If The Catholic Church Supports The Big Bang Theory...

ahhh but someone was able to see someone die. Thats is evidence of the dangers of radioactive substances. And here is the thing that religious people forget - that is repeatable!

Not knowing what the cause is and not having evidence is two different things.

 

The more I listen to William Lane Craig, the more of an ass he seems to be. In the Santa argument in the video above he's actually saying that because adults are aware that they are lying to their kids, it is possible to provide evidence that there is no Santa. I mean, think about that argument for a while; - it is the worst ballistic trauma possible he could ever inflict on his own foot.

 

ballistic trauma <-- love it!

 

refuted by who? everything he says is philosophically sound. he beat Hitchens in that debate, he beat Sam Harris. Dawkins is too afraid to debate him, plus he got whooped by John Lennox.

 

No, you're misinterpreting what he's saying. For all of the atheists that use the Santa Claus argument, he's saying "go to the North Pole, and see there's no one named Santa Claus there!". All of his philosophical arguments seem more sound to me than anything an atheist has brought forth to a debate.

 

Dawkins is affraid?

Dawkins has beat him into the groud so many times....its like beating a dead horse.

Dawkins Craig

 

Ofcourse he is

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lY1uTlaP2Pc"]DAWKINS PUBLICLY SPANKED!!! (1 of 3) Who Designed the Designer? - YouTube[/ame]

 

^^^ Right off the bat, the speaker is mentioning Darwinism.

1 - Darwinism has little to do with modern day Evolution. This is like saying Boeing is ripping off wirghtbrothersism.

2 &#8211; Evolution has nothing to do with how life forms....NOTHING. The study how life forms from inert matter is Abiogenesis.

Not even 30 seconds into this video and the speaker is talking out of his arse.

PS: I still waiting for you to prove the Invisible Pink Panda that lives on my couch doesn't exist.

 

don’t forget that god may not be all powerful as well as possibly not all knowing and possibly not the actual creator of the universe its possible it could not prevent the big bang even if he did know it would occur

there are many possibility’s that keep a being who could be called a god that would offend bits of Christian faith that could never the less be the case

 

Then hes not god.

 

For people who believe there is more than enough proof. For people who choose not to believe there will never be enough proof.

All one can do is state one's case about one's own beliefs. Trying to make someone believe or disbelieve is an impossible task.

 

doesn’t make much sense for anything to exist god is no exception perhaps the universe always exited in some form

if god always was that’s odd to you still don’t know why it exists and it would have waited for an eternity to make the universe their be literally an endless amount of time of god not making the universe then after forever was over bam universe

or maybe if god was not idle forever perhaps there’s more to creation then we can see and it just goes on and on forever and always has as well

But then your back to the universe perhaps just being endless of itself negating the need for god though that doesn’t disprove god



Theirs not necessarily a moral truth because a god exists either even if it bothers with morality at all which it doesn’t need to do

Sure it could perhaps crush all views in opposition to itself but that doesn’t mean there anything special about its own views its just a matter of might makes what is allowed to exist

 

to you maybe but it just becomes a matter of what you wish to define a god as

 

For all of the Christian apologetics that use the argument of going to the North Pole to see if Santa is there, I'm saying that the only reason that not finding Santa on the North Pole would be evidence of Santa's non-existence is that parents need a collaborating circumstance in order to inculcate the, well, let me call it the well-intentioned untruth, in their children.

Now, try to apply the same line of argumentation to the circumstances used to inculcate the, ummm, well-intentioned doctrines of Christianity in William Lane Craig.

*edit* To jump a few steps, bottom line is that W. L. Craig, by showing how the Santa myth can be exposed as a myth, unwittingly writes up the recipe for exposing any myth as myth, including the Christian godhead.

For example, if a Christian needs the circumstances of a god that is both omnipotent and omniscient in order to inculcate Christian myths in other people then he has essentially provided evidence against this god's existence by the same means that Craig suggests that evidence can be found against the existence of Santa.

 

Catholic Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître

The Catholic church has always supported science, science and Catholic goes side by side in fact the Catholic church has sponsor several scientific research. The stand of the church is that what ever scientific discoveries made only strengthen and demonstrate the almighty and wondrous power of God.

 

Im an Atheist. I only take the attributes that others project onto this 'god' and use them.

 

Which, by the way, is exactly why Craig shoots himself in the foot with his Santa "argument". I dunno why I used so many words above when it can be said in this short and concise way

 

Because sometimes a longer 'proper' way of saying something is funny!

 

Wow, nearly that whole paragraph is completely incoherent.

But I would just like to refute that God (assuming it's of the Christian variety) is the basis of morality?

In Exodus 32:1-14, Moses pleads with God to not wipe out his own people in anger because Aaron made a golden calf to pray to. Moses reminds God to keep his own promises and even tells God that the Egyptians would have the moral authority to call God 'evil'. So God relented.

What this shows is that absolute morality does not come from God himself. It is only when Moses appeals to a higher concept of morality that God then relents. If morality came from God then there would be no need for Moses to plead because God would always be doing the moral thing. The fact that God relents from his first impulse is quite telling about the nature of the Christian God concept.

 

How is it incoherent? Would you like to give reasons for your claim, or you just couldn't think of anything else to say?

God is the basis for morality, in that, outside of God, morality is relative. If there is no God, you cant say genocide is really "wrong" because the people doing it, think that it's right. Do you understand this or do you need me to go more in depth? Or maybe I'm just too incoherent for you.

 

Animals 'can tell right from wrong': Scientists suggest it's not just humans who have morals

Care to explain why and how animals (who have nosense of what 'god' is) have their own sets of moral standards?

 

You know..."god of the gaps" applies to all theories. It's silly to apply it only to religious perspectives--everyone "fills in the blanks"--even the god science.

 

Extrapolating from existing evidence is quite a different matter than inserting magic, Felicity.

 

I'll just concede that to you since it's irrelevant to this post.

I won't get bogged down with the semantics of 'moral truth' and 'science of morality', because you pretty much give the argument against the Church/Religious (again semantics) moral authority by answering some other strange concept about test tubes, meaning, absolute truth, and purpose.

This whole part is the most confusing. Maybe it's just not worded correctly.

And this was the point I addressed with the Exodus verse.