So many erroneous assumptions it's not even funny. Utter trash for the most part, but I'll take the time to posit counter-arguments for each of these ridiculous videos.
Video #1:
Even in the first minute he wrongly categorizes both atheist conceptions on creation and the science behind the Big Bang. Big Bang, yes, but he says this was the absolute beginning. Roger Penrose championed the idea that the Big Bang was simply one of several, and that time in this state is curved in on itself to such an extent that linear time as we perceive it cannot be said to exist. In any case, the Big Bang is not an "absolute beginning" as this guy seems to suggest.
And he also ignores quantum observations of particles being created out of "nothing", a phase shift in quantum state that likely created the first particles of the universe.
Beyond that, the obvious problem with a top-down Creator-deity is that it's saying "here's the complex universe. So there must have been an even more complex God to make it." Thus the question, what made God? It's not a legit question, theists say...God simply is. If you want to believe that on faith, ok, but it's not a rational explanation and actually disagrees with any known principle of causality.
Video #2:
All he's outlining is the Anthropic principle, which actually refutes theist dogma, not supports it. The idea that certain factors had to be exactly as they are to make our universe. It's an old argument, not anything new to the religious right's attack on science. The anthropic principle shows how the universe came to be how it is without anything or anyone intervening. The laws of physics saw to that. With the forces of the universe as they are, God isn't needed, nor is He a likely force behind creating it. Most of the forces alluded to (see Frank Tipler's work for more of this line of thought) are constants and literally can't change. So saying "what are the odds of this happening?!?!" means nothing. The odds are 1/1, or 100%. And the others that are variable rely on their interaction with the other forces, thus only a very limited range of variation.
Also, experimental scenarios have been developed that estimate what the universe would be like with different values for these forces. And the conclusion is that we could end up with something similar to our universe, where life could arise, with a variety of values for these variables. No divine intervention needed.
He relishes in quoting Stephen Hawking, btw. Hawking's not religious in any way, shape, or form.
As always, the ID advocates describe evolution as "chance". "It's either chance or design," they say. To the contrary, evolution has very specific methods and makes perfect sense without having to resort to "chance". Evolution didn't happen by ridiculous luck. It happened through natural selection, which makes perfect sense and elegantly displays how we came to be without the need for a designer.
Video #3:
Objective moral values don't exist. It depends on your perspective. To say there's objective moral values is to suggest that something is true for everyone...any culture, time period, person, scenario, etc. It's patently false. Morality is relative to the perspective from which you're viewing it.
He doesn't defend his objective morality except to try to appela to us emotionally ("We know this is true inside of us") and to try to shock us into agreement with events like rape and the Holocaust.
Laughably, he quotes noted evolutionists to strengthen his argument, immediately after he tried to bring down their argument in the last video. Altruism evolved as a means to survival, which was assimilated into our conscious minds and we tried to turn it into objective truth...we all see where that leads us. Harmful dogmas that create division between religious groups, families, cultures, etc.
Video #4
Ah, the historical Jesus. The one that bears so many similarities to the Egyptian Horus that you could make a pages-long comparison of everything from major themes to tiny details, including the resurrection. The same Jesus that you can find (literally) hundreds of mythological predecessors to, whether it is the virgin birth, resurrection, or many of the details of his ministry.
Yes, the same Jesus we read about in the Gospels, all written decades after his life by people who were not eye-witnesses. The same Gospels that contradict knowledge we have of the time period (the hogwash about Mary and Joseph returning for a census to be taken is particularly outlandish, and we can deny it with historical records of the census that took place years earlier...and was only done because it was said that the savior would be born in Bethlehem).
His "3 points" to prove the resurrection:
1. He doesn't offer evidence for why his token expert believes that there's valid evidence for believing in the empty tomg. None is offered. Also, the "tomb" has been said to have been found numerous times. None can ever be confirmed.
2. Eyewitness accounts aren't proof, and are notably flawed. And these WEREN'T eyewitness accounts....they were supposedly eyewitness accounts written by people who never knew the witnesses.
3. People coming to believe in the resurrection doesn't mean anything...if that were the case, he'd just point at the billions of Christians and say "Ha! I guess we're right."
Video #5:
Shifting the burden of proof?! Priceless, and a tired argument. The universe displays no design and no evidence of a creator. I'd challenge anyone to show me otherwise. The theists are believing in a God without rational evidence....the burden of proof is squarely on their shoulders. "You can't prove God's absence," he says. True. But nothing can be proved, objectively speaking, including his existence. And there's no rational reason to believe in it. Christ, he even says it: "I see no reason why a lack of evidence means God doesn't exist." It would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic.
Video #6:
His 5 pieces of evidence:
1. The existence of the unvierse (detailed earlier) doesn't mean a godly creator....which would be even more improbable, unlikely, and harder to believe than asimple explanation that has nothing to do with God.
...actually the rest of his points are just a summary of the earlier videos.
Atheism might not be right. But Christianity surely isn't either, at least as this guy describes it.
Note to ushome:
Use your own opinions. Copying/pasting others is simply lazy debating, and is mainly only used by yourself and JIA.
And there's all kinds of flaws in this argument. I feel like this guy is actively trying to attack atheism, which is divisive and derogatory to a large number of compassionate and free-thinking people.
IP address check I would assume. If they match it's the same computer. It doesn't stop a sock from using two different computers though I don't think. Plus, IP blockers can complicate things.
I was overwhelmed by your response. You provided your views regarding each of the various videos I posted--which I appreciate--but you did so in one fell swoop. Perhaps, if your willing, regroup your thoughts and resubmit a response to video one. We can then participate in a friendly debate, and when we have exhausted ourselves, we can then, continue to the second video and so on.
I look forward to the debate, since I disagreed with all that you brought to the table, especially your comment regarding "...quantum observations of particles being created out of 'nothing', a phase shift in quantum state that likely created the first particles of the universe." For the life of me, I simply cannot wrap my mind around the sources your digesting this information from. Statements of this caliber to do not appeal to science in any respect. You certainly did not acquire such ideals from scientific journals.
And your views on Christianity are completely at odds with scholarly knowledge regarding Jewish and Roman history, not to mention the Christian faith itself. For a brief--but concise--overview of the origin of Christianity, namely, the resurrection and the gospels that document such, read the following article (which, by the way, contains 24 references in the bibliography): http://www.apologetics.com/default....surrection.html. I ask that you read this article, since I will be proposing aspects of the material covered in our debate in the latter. Otherwise, never mind; the debate will be interesting nonetheless.
Aside from everything, I was curious to read your thoughts on this video: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/147. It is nothing in depth, but it is fantastic to take in and watch! [Note: The site must be over going maintenance, since the video does not play. It doesn't even load. To watch the video, if the problem still exists, simply download it.]
See, I'm in a moral bind right now. On the one hand, the videos anger me to no end. On the other hand, you're turning the other cheek so it's kinda hard to act pissed without seeming like the bad guy.
But here's my problem: You posted videos that basically do nothing but bash atheism. Not your words specifically, but you're attaching yourself to them by posting them.
Now normally I wouldn't have responded, but I was incensed enough that this guy would go out of his way to call atheists out that I felt like there should at least be a reasoned response to his claims. But the truth is, I don't want to debate about this stuff. In my mind there is no debate because Christianity is wrong for numerous obvious reasons. I'm equally as aware that I'm never going to convince you of this, and would rather not spend my time here on KMC pointlessly bashing my head against a metaphoric wall.
The other part is, I've always told people what I belive when appropriate, and in the course of doing so I occasionally have to call other religions into question. But I don't go out of my way to tear down religious belief. And that's exactly what William Craig is doing, so regardless of anything he says (right or wrong) I can't respect him for that. And in responding I had to go out of my way to counter-attack both him, you, and Christianity. I'm nearly as disappointed in myself as I am in Craig and yourself.
So no thanks. You're welcome to look into anything I said to find the validity of it or counter-arguments to it. But this nigh-worthless thread at least has a viewpoint from both sides....that's all I wanted to accomplish and now I'm done.
Its more fantastic if you actually know the science behind the video. Besdies, the origial video is found here: http://www.studiodaily.com/main/tec...jects/6850.html Its much better than listening to that man prattle on.
I'm sure this will spireal into a debate about design. In which case, I'll be here watching.
Also...why make a thread simply posting a factual swiss cheese of a video and then entirely change the topic? Sounds like someone has issues.
TED is a great organization. That whole website is littered with informative presentations. Can't say that particular video was too great...it was mostly just making 3-D images of cells. Fun, and I'm sure the video itself would be visually exiciting, but not groundbreaking.
I posted the William Lane Craig video because I thought that it was mentally stimulating; I thought that all who watched it would benefit from it. Never did I think, that such a video series, would invoke such negative responses. I honestly respect your competing views regarding the video, but to state that William Lane Craig "bashed" atheism is too strong of a word. The man simply gave a presentation and used—a dozen or so—quotes to validate his points. William Lane Craig was a gentlemen, without wavering, during his entire presentation!
With all do respect, I think you dislike him simply because he had something relevant and honest to state—having nothing to do with the method in which he presented his case. Whether right or wrong, it is obvious—and I think others will agree—that the man did his homework.
And I do not know why Christianity is wrong for "numerous obvious reasons." Shedding light on that statement would have been appropriate. I have, literally, spent a few hundred dollars on research material—books, audio presentations from national television shows, and DVD material. I have much to learn, but I know when half-truths are being told, not to mention lies.
Here is an example: http://www.thegodmovie.com/clip-Trailer.php. And this is important! For those who are ignorant of the Christian faith—and I do not mean that in a condescending way—this movie serves as a powerful mechanism of truth. It is convincing, but false nonetheless. You will never see a movie of this caliber on the History and/or Discovery channel. For persons with knowledge, this movie is pure junk.
If you are unenthusiastic about further debate on the video by William Lane Craig, I respect your position. We will have another meeting-of-the-minds debate on another thread. Until then, take care.
And yes, TED is excellent. If I'm not mistaken, I do believe presentations by atheists are available for viewing. I do know, that, Richard Dawkins has a presentation on the site. Check it out! And if you know of other websites similar, please inform me.
You continue to act graciously, so in that respect you have my thanks.
But there's a few logical fallacies taking place here. For one, there's an insane amount of confirmation bias taking part on your end. A person knows what they believe, then focuses on whatever material seems to support it, and then rationalizes away or ignores the contradicting evidence. Confirmation bias happens to all of us, and I'm not exempt from this, but an utter ignorance of "well, maybe it isn't true because of these reasons..." suggests a strong confirmation bias against anything I might offer you. I'm intimately familiar with Christian theology, as well as more arguments for ID and objective morality than I can currently remember. If needed, I could play a damn good Christian apologist, and I doubt many would crack my intellectual armor. Can you say that about atheism? If so, good for you. If not, you're working from an inherently biased perspective.
I could take that link you posted which defends the validity of the Gospels (which I did read, btw) and take apart various aspects of it one by one (not all of it, mind you, but a lot of it...I'm simply not that versed in every aspect of Biblical history...just enough to know what I believe and why). But chances are you either wouldn't believe me, would form counter-points against me that are flawed but seem rational from your perspective, or would simply pass the evidence off as inconsequential. Seriously, be honest, if I offered a rock solid case against everything this guy says, would you de-convert? Doubtful.
Of course, I couldn't refute everything he says 100% (a lot though, most of which is in my earlier post). But others can, and have. All of it. Intelligent design, historical infallibility of the gospels, the entire moral base of the New and Old Testaments, the list goes on.
And so my earlier argument: I refuse to take part in a larger discussion when I realize it will go nowhere. It will be a Christian talking with an atheist, and it will be utterly fruitless. I've heard these arguments before, and you've likely heard the refutations. I posted a few earlier, and that's about it.
...
So please, don't presume to put words in my mouth. The bit about me not liking him because he had something truthful to say was particularly delicious...if I perceive an argument that I think is better than my own, I generally embrace it, not shun it.
And if you can't see that his entire presentation amounts to an attack on secularism and atheism, your head is too far in the clouds...it was personally offensive to me, and uncalled for, as I have yet to see atheists taking part in rallies to discuss the flaws of fundamentalist Christianity (there are atheist speakers, of course...but they generally debate and engage in talks/discussions, and don't have dedicated congregations following their every word without evidence). Stating your beliefs is one thing, engaging others in discussion about the merits/flaws of their views is also fine. But this was one-sided and unprovoked.
I have no doubt you're doing this for what you think are benevolent purposes ushome, so again I hesitate from directing any negative sentiments at you. I disagree with quite a bit about this thread, but it's still a public forum for religious discussion, so it's your prerogative to post such things. I replied with some counter-points for the sake of equality of views, and now hopefully we can lay this to rest.
KMC Community Forums
Sep 26th, 2007 02:24 PM
