Dr. Craig considers this a good answer.
Posted on: October 26, 2007 - 5:47am
Offline
Dr. Craig considers this a good answer.
>
- Login to post comments
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.
Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
Offline Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2021.
(Via http://stevencarrwork.blogspot.com/)
Basically what hes saying, is that he cannot provide any proof for his religion, so he has chosen to use a bullshit argument of "I know jesus christ in my heart" as anecdotal evidence to back up his claims of Christianity being the one true religion.... How nice.
Although i find it kind of futile, since every Muslim ive ever met has said the same thing. "If only you accepted allah into your heart, you would become a Muslim like me!"
I'm infallible. I don't know why you can't remember that.
So the points to take away from this presentation...
1) If the evidence and Christianity conflict, its the evidence that is at fault and you just need to go over the evidence until you make it fit with Christianity's "truth".
2) Doubt is destructive and evil, and it isn't just intellectual, it's actually Satan trying to destroy you.
3) Learn to be happy with unanswered questions. There's really no need to work at them since they just lead to doubt.
4) Taking into account 1 and 2, every once in a while look for "answers" to one of your questions so that it can fit with Christianity and no longer distract you from your sheep time.
We've heard it all before Dr. Craig... and its not convincing anyone. The virtue is not that your Christianity never changes in the face of new evidence, the virtue is that new evidence is still found in spite of Christianity's resistance to it.
The Regular Expressions of Humanistic Jones: Where one software Engineer will show the world that God is nothing more than an undefined pointer.
Hmmm...
I think, if I really wanted to be Christian, it'd be easier to just get a lobatomy.
Who is considered the best modern theologian?
Well, in this case, we speak of "best" in the relative sense, where the worst is the "biggest hack". I am unsure how to proceed with this. Moreland is definitely more of a hack than Craig, and Swinburne is less of a hack than Craig, although and Bahnsen (was) more of a hack than Swinbure, but Swinburne is more of a hack than Geisler.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
I ran into references to Bahnsen in Martin's critique of TAG at the infidels site. I guess what I'm wondering is whether there's an argument that doesn't collapse into some horrible fallacy. I think I agree with Textom's comment in the other thread that TAG is one of the better arguments; but it's because it's incomprehensible to most people. It's clever of them, I guess, to take a sticky wicket like induction, which is a puzzle still under contention so I've been reading, that's much more abstruse and intangible than something as simple and straightforward as the origin of the cosmos (LOL), and turn it into another argument from ignorance. I didn't even understand the problem when it was introduced, so I couldn't even begin to understand their reasoning in saying that Yahweh was somehow the solution. It's not, obviously, they're just asserting that a spurious answer is better than no answer, at least according to the last critique I'd read of it. And as always, they fail to explain how logic steals from Christianity, because, well, it doesn't.
Haha! That's a very nice summary indeed!