appropriate response; when we are quantumly defined not by our person, but rather our constituent parts, it makes sense that there may be a reason to seek God. We may indeed not have a choice in that regard. Atheists, and religious people of all strife are more closely related as either may wish to admit. In essence, we're all related, and everything in the universe is related to such a minute narrow specificity, there is no space for anything other than God to explain how incredibly complex quantum relationships appear tangential.

Tim-
Click to expand...

Explain to me how you're not just simply redefining the word "cause?" This definition of a god is so broad as to be meaningless. I suspect you believe in something like the Christian God, however. That's the God, or kind of god at least, that most atheists don't hold a belief in.
 
afr0byte said:
Explain to me how you're not just simply redefining the word "cause?" This definition of a god is so broad as to be meaningless. I suspect you believe in something like the Christian God, however. That's the God, or kind of god at least, that most atheists don't hold a belief in.
Click to expand...


I don't believe in God per say. I am not religious in any way as none of them have done a good job convincing me I should entertain the idea of their God. What I do believe is that everything possible is connected at the subatomic level, and information travels at faster than light speeds to be almost instantaneous. God is what happens when we can't interpret the information coming in.


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
God is what happens when we can't interpret the information coming in.

Tim-
Click to expand...

Well, for some, yes. I'd rather just say "I don't know" in the case where there's something we don't understand at the moment, rather than posit some God for the heck of it.
 
afr0byte said:
Well, for some, yes. I'd rather just say "I don't know" in the case where there's something we don't understand at the moment, rather than posit some God for the heck of it.
Click to expand...

"I don't know" isn't an interpretation, it is a "lack" of an interpretation. Saying God did it, is an interpretation. However, the two subjects, (the I don't know camp, and the God did it camp) are at the same level in understanding the event. Both of you don't know the truth of the information coming in to process, but you're BOTH driven with an uncontrollable desire to speculate. :)


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
"I don't know" isn't an interpretation, it is a "lack" of an interpretation. Saying God did it, is an interpretation. However, the two subjects, (the I don't know camp, and the God did it camp) are at the same level in understanding the event. Both of you don't know the truth of the information coming in to process, but you're BOTH driven with an uncontrollable desire to speculate. :)


Tim-
Click to expand...

You're correct in that "I don't know" isn't an interpretation. However, I've attempted to interpret the cause of this hypothetical event in the process of coming to the realization that I don't know the cause. I'm just honest enough to say I don't know what the cause was. I may speculate, but I wouldn't claim to know.
 
afr0byte said:
You're correct in that "I don't know" isn't an interpretation. However, I've attempted to interpret the cause of this hypothetical event in the process of coming to the realization that I don't know the cause. I'm just honest enough to say I don't know what the cause was. I may speculate, but I wouldn't claim to know.
Click to expand...

I can't see why people over the history of our species have relied on the speculation of others, even if packaged as truth like a religion, frankly? But that said, I do not begin to claim the mantle of truth either. I'm with you, in that I simply do not know, but I DO speculate about a lot of things I am unable to process the truth of. I mean, this is the philosophy thread right? :)

On another note, and since this is philosophy, one thing I am keenly aware of is that, given enough time, and enough luck, we mere humans could attain the level of God-like status within the confines of our universe. Supposing that this premise is true, it is not then too far fetched to believe that someone, or something has done it before us. In this vein, God could exist at a plausible enough truth for me to not count it out entirely. Evidence is great, and I'd like some as much as the next guy, but lacking in material evidence, suppositions based on logical premises can suffice. :)

Tim-
 
I received a response from a proxy. I have not yet studied the response, but lets be respectful, since this fellow was kind enough to respond to my admittedly-harsh question.

Hi Elijah,

My name is Max and I'll be responding to your question on behalf of Dr. Craig,

Perfect being theology is very important and you're correct in understanding God to being perfect.

Concerning these prima facie anthropomorphic expressions in the Bible I'd refer you to what's called the multi-layered middle knowledge hermeneutic, which helps us understand what these passages teach: Q&A 9: Layering Divine Middle Knowledge |

Concerning the appearance genocide, Paul Copan out of Palm Beach Atlantic has an amazing book called Is God a Moral Monster? and he's spot on with how these passages are to be understood. Also, here's an excurses on the question, "What if God Commanded You to Do Something Wrong?" that was brought up in a debate of mine: What if God Commanded You to do Something Wrong? |

Dr. Craig also address a category of your question, the issue of sin, salvation, ordering the world as he does to bring about his will: Sovereignty and Salvation | Reasonable Faith

I hope this helps.
Click to expand...
 
Okay, so I studied the response. Particularly Craig's viewpoint, which can be found here:

Is God A Moral Monster? - YouTube

Craig commits several logical fallacies right off the bat. Most importantly, he appeals to emotion. In one example of genocide, Craig says that the people of Canaan were so unbelievably evil that he had to use his people to exterminate them. He cites bestiality and all kinds of nasty things which are historically unproven and unprovable -- in order to make us sympathetic with the argument that God had to, by proxy, commit genocide. History is notoriously written by the victors, and the notion that the Canaanites were innately evil (to the point of their children being tainted) is in contrast with what we know about the human experience.

Craig also says that his people were kept in reserve for centuries until the Canaanites were 100% evil. Why didn't God intervene in those centuries to inspire worship among the Canaanites? That is the name of the game, after all.
 
Last edited:
From around 6:00 - 7:30, Craig talks about God's order to drive the Canaanites from the land. Craig states there would have been no genocide if they (the people living there) had just left willing, and gave the land over to the Israelites. I'm not sure what logical fallacy this is, but it punches me right in the brain testicles.
 
Last edited:
From William Lane Craig himself:

Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God’s grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives.

So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgement. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing.

Read more: Slaughter of the Canaanites | Reasonable Faith
Click to expand...

This is some serious moral judo.
 
The main logical fallacy is Craig's appeal to authority. He states that since God defines morality, anything God does is morally right -- even when he does something absurdly immoral (by human reckoning). I understand why Dawkins doesn't want to debate him.
 
Amadeus said:
The main logical fallacy is Craig's appeal to authority. He states that since God defines morality, anything God does is morally right -- even when he does something absurdly immoral (by human reckoning). I understand why Dawkins doesn't want to debate him.
Click to expand...

You should just believe God, man! :lol:
 
In this video, Craig lies (or is disingenuous) about the loving nature of the God in order to criticize Muslim theology. He says that his God's love is unconditional, impartial, and universal -- and thus superior to the Islam interpretation, whereby God only loves and embraces worshippers. In another video, Craig apologizes for God having ordered the slaughter of men, women, and children... because they worshipped another god (lets be honest, that was the real reason; it wasn't bestiality).

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom