Posted: Dec 26, 2013 8:39 am
by THWOTH
WLC wrote:1. God provides the best explanation of the origin of the universe.

:lol:

WLC wrote:Given the scientific evidence we have about our universe and its origins, and bolstered by arguments presented by philosophers for centuries, it is highly probable that the universe had an absolute beginning.

Opinion.

WLC wrote:Since the universe, like everything else, could not have merely popped into being without a cause,

Opinion.

WLC wrote: there must exist a transcendent reality beyond time and space that brought the universe into existence.

Opinion.

WLC wrote:This entity must therefore be enormously powerful. Only a transcendent, unembodied mind suitably fits that description.

Opinion.

WLC wrote:2. God provides the best explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe.

Opinion regarding an unsupported assumption.

WLC wrote:Contemporary physics has established that the universe is fine-tuned for the existence of intelligent, interactive life.

Given the previous statement, dishonest and misleading assumptions rooted in an equivocation over what science and the evangelical Christian like Craig might mean by 'fine-tuned for life' etc.

WLC wrote:That is to say, in order for intelligent, interactive life to exist, the fundamental constants and quantities of nature must fall into an incomprehensibly narrow life-permitting range.

'Life-permitting'? :lol: This basically amounts to: "Because something exists therefore God." Massive assumption here that the physical laws and constants where somehow deliberately brought about specifically to produce life. An assumption that necessitates fallacious, circular reasoning.

WLC wrote:There are three competing explanations of this remarkable fine-tuning: physical necessity, chance, or design.

Bollocks. Be honest Bill and say "I have three ideas that might bolster my arguments for the god asserted by contemporary evangelical Christianity."

WLC wrote:The first two are highly implausible,

Hand-waving.

WLC wrote:given the independence of the fundamental constants and quantities from nature's laws and the desperate maneuvers needed to save the hypothesis of chance.

Non-sequitor.

WLC wrote:That leaves design as the best explanation.

:lol: Or, to put it another way, "Because I say so.".

WLC wrote:3. God provides the best explanation of objective moral values and duties.

Opinion.

WLC wrote:Even atheists recognize that some things, for example, the Holocaust, are objectively evil.

Evil - to act with malign intent and/or wilfully in the knowledge that the consequences of action are harmful. One doesn't need God to tell us this, one just needs a little empathy and sympathy and a view that causing harm is best avoided where possible.

WLC wrote:But if atheism is true, what basis is there for the objectivity of the moral values we affirm? Evolution? Social conditioning?

Come off it Bill. Your morality is no more objective than anybody else's - what you really argue for is that the moral code which you subscribe to as a contemporary evangelical Christianity must be adhered to as-if morally binding for all. Thus absolute morality demands absolute obedience. The authorities of the worlds religion's have always made obeying their special rules a condition of the existence of others.

WLC wrote:These factors may at best produce in us the subjective feeling that there are objective moral values and duties, but they do nothing to provide a basis for them. If human evolution had taken a different path, a very different set of moral feelings might have evolved.

Dishonest argument there, as Bill does not think we are evolved beings but designed and created beings. Also dishonest because he is inculcating the fallacious idea that humans would and should be exactly the same kinds of beings we are now even 'if evolution had taken a different path.' So, what you're saying there Bill is...

If humans are a product of the environment such that the antecedent circumstances of humanities evolutionary past have resulted in members of the species being imbued with their capacities to 'feel', or to intellectualise, or to forward plan, or to run, or to sing, or whatever, then humans are a product of the environment. Therefore if antecedent environmental factors were different humans would, necessarily, have been different types or kinds of being and therefore would not be humans as we are today at all.

But to say this does not in anyway explain or support the claim that God has somehow imbued today's humans with the moral notion that the holocaust is, was and always will be a bad idea, or that in not accepting the evangelical Christian's description of the universe makes agreeing that the holocaust was a bad thing impossible or unjustified.

So, that's a non-sequitor.

Bill is simply saying, "One cannot be good without God, therefore being without God is to not know what is means to be or do good."

WLC wrote:By contrast, God Himself serves as the paradigm of goodness, and His commandments constitute our moral duties. Thus, theism provides a better explanation of objective moral values and duties.

Thus the pious have always maintained: Doing what God commands constitutes a moral duty, an unavoidable obligation to carry out an authorities orders, thus theism provides a better excuse for doing evil than atheism.

WLC wrote:4. God provides the best explanation of the historical facts concerning Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.

An argument that aims to justify assuming its conclusion.

WLC wrote:Historians have reached something of consensus that the historical Jesus thought that in himself God’s Kingdom had broken into human history, and he carried out a ministry of miracle-working and exorcisms as evidence of that fact.

Dishonest implication that 'Historian' -- which comprises the authoritative set of all historical scholars and academics ever -- all agree that ...

  1. Jesus existed as described in the Bible and interpreted by contemporary evangelical Christianity,
  2. Jesus was resurrected as described in the Bible and interpreted by contemporary evangelical Christianity,
  3. Jesus was the Son-of-God-but-God paradox as described in the Bible and interpreted by contemporary evangelical Christianity,
  4. Jesus performed miracles as described in the Bible and interpreted by contemporary evangelical Christianity.
In other words Bill is saying that Historians agree that the precepts of contemporary evangelical Christianity are correct.
:lol:

WLC wrote:Moreover, most historical scholars agree that after his crucifixion Jesus’ tomb was discovered empty by a group of female disciples, that various individuals and groups saw appearances of Jesus alive after his death, and that the original disciples suddenly and sincerely came to believe in Jesus’ resurrection despite their every predisposition to the contrary.

Again, dishonestly misleading by inculcating the idea that 'most historical scholars' agree that the Bible is a true historical record, when he really means that Christian historical scholarship begin with the assumption that the Bible is a true historical record.

WLC wrote:I can think of no better explanation of these facts than the one the original disciples gave: God raised Jesus from the dead.

:lol: Unless, of course, it's all made up bunkum like all other mythologies.

WLC wrote:5. God can be personally known and experienced. The proof of the pudding is in the tasting. Down through history Christians have found through Jesus a personal acquaintance with God that has transformed their lives.

Again, an argument predicated on assuming its conclusion. The pudding must first exist before it can be tasted, but if there's nothing on the table then claiming to be able to taste the pudding not proof that the pudding is magical or special. It is only proof that you are a gullible pudding wisher.

WLC wrote:The good thing is that atheists tend to be very passionate people and want to believe in something. If they would only put aside the slogans for a moment and reexamine their worldview in light of the best philosophical, scientific, and historical evidence we have today, then they, too, would find Christmas worth celebrating!

:rofl: I don't need the permission of Christians to enjoy and celebrate Christmas - nor do I need God or Jesus or the ten commandments. I just need an excuse. :lol: