Search results

"You Can't Prove A Negative" Can he prove this? :roll:

The Kalam Cosmological Argument 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause 2. The Universe began to exist 3. Therefore the Universe had a cause Taken as a whole, the argument is logically valid, in that it is proof of a possible concept. However it is clearly not logically sound, as the premises...

I enjoyed Atlas Shrugged, it was very interesting, but the tenets of the Objectivism are philosophically flawed. I could go into all of them, but I won't unless asked (it's a long type and unless someone shows interest I won't bother) I will just point out that her "axiom" is flawed. This is...

If I recall correctly he had mention, in a debate a while back, a small religious group in the SouthWest(?) that was allowed to drink a certain substance that would get them high and allow them to "See God". Of course there is no way to prove that they actually interact with God, but while the...

Why think when you can just accuse and be content! Hmm first they state "it does away with the need of a God" followed later by "And we think that God sustains all of that." Not a very consistent thought process and "argument".

I've skimmed through a review of the book and it seems that Hawking and Mlodinow may be giving multiple ideas at the origin of the Big Bang, not just M-Theory, but I'm sure that idea will be at the forefront. Wasn't Hawking originally against throwing faith into M-Theory. I'm interested in...

It's unfortunate that there will always be people defending those verses in an attempt to keep in infallible and divine. It's clearly obvious that Genesis chapter 1 is blatantly wrong.

Thank you. That's pretty much what the reasoning I had. In my post above that I had sent a question to Andromedas and I was interested in his answer. It's not about personalities.

If I recall, in his video, "William Craig-Artful Dodger" AW stated that he'll tackle why the second premise, "The Universe BEGAN to exist" was very weak. I've done some research since then and I can see why it's a weak premise, but I was still interested in what AW had to say. I understand if...

Awesome, thanks for all the answers. I'll certainly look into his more perplexing biological claims when I run into them and see what I find. If anything it will give me a deeper insight into biology. Also, a bit off topic, but Andromodas, I sent you a PM with a question about one of your...

I wasn't exactly sure where to put this, but I figured that since I was acting skeptical, I should put it here. Anyway I was just wondering about Thunderf00t. What are his credentials? Is he actually a scientist? I know that doesn't really matter if his facts are right, but that brings me to...

Well it is peer-reviewed.

Wow that was a bunch of pretentious and fallacious crap. It all comes down to semantics in the end, but considering that by definition, Atheism and Agnosticism (and their counterparts and some combinations) are completely compatible, most of his points just fall flat on their face.

I am NOT advocating Craig. I think that is blatantly obvious in the opening post alone. I agree, which is why it baffles me when Craig attempts to use it as a sort of proof for an individual.

Forget it.

I don't see what is so hard to understand. He states that you can know God as a fact simply through an experience which may or may not have actually originated from the Supernatural. Opinion or not, this is not a rational way to debate.

but he states it is a fact

I didn't say it was you specifically. I used the word "You" as in "anyone" But should it be used as a way to convince yourself? Craig takes a step farther then belief and states it is a way to know God.

I think you misunderstand my point. You can claim that your experience stems from either a natural source or a supernatural source. But where it ACTUALLY stems from is either Natural or Supernatural. Not both. So for example my friend and I saw a comet passing overhead late one night. My...

Well I know what subjective means. While people are going to have subjective experiences, even if they see the same event (some may think a particular thunderstrom is natural, others may claim it stemmed from a divine being), the actual experience will be objective. That is it will either have...