Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I just don't think I'll be able to find the time in the near future.
I've read tidbits of it. Carroll is a very exciting speaker and of course is very well educated in his field, on the other hand William Lane Craig is not educated in that field and from what I have read that was the big difference. Carroll although one that doesn't dismiss philosophy outright didn't seem to refute that aspect of the debate. But I haven't watched the debate itself so I can't say for sure. I just don't know if I will have time to actually do that.
Dr Craig has a collaboration of minds that he has available for cosmology. I didn't think Carroll had any knowledge over Craig on this topic, I think the impression people got was from the "I'm-right-Impatience" and derogatory tone Carroll maintained through the entire debate. In regards to the relevant FTA, Carroll admits to fine tuning, but denies there is any fine tuning for life. His sole reason given being that the entropy of the early universe is much lower than it needs to be to allow for life. That was it, a tiny foot note response. The bulk of it was over Carrolls toy model which he used to attack premise one of the cosmological argument by mixing an matching multiple toy models. Like one trying to deny 1 puzzle piece by appealing to the sides of 4 different puzzle pieces each with 1 side that fits. So I think you chose wisely not to spend extra time out of your day watching it for a minute long segment.I've read tidbits of it. Carroll is a very exciting speaker and of course is very well educated in his field, on the other hand William Lane Craig is not educated in that field and from what I have read that was the big difference. Carroll although one that doesn't dismiss philosophy outright didn't seem to refute that aspect of the debate. But I haven't watched the debate itself so I can't say for sure. I just don't know if I will have time to actually do that.
Honestly, the fact that you know this shows you know the character of God, you know who God is.
Even if you merely imagine the perfect characteristics of God, the perfect way of being, it exists at least in your imagination.
If you have any correct understanding of what I've said, please don't harden your heart. Rather, continue seeking truth and understanding in a loving way.
How can you admit to fine tuning but deny it for life? That doesn't jive.Dr Craig has a collaboration of minds that he has available for cosmology. I didn't think Carroll had any knowledge over Craig on this topic, I think the impression people got was from the "I'm-right-Impatience" and derogatory tone Carroll maintained through the entire debate. In regards to the relevant FTA, Carroll admits to fine tuning, but denies there is any fine tuning for life. His sole reason given being that the entropy of the early universe is much lower than it needs to be to allow for life. That was it, a tiny foot note response. The bulk of it was over Carrolls toy model which he used to attack premise one of the cosmological argument by mixing an matching multiple toy models. Like one trying to deny 1 puzzle piece by appealing to the sides of 4 different puzzle pieces each with 1 side that fits. So I think you chose wisely not to spend extra time out of your day watching it for a minute long segment.
I agree, you are very set in your worldview and nothing I can add would be compelling.I just didn't want to send you a one-sided biased 'kill point' video link from one side or the otherYou can certainly watch those too. I wanted to remain as neutral as possible, or, as I can be
But getting back to it...
'Knowledge of existence' seems to be the catalyst for such drawn conclusions. When one does not receive that 'knowledge of existence', all such points, in which you may see, as connecting to your believed God, simply connects me, (the skeptic), to instead simply shrug my shoulders and state, "I really don't know, but there could be a multitude of conclusions - (and NOT just a dichotomy of God or nothing at all)."
If you have anything else to add, go for it.
Otherwise, this is why I really do not wish to delve into specific topics/arguments (for and against); as I would imagine we have both addressed most of them sufficiently in the past, and either find them compelling, or not compelling, to prove some asserted 'primer mover', 'uncaused cause', 'driving force which institutes stable laws', etc....
Peace
How can you admit to fine tuning but deny it for life? That doesn't jive.
I agree, you are very set in your worldview and nothing I can add would be compelling.
I wondered the same thing. He went into 0 explanation on that. Dr Craig had mentioned that Carroll believes in fine tuning, and Carroll said he took him out of context, and that he believes in fine tuning just not for life...whatever that means. It was a bizarre debate at times. Carroll showed slides of Guth (or one of those three) holding up "sentence cards" like some public service announcement commercial on a disease. Carroll doesn't explain anything about it. He spends all of 1 minute. There is nothing useful in the video to watch, I re-watched the whole thing. There is nothing to look at, he doesn't even explain his own point.How can you admit to fine tuning but deny it for life? That doesn't jive.
I wondered the same thing. He went into 0 explanation on that. Dr Craig had mentioned that Carroll believes in fine tuning, and Carroll said he took him out of context, and that he believes in fine tuning just not for life...whatever that means. It was a bizarre debate at times. Carroll showed slides of Guth (or one of those three) holding up "sentence cards" like some public service announcement commercial on a disease. Carroll doesn't explain anything about it. He spends all of 1 minute. There is nothing useful in the video to watch, I re-watched the whole thing. There is nothing to look at, he doesn't even explain his own point.
Given that Carroll only spent 1 minute on the subject, I think you should make your point rather than redirect to a 2hr debate. Regarding poisoning the well. If you were concerned about that you wouldn't have followed your suggestion of watching the debate with "Spoiler alert, the arguments are completely one sided. ". If you want to discuss the OP you know what I'm waiting for, in the meantime you are certainly welcome to type your way to whatever conclusion you want.
Please show, that you are not satan's slave. Write his "name" with s, not the capital S. The size matters. The satan is the Absolute Nothingness the Philosophy talking about.
It may be Revelation to you, but Eastern Orthodox Christianity writes satan not with capital S. satan is murderer, his second name is DEATH. He has murdered all people, who are dead in History. Including his trusted slaves, e.g. Adolf Hitler.I have an "S" for you. Seriously...?
It may be Revelation to you, but Eastern Orthodox Christianity writes satan not with capital S. satan is murderer, his second name is DEATH. He has murdered all people, who are dead in History. Including his trusted slaves, e.g. Adolf Hitler.
You gave me what you wanted to give me, not what I have repeatedly asked for. Shall I pull it up again, and repeat the same request? That would be what, the fourth time? I'm perfectly happy to do so if you have forgotten again. I certainly haven't. If you want to discuss the OP you know what I'm waiting for, in the meantime you are certainly welcome to type your way to whatever conclusions you want.I gave you what you want (even after I told you they were not relevant). You just didn't like it. Again, you have addressed practically nothing I've mentioned. But please continue with your tactics; they are very telling
You gave me what you wanted to give me, not what I have repeatedly asked for. Shall I pull it up again?
I welcomed Sanoy's opinion.But I have to wonder....? From my estimation, it appears somewhat desperate to continue infusing your specific unrequested opinions from this debate. It's almost as if you are imploring @Oncedeceived to 'please not watch the video.'I'm sure this individual is smart enough to reach their own conclusions. There exists a plethora of topics and two way discussions within this debate (bias or unbias).
2. Myself and @Oncedeceived have both conceded that we possess our own conclusions to many topics, and that there really exists no further reason to address such argument points, (for or against). So your continued pleadings, for her not to watch the video becomes even further unnecessary. And again acts as a distractor.
Which happens of course with atheists as well.3. Through the exploration of this topic, one of my original hypothesis appear even further demonstrated, in which you personally have attributed - (so thank you for that).... 'Knowledge of existence' DOES become the starting point, (as stated in my OP). Case and point, watching the video. If you feel you have the knowledge of existence for Yahweh, by whatever means necessary, of course any talking points, in an attempt to discredit God's specific existence is going to be met with resistance! Of course such discussion is going to be completely discarded or dismissed. No different than you presenting opposing observations to a Hindu. If the opponent feels they have received their sufficient 'knowledge of existence' for Brahma, of course any video opposing such a conclusion will be met with bias and presuppositional conclusions completely to the contrary. Or quite frankly, accepting the hits, and ignoring all the misses.
In your brain? Could you explain that comment please? Have you every asked for Brahma or Buddha to reveal their existence?Your later responses are peculiar, telling, and also seem to align with my prior notion.... Again, that if one truly thinks their specific supernatural entity exists, this becomes the starting point to begin making all 'in favor' evidence fit, while discarding or excluding all opposing points. I too admit, I would most likely do the exact same thing. Why? Because in my brain, I would believe this entity actually existed. Hence forth, all apologetic philosophical arguments would further reinforce and draw direct connections and conclusions to my already 'believed to exist' entity.
Have you asked those other than in Christianity that might 'shake' their presuppositions?Because of this ~300 post thread (thus far), it has become more apparent, that once one truly thinks their believed entity is real (God, Brahma, Baal, etc...), no amount of inquiry will shake ones presupposition otherwise. Kind of obvious to state as such... But hey....
You do realize that there are only three religions that adhere to monotheism. That is a very important point in your discussion.[In conclusion, 'knowledge of existence' is the starting point. 'Knowledge of existence' is key. "Knowledge of existence' is paramount. The rest then quickly falls into place. (i.e.) finding meaning, finding purpose, finding intentional agency, finding and searching for all existing visually observed traits, which one would then have no other choice but to connect to their specific 'known' agent. It would be very easy to, if one 'knows' their entity is real.
But I do have one repeated topic unanswered/untouched....
If God wants a close and personal relationship with all humans, and God is 'all-good and all knowing', I then ask to address the following dichotomous conclusion (yet again)....
*********************
1. Either God is deliberately avoiding my repeated attempts in knowledge of existence, which contradicts and is in direct spite of (Matthew 7:7, Matthew 21:22, Mark 11:24, John 14:13-14, John 16:23).
The whole point to Christianity is choice. God will not, does not want to force anyone to have a relationship with Him. Yes, free will is important, free choice is imperative. He may know exactly what it would take to force you to know He exists, that isn't what He wants.2. God does not actually exist
And since all whom might reply here, think God does exist, option 2. does not become a plausible option.
The 'knowledge of existence' appears mundane, and still allows for 100% free will, free choice, and would actually propel many to then do 'God's work', as opposed to the millions/billions of 'atheists' to Yahweh specifically which simply CANNOT do God's work and CANNOT have a relationship, as they do no think such an agent is real.
Just seems odd really..... One might think that all would be placed on a level playing field.
You are asking all of us. That will get you no where. I don't know what opposing evidence or observations she might be ignoring. She probably ignored evidence for God at one time...am I right?Furthermore, I wanted to reiterate an anecdotal story one more time...
My best friend's wife was a staunch atheist. At age 20, she claimed to receive a vision. This was the catalyst for her to read the Bible. This was the catalyst for her to begin preaching to others. This was the catalyst for her to start praying. This was the catalyst for her to begin ignoring all opposing observations, or rationalizations, which appear to oppose stories in Genesis, etc etc etc..
We have had many discussions over the past couple of years. Her 'faith' will not waiver. I ask her why? She states, that it is because she received her necessary proof for existence, which then propelled her to connect all the remaining pieces of evidence. At this point, nothing will shake her faith, according to her. She also teaches Sunday school now.
So I ask you, was 'knowledge of existence' a necessity in her case? Simple (yes or no).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?