No. you have misread. Again. This discussion is happening here. Not on Bill's website. You are involved in the discussion. not Bill. You have confirmed, not once, but countless times, that you have no answers. You've been handed every opportunity to step up. Not just in this 600+ thread, but in previous - even larger threads. And you have no answers. Not a single one, except "go look on the internet".
I just had a funny image. I wonder... were God to exist, is he saying "This is my flock??? They've apparently got all the faith in the world, and the ability to spread my word far and wide. But 'Look on the internet'??? That's the take-away? I'll smite them is what I'll do!"
If you want clarification you CAN discuss it with Bill via his website. So no, I have not at this time, or any other time misread your response. And once I Bill Craig as a source of evidence for God, then I involve Bill. Apart from that, we have started discussing the evidence, so quit whining and put up. Have I? Care to show where? And I have taken every one of those oppotunities and stepped up. Then I do have at least a single answer according to you. Will you please make your mind up? jan.
Here's a potential objection that our atheists might want to consider: The analogy between religious epistemology and moral and mathematical epistemology. All three present what might arguably be similar problems. "We do not attempt to discover what people ought to do in particular circumstances by designing and performing crucial experiments; nor do we think our moral beliefs are inductively confirmed by observation. Experience does not appear to play an evidential role in our moral knowledge. In these and other ways, moral knowledge seems to resemble mathematical knowledge more than it resembles the kind of knowledge that is delivered by the empirical sciences." (from McGrath, Sarah [2007] "Moral Disagreement and Moral Expertise" in Oxford Studies in Metaethics Vol. 3 87-108) So... why shouldn't religious knowledge be added to that? Presumably that suggestion won't be welcome. Yet atheists in general seem to absolutely love mathematics, despite its rather vague epistemological foundations. (Modern science would be impossible without it.) And right here on Sciforums, one of the most pleasurable recreations for most participants is casting angry and perjorative moral judgements against others. (Finger-pointing and shouts of "Evil!" The 'ethics' and 'politics' fora consist of little else.) So why must theists be expected to present a sort of evidence for their theism that we don't typically expect people making moral judgements to provide for their moral intuitions or mathematicians and logicians to present for whatever it is that they are doing?
Presumably only in so far as you led him there by reference to William Craig's arguments... without specifying which ones. Presumably Bowser has taken a few snippets from Craig and, due to your unwillingness to engage directly with your own position, can only assume that you were referring to those snippets. Either engage, Jan, or, politely once again, stop trolling.
So you cannot present evidence of God, here. Got it. You defer to Bill Craig on the matter of the thread topic. You acknowledge you have nothing to contribute to the thread topic. Have the courtesy to sit down then, so others can talk.
Yes I refer to Bill Craig on the matter of the thread topic, because he presents evidence of God, is better able to explain it. What? Did you think I was standing up this whole time? If you have something to say, say it. jan.
Bill Craig presents no evidence that God is real. It does not exist, to be checked out. You continue to refer people to Bill Craig, after being informed of that fact several times now, and after plenty of time to have checked Bill Craig out for yourself and verified it. Why? Have you read Bill Craig, yourself? You seem unfamiliar with his actual writings: you post no examples, no presentation of his thinking, nothing but claims that he provides evidence of the reality of God - which he does not do. You are refusing to discuss the topic on any basis. You are instead using the topic as a pretext for personal disparagement of reasoning from evidence and those who reason from evidence, especially scientific worldviews and anyone harboring them. And you are using the thread and the forum as a platform for these personal disparagements - not discussion, of anything.
You said you believe as Bill Craig does. Whenever anyone asks for clarification, you refer them to Bill Craig's website, writings and videos. Those positions are all positions that Bill Craig holds. Therefore, by your own words, you believe them as well: "Check out Bill Craig. I'm fine with the evidences he put forward." So you are fine with evolution (so is Bill Craig.) You do not believe gays can be moral (nor does Bill Craig) You are fine with Biblical genocide (as Bill Craig is.)
Frankly I don't think they can understand how morality and mathematics are not empirical sciences, much less see any sort of parallel to religious discourse.
Jan Ardena: Again about me and my supposed interest or non-interest? You're great at guessing at my psychology, Jan, but really lousy at sticking to the topic. You've spent most of this thread trying to disparage atheists. But nobody is fooled by this attempt to distract from the topic. And everybody can see that you have failed continuously to answer the question of the thread. You have provided not a single quote or link to anything, let alone a summary of your own thinking about this ephemeral evidence that you assert exists. You're fooling nobody, Jan. It is quite apparent that you have nothing but excuses. I quite clearly invited all readers of the thread to judge for themselves, whether or not they share my mindset. More about me and my assumptions? Who cares? This thread is not about me and my assumptions, no matter how often you try to make it about that. You're not fooling anybody, Jan. There's no reason for me to believe that you've gone looking for evidence from Bill Craig, or anybody else. Nothing you have written here suggests that you've read anything about evidence for God from Bill Craig. There's not a single quote or link from you, and not a bit of summary information or a single thought about any point that Craig might have expressed somewhere. But, I'll tell you that, out of curiosity, I spent a little time looking to see if Bill Craig has supplied some evidence of the reality of God somewhere. I couldn't find any. Based on our (yours and my) combined inability to find any evidence of relevance from Craig, I invite readers of this thread to draw the provisional conclusion that Craig has provided no evidence that God is real. Of course, something from him might turn up. You never know. If it does, I'll be interested to take a look at it. I did. I couldn't find any evidence for God from him. I therefore draw the provisional conclusion that he doesn't have any. Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong, about me. But I'm not asking you for a dialogue. You said you had some evidence for God. All I have asked is that you present it. The real sham in this thread is your bluff that you have evidence. That has been well and truly exposed. It's okay. Some other theists have made attempts in good faith to answer the question here. You're not needed in this thread. I'd say you're a liability to the theist position, actually. You make it look like there is no evidence - at least none you're aware of. Reading it again doesn't turn a non-answer into an answer. Your claim was that human beings can't invent scripture (or gods). I asked how the truth of that claim is established. Your reply was the deepity "Man is man, God is God", which is a non-answer. It does not address the question I asked, but merely substitutes some mumbo-jumbo for an answer. Probably you were hoping your response would be considered profound or something. I just called it out for what it is. I've already discussed this. The more relevant question is: why assume that God can exist outside of things? If you think God is synonymous with nature, you need only say so. I have already discussed that position in this thread. If, on the other hand, you think God is more than that, I want to see your evidence. Yes. You make many claims to special knowledge, the most recent being that you know that babies are aware of God. When pressed on how you come by this special knowledge, you can never explain it. All you say is that your special knowledge is innate, God-given. I call this magical knowledge, since it has no evidenced source. By the way, in case you're considering it, the following argument is circular: "The evidence that God exists is the innate knowledge that I have that God exists, which comes from God." Or, in other words: God exists because you know he exists, and you know he exists because he exists. You see? Circular.
Are you certain of that? Well I’m of a different opinion. Why what? Yes thanks. How did you arrive at that conclusion? How does me not posting examples equate to being unfamiliar with his writings? Of course he does. Duh! How so? The topic is based around an atheist request, for theists to put forward evidence for God. I put forward Bill Craig’s evidence as a source so if atheists want check it out, they can. Nobody said anything about discussing it. I don’t think you give a jot about evidence. The problem with you is, you want it your way, or no way. Do you think it is possible that it is entirely normal for humans to access God, except if you are an atheist, because you subconsciously chose not to? Jan.
Where did I say that? How is it relevant to the topic of evidence for God? And the 2018 best use of logic award, goes to... Again. How is this relevant to the thread? Jan.
Another assumption James. I know if I’m sticking to the topic or not. Just because you cannot currently foresee how it relates, does not mean it is off-topic. You’re just being paranoid. Where have I distracted from the topic James. How so? The thread ask theists to put forward evidence of God, and that’s what I’ve done. Just google William Lane Craig evidence for God. It’s all there. I am also interested in exploring the reasons why you ask for evidence of God. It is clear that you’re not interested in evidence for God, because you would be pouring into Bill’s work, instead whining. You’re interested in justifying, and preserving your world view. Maybe if you could see that, you could realise that you have looking at this whole thing in the wrong way. Maybe you could at least understand how to perceive evidence of God. Because right now you are doing nothing but denying and rejecting God, which is of no real use to anyone. That’s no reason for complaint. I have provided a source, which is something. Outside of that, what would you like to discuss? You’re paranoid James. [qoute]It is quite apparent that you have nothing but excuses.[/quote] So you regard accepting Bill Craig’s evidence of God, as decent evidence of, and naming it as a source, an excuse? An excuse for what, exactly? Of course you did James! I have given my source for evidence of God, for what it’s worth. Now I’m interested in why you ask for evidence. So yes it is about you, because I’m making it about you. I’m afraid that is a lie James. You have every to believe that I have, because I have stated that I have, and you know that Bill Craig has what he regards as evidence for God. That is your problem James. I have told you what my evidence is, as requested. Doesn’t matter. You know where the source is. That’s the evidence I put forward. Well there’s a surprise... not. Job done. You don’t accept my evidence of God. End of. It’s a good thing I didn’t lay it all out, as it saved a lot of time. It’s obvious that you or any of your atheist chums are not going to accept ANY evidence of God. That’s because you’re atheists. That’s the problem. Don’t you get it yet? Course you will. So that you can deny and reject it, thereby not only justifying your position, but keep your atheism in tact. Because you’re an atheist. You are in a loop. Of course you do James. I’ve given you my evidence, you come back and said you don’t accept it as evidence. Job done. As long as your atheist you’re never going to accept anything as evidence. Even if it is evidence. As an atheist, how could you? You need to identify your problem. You still don’t get it do you? You mean other theists don’t mind going through the usual atheist runaround. That’s great. Most times I go along with the atheist runaround. It’s good because it can keep us sharpe, and focused on God. Also it helps the atheist because he or she becomes more focused on God. I don’t think you’re in a position to judge if I am a liability to the theist position, as you can only see it from an atheist POV. To make that call you really have to be theist, as theists can comprehend both positions. From your perspective, there is no God. So I can understand why you regard it as a non answer. But nevertheless, the answer is correct from a theist perspective. I choose to look at it from that perspective. Maybe you should try and comprehend how it could possibly be correct, despite your lack of agreement. You really think my answer is “mumbo-jumbo? What makes it mumbo-jumbo? So? Let’s discuss it again. How is this question MORE relevant? Do you mean it’s MORE relevant for YOU? I don’t mind discussing this MORE relevant question after you respond to the LESS relevant one. I will bear that in mind should I feel the need. So what? We can discuss it again. Why do you assume anything exists outside of God? How could they not be aware of God (if God exists)? Unless you are asserting “God does NOT exist”. I’ve never said, or implied I have special knowledge. That is just your diversion. We all have the same capacity for knowledge, but some have chosen to subconsciously reject it. The fool has said in his heart, there is no God. Just because you currently lack the ability to access that knowledge, by your own choice, does not make those that do not deny and reject it, have special knowledge. I’ve already given you my evidence for God (via Bill Craig). I don’t recall claiming that not denying and rejecting God, is evidence for God. Jan.
"Check out Bill Craig. I'm fine with the evidences he put forward." " I’m okay with the evidences put forward by Bill Craig." " Craig says it way more ''succinctly'' that I ever could." "I’ve already told you, I’m okay with the evidences put forward by Bill Craig. " "If you are too lazy to read what Bill says, that is not my problem." It looks like you are the one who is too lazy to read what Bill Craig says. Because whenever anyone asks you about it, you say "read Bill Craig. If you are too lazy to read Bill Craig, then it's not my problem." You can't even describe what you believe of what he says, just that he has all the answers. I did read Bill Craig. And I learned that he thinks homosexuals are immoral sinners who cannot be good Christians. I learned that he defends the genocides in the Bible. I learned that he believes in evolution. So if we are to take you at your word, and just "read what Bill says" to understand your positions, then you hold those positions as well.
Yes, I agree with them. There can't be separation. The point is nothing is special and everything is special.
William Lane Craig (I won't call him 'Bill' since I've never met him and don't know the man) typically makes the same points in his various writings. Here's a list of his reasons for believing in the existence of God, taken from an essay he wrote for Issue 99 (2013) the "God Issue" of Philosophy Now. It must be noted that Craig goes to some effort to argue for all this, but here's the bare outline. Obviously all of this can be criticized in various ways, but my purpose in this post is simply to lay it out as fairly as I can. Lest anyone think that I'm reducing Craig to a caricature... These little numbered sets of propositions are William Lane Craig's own words (with the accompanying explanatory material snipped out): (I) God is the best explanation why anything at all exists. 1. Every contingent thing has an explanation of its existence. 2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is a transcendent, personal being. 3. The universe is a contingent thing. 4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence. 5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe is a transcendent, personal being. (II) God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe. 1. The universe began to exist. 2. If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a transcendent cause. 3. Therefore the universe has a transcendent cause. (III) God is the best explanation of the applicability of mathematics to the physical world. 1. If God did not exist, the applicability of mathematics would be just a happy coincidence. 2. The applicability of mathematics is not just a happy coincidence. 3. Therefore, God exists. (IV) God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life. 1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance or design. 2. The fine-tuning of the universe is not due to physical necessity or chance. 3. Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe is due to design. (V) God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness. 1. If God did not exist, intentional states of consciousness would not exist. 2. But intentional states of consciousness do exist. 3. Therefore, God exists. (V) God is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties. 1. Objective more values and duties exist. 2. But if God did not exist, objective moral values and duties would not exist. 3. Therefore, God exists. (VII) The very possibility of God's existence implies that God exists. 1. It is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists. 2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world. 3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world. 4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world. 5. Therefore a maximally great being exists in the actual world. 6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists. 7. Therefore, God exists. (VIII) God can be personally known and experienced.
Yes. Reading your posts, comparing your claims with Craig's writings. They don't match. It doesn't. It merely creates the appearance - which is reinforced when you claim content for them that does not exist. No, you did not. You have not put forward anything from Bill Craig. That is no excuse for failing to provide any, making false claims about its existence, and so forth. Especially in a thread assigned that topic. Of course - one would expect that to be fairly common in communities that harbor belief in your God and raise their children accordingly. In other communities it would be almost unknown, of course. Edit in: Yazata has done you the favor of posting Craig's arguments in synopsis - now all you have to do is copy/paste right here, what you regard as the evidence for the reality of God in all that.
How have you become certain? Regarding evidence for God, in what way don't they match? Well stop saying it does then. I put Bill Craig as a source, that is exactly why we are currently discussing him. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Although I am glad you admit to not giving a jot about evidence, I am disappointmented that you fail to realise I gave Bill Craig as a source for evidence that God is real. So do you think it is possible for humans to access God, except if you are an atheist, because you subconsciously chose not to? Sorry but your post didn't make it clear whether it was a yes or no. How has he done me a favour? He's done what anyone would do after getting a source. Go, look, see. I think you could learn stuff from Yazata. jan.
