Regarding Religion
*If people from the equal religion disagree, they are able to consult their holy e-book for a decision. If two people from different religions disagree, then what?
*Multi-billions of human beings over the entirety of recorded / written history (which manner, way, way predates something that the Christians, Jews or Muslims can relate to) have believed and worshipped multi-lots of supernatural (typically or t least often sky) deities. These people weren't dummies and if born into the twenty first Century might have made out A-OK. So, where did they cross wrong? Did they go incorrect? What evidence do you have that absolutely proves them incorrect? You do not consider Thor ever existed, but can you in reality show it? Considering how many 'information' monotheistic religions have gotten wrong (i.E. - the Earth is the centre of the Cosmos, some thing a clearly all-understanding God wouldn't have filled up inside the telling), folks that profess in monotheism are in NO function to cast the first stone.
*We are seemingly required to respect the religious ideals of others, however no longer of necessity their historical, financial, social, racial, political, clinical, and so forth. Beliefs. Why the double trendy?
Regarding Religion vs. Science
*Priests can't turn a cracker / wafer into real flesh, nor wine into blood, just with the aid of mumbling a few Latin over them! Anyone who believes to the opposite is in extreme want of placing their Analyst on risk money.
*Natural causes are a not unusual dime-a-dozen. Supernatural reasons are as rare as hens' enamel, even rarer. You might not locate even one supernatural cause written up in any academic peer-reviewed journal, until of course the character of the journal is one preaching to the trustworthy.
*Homosexuality is considered unnatural in the Bible but a speaking snake and donkey is totally herbal, as is the advent of a lady from a rib, a virgin delivery and on foot on water. Go determine, in particular while homosexuality is a clearly occurring function in the animal kingdom.
Regarding Faith & Belief
*If you can not supply me any coherent motive to trust you, then I don't have any cause to believe you.
*Belief in God and Jesus? Fake it until you're making it.
*The willingness to die to your beliefs says not anything approximately the truth behind the ones beliefs.
Regarding Prayer
*Prayer works! At any essential (even minor) carrying occasion just like the World Cup, the 7th recreation of the World Series, the Super Bowl, the Kentucky Derby, and many others., or possibly an election, plenty of people will pray for every team, horse, candidate, and so forth. Since one group, horse, candidate has to win, manifestly the those who prayed for that group, horse or candidate will testify that prayer works and that God answers prayers! That's completely logical!
*Say one thousand million human beings difficulty a prayer an afternoon for some thing that falls within the realm of the natural sciences. By pure twist of fate, via natural hazard, and by using the statistical laws of pure possibility, a tiny fraction of these prayers will come to skip - evidently. So did God do it? No. Of course the hits are continually recorded in prefer of God answering prayers, however the multi-thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of misses, nicely they have a tendency to be overlooked and ultimately forgotten about.
*Has there ever been any prayer for some thing, a something outside of the world of the bodily and organic sciences, that has come to bypass and has been demonstrated and normal as confirmed in a peer-reviewed journal? Not to my know-how.
*If prayer had clinical benefits the scientific profession could prescribe prayer or praying to their patients as a part of their remedy - perhaps even the be-all-and-cease-all in their remedy. Prayer of course have to have observable and measurable consequences - if prayer works. Now can you pray your headache away, or does an aspirin paintings higher?
*But because the late comic George Carlin has talked about, if God has some kind of Master Plan, why would he modify that Plan for you to cater to your prayers? God, being all-understanding, already knew you would pray for X, and knew in advance that He might definitely forget about you in deference to carrying out His Master Plan.
Regarding Animal Morality
*Evolution explains morality quite well on the grounds that morality can be located within the animal kingdom. I can cite a private instance. I actually have cats. They simply hate each different. I can anticipate there being numerous cat-fights a day. However, there are certain occasions while there's a mutual truce in force. No cat will assault the other cat while the alternative cat is ingesting, going to the toilet, or napping. Some kind of moral code is in play under those situations.
There are many examples of animals coming to the useful resource of other animals. One case I can cite is a cockatoo tangled up in some wires. Other cockatoos added the entangled bird meals. It had a glad ending whilst people got here to the rescue and freed the hen.
Stories of dolphins defensive human beings from sharks are mythical. Dogs guarding and protecting a companion canine that is been injured, even in opposition to human beings who are coming to assist the injured dog, are a properly-installed herbal moral phenomena. You don't should dig too a ways into the literature to find lots of examples of individuals of one species behaving morally toward different participants of the equal species even when they do not should and they derive no benefits with the aid of doing so.
Cats, cockatoos, dolphins, and puppies have not read the Bible. The concept of God and God's [alleged] morality is meaningless to them. They failed to get their morality from God.
Regarding the Soul / Afterlife
*Here's an exciting theological question. You're aware that here is a neurological circumstance called a couple of personality sickness or twin persona (made well-known within the feature movie "The Three Faces of Eve"). Now the theological query is, does each of these personalities have their own soul and does every of those personalities have their very own separate and apart afterlife? If not, why not?
Regarding God
*If you're a theist, just try to imagine for a moment that there may be no God (or god). What might have actually changed on your lifestyles? You'd still be the exact same person, warts and all.
*To show God exists, right here's all you need to do. Identify X. If X exists without any query (some thing like gravity for instance), and X can best were created of necessity by means of God, then God of necessity exists too. Now, what's X? Identify X and you have proved that God exists (or at least existed).
*Isn't it simply super that anything biases you happen to have, you proportion those biases with God!
*If herbal disasters are the wrath of God, why do nearly all hurricanes hit the Bible Belt?
*God can't be each "just" and "merciful". A "simply" God treats you in order that. A "merciful" God treats you better than just so. In different words, "simply" is a twelve months jail sentence. "Merciful" is a suspended sentence.
*It is illogical to signify that God is both "best" and the "writer" of our Universe. If God is "perfect" then God desires for not anything, but if you create some thing, you create that some thing because it is something you want and previously lacked. So why did God create our Universe? Well reputedly in keeping with theists, God created the Universe so in an effort to deliver rise to little vintage us (humanity) so that we ought to come to recognise God and worship God - sounds alternatively selfish and egotistical of God in case you inquire from me. God seemingly desired His model of our personal pet dogs!
*God can not be both transcendent - present outdoor of space and time in addition to being omnipresent in area and time. That's like being both in a pre-conception nation and in a submit-idea nation concurrently.
*If God is uncaused, then why no longer just assert that the Cosmos is uncaused and keep away from the needless middle-'guy' creator of stated Cosmos? Ockham's Razor could endorse the sort of proposition is a legitimate one.
*If you don't know the answer to something, just saying "consequently, God did it" is NOT an explanation any greater than saying that Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny did it. "God did it" is to offer a solution to 1 mystery with a fair extra thriller. Anything that explains the whole lot without a doubt explains nothing.
*Those who declare to have talked to God, or extra to the point had God talk to them, have in no way had any new information furnished or found out to them that might affirm that claim. Funny 'bout that!
*Premise: If God exists He goals that we recognise Him beyond all reasonable doubt.
*Premise: If God exists He has the strength to permit us to recognise Him past all affordable doubt.
*Premise: If God exists we have to consequently realize God exists beyond all affordable doubt.
*Premise: We do no longer understand that God exists beyond all affordable doubt.
*Therefore: God does now not exist.
Regarding God's Intelligent Design
*Why does the human male have nipples? Why in reality do other male mammals like cats have nipples? What's the factor? Are male nipples sincerely an shrewd layout?
Regarding God's Omniscience
*There are many stuff that God can not understand about in exercise, only in concept, like fear and lust and hitting a baseball and searching ahead to retirement, etc. God may also realize the theory and the definitions but now not the reports. Therefore God isn't all-knowing and God ought to have as a minimum the equal know-how as His dwelling creations, but He doesn't and he cannot.
Regarding God's 'Morality'
*The theological question of why God lets in herbal evil (i.E. - diseases, herbal screw ups, etc.) is -fold. God permits natural evil due to the fact God Himself is totally evil. There is no one who reads the Old Testament who can doubt this statement for even a second / a break up 2nd, even supposing moral values are subjective and no longer objective. Further to the point, if God created lifestyles, the Universe and the whole thing, then God created herbal evils too, so why must God save you what He Himself has created? Actually the entire God / evil predicament or paradox is without difficulty resolved with just one premise: there is no God. God does not exist aside from simply being an entity that is living inside the human believe.
*One can not condemn the Nazi Holocaust with out additionally condemning God's equal movements. Like Hitler, God too had His Chosen People and people who have been no longer of His Chosen People could, in Dalek-communicate, have a sentence surpassed alongside the lines of "Exterminate!, Exterminate!, Exterminate!"
Regarding God's Will
*The conservative Republicans have won the election - it turned into God's will. The liberal Democrats gained the election - God has deserted America! [Thanks to Jaclyn Glenn for this bit of "Christian Logic".]
Regarding William Lane Craig [WLC] on God's Existence
1) Regarding the Origin of the Universe:
*Though William Lane Craig argues the lifestyles of God because of the advent of the Universe, it is simply as potential that he need to be giving same credibility for the achieved deed to any creator deity in any of the arena's other introduction myths of which there are multi-dozens and dozens. Translated, William Lane Craig goes through a as a substitute long and convoluted and IMHO illogical explanation for the beginning of the [WLC] or our [JP] Universe. According to William Lane Craig, "God did it", meaning the Christian God of the Bible. However, William Lane Craig may want to just as effortlessly and simply as logically substituted Allah, Brahma, Enki, Odin, Quetzalcoatl or Viracocha (and lots of others as nicely) without dropping the plot or dropping the ball. But of course William Lane Craig roots for and cheers on Team God, no longer Team Allah, or Team Odin, and many others.
*It's thrilling to note that whilst William Lane Craig seems satisfied to renowned and accept the past due Sir Fred Hoyle's assertion that a random foundation-of-lifestyles by way of pure hazard would be akin to a twister ripping through a junkyard and by using risk assembling a Boeing 747, William Lane Craig totally ignores Hoyle's model of cosmology - his Steady State Model / Theory which might suggest an endless Universe in both area and in time. That would in no way do! While the Steady State Theory as proposed via Hoyle is useless and buried, it doesn't take a fantastic deal of cosmological extrapolation to resurrect the concept with the aid of going from Hoyle's idea of the uncaused non-stop creation of hydrogen atoms popping into existence to ramping that preferred concept as much as the non-stop advent of Big Bangs changing the hydrogen atoms. You can have a Steady State cosmology of ever on-going Big Bangs, and that too would be an endless - in this example - Cosmos in space and in time.
2) Regarding Fine-Tuning:
*William Lane Craig argues that God have to be the clothier behind the obvious nice-tuning for existence because natural chance is in order that overwhelmingly unbelievable as to be disregarded completely out of hand. Yet, recall the extraordinarily lengthy teach of implausible events that led to the very lifestyles of William Lane Craig. That just one male met and mated with one lady; that simply one sperm out of tens of millions fertilised that one egg out of multi-dozens, going returned loads of generations has to offer the possibility of William Lane Craig's existence as trillions upon trillions to at least one in opposition to. For anyone that changed into conceived and born, like William Lane Craig, there had been untold trillions and trillions of capacity entities like William Lane Craig who weren't ever given a status of being an real entity.
*Of direction in an limitless Cosmos as stated above, sooner or later William Lane Craig would must come into (and in the end exit of) existence, so it is not sudden to discover a William Lane Craig existing. But it calls for infinity for that to be a truth. Also a reality is that over an limitless quantity of time, there'll seem and disappear an infinite quantity of William Lane Craig's.
*Further, William Lane Craig asserts that the apparent exceptional-tuning of the Universe for entities consisting of himself is manifestly the handiwork of God. But, if I have been to use a random number generator to randomly pick a set of 3-D spatial coordinates (we will just set time equals now) after which teleported William Lane Craig in his birthday healthy to those coordinates, what are the percentages William Lane Craig might discover the ones coordinates quality-tuned for his persisted life as a residing respiration entity? Virtually nil. He'd both freeze to dying, probable whilst sucking on a tough vacuum, or fry to death.
Three) Regarding Objective Moral Values:
*We all understand that William Lane Craig cites as a proof of God's lifestyles the reality that there are objective moral values and if there had been no God there would not be goal moral values and therefore there may be a God because we take delivery of that there are objective moral values. William Lane Craig regularly makes use of the instance that it is objectively immoral to torture a young infant and that everybody could agree on that (pretty apart from all the torturing / baby abuse and killing of younger kids inside the Bible of which there is lots, most being thru the direct movements of God Himself - The Flood; Sodom & Gomorrah; The Tenth Plague, and so forth.) No, one should believe situations where the torture of a young child might be required for the extra exact - it simply relies upon. For example, one should imaging that ISIS has brainwashed a younger toddler into planting a bomb somewhere in a public school. The child escapes however is caught. Only the child is aware of where the bomb is and the bomb is due to go off inside a couple of minutes. Are the government going to play true cop, or bad cop with the kid?
*If as William Lane Craig asserts that without God there aren't any goal moral values, however then with God there might be and there are goal moral values and consequently those objective moral values - which exist - should come from God and so consequently God exists. So consequently, given that long list of Biblical crimes and immoral actions / activities which can be significantly multiplied aside from kids that suffer and who are abused (i.E. - God performs acts of, or condones acts of, or orders acts of homicide & genocide; animal & human sacrifice; torture; animal abuse; theft; slavery; paedophilia; rape; incest; cannibalism; betrayal; and mendacity), are all goal 'morals' that come from and are sanctioned and even at once achieved in lots of instances by The Almighty simply objective? If in order that they should similarly practice to God, in any other case God is a hypocrite - a being who says "do as I say, now not as I do". Regardless, God indeed is the maximum immoral being ever conceived of by man, an illustration that assumes that God was created in the photograph of man, or who in turn in reality exists if the converse is authentic. No count the way you slice and cube things, God is pure evil if there are goal ethical values.
*Since William Lane Craig states that there are God-derived objective morality or objective moral values, then one would assume that all predominately Christian international locations would have adopted God's general set of moral values - or human rights. There are God-given human rights. However, as George Carlin factors out in his YouTube video "Swearing at the Bible" that is NOT the case. Different predominately Christian international locations have differing lists of what they recall to be fundamental human rights. According to Carlin, the US has ten (the Bill of Rights - which of course Americans have had to amend over and over) however that is not the case throughout the Christian board. The British have thirteen Rights; the Germans 29; the Belgians 25; the Swedish 6; and some nations a massive fat 0 in the Rights department. As Carlin factors out God forgot one certainly essential Human Right that people have needed to upload to God's list - slavery.
*If morality is goal and if morality stems from God, then it should be morally A-OK to do what God does. So, in case you see someone who isn't of your personal selected kind, and that they type of stand for your manner of attaining your desires, then with the aid of all way it is moral to kill them - that's what God might do, in reality did as related in the Bible.
4) Regarding the Resurrection of Jesus:
*William Lane Craig cites the publish-lifeless and buried sightings of Jesus as evidence of the resurrection of Jesus and therefore as proof of the life of God. However, there have been many sightings of Elvis and Jimmy Hoffa and other extremely good "dead" celebrities post their alleged loss of life so does that imply that Elvis and Jimmy, and so forth. Had been also resurrected from the useless and if so does this imply that they too are divine and sons of God?
*Craig bases loads of the credibility of the resurrection of Jesus to eyewitness testimony (the empty tomb; sightings of Jesus put up death, and so on). I assume that Craig additionally accepts eyewitness testimony on the subject of UFOs and Close Encounters of the Third Kind (seeing aliens); seeing ghosts, and so on. As many a psychology lecture room demonstration has proven; as many a court docket trial has hinged upon, eyewitness testimony isn't always all that suited as a form of evidence.
Five) Regarding Personal Experiences of God:
*William Lane Craig believes within the existence of God due to the fact he has had a non-public non secular experience of God. No doubt some Muslims have had a deep personal revel in of Allah and the Hindus of Brahma and one may want to properly believe some ancient Greeks having a honestly non secular enjoy if no longer an actual come upon with Aphrodite. Shamans throughout the social and cultural board have all manner of mystic / spiritual / spiritual reviews. It's a part of their job description and a requirement in their 'career' as it have been.
*But similarly to the problem behind this declare by means of William Lane Craig, people in sensory isolation tanks and anybody on the awake-asleep / asleep-wide awake interfaces are prone to all manner of fairly practical religious studies, reviews that they would swear are definitely real. Certain pills, fevers, sleep deprivation, flashing lighting fixtures, migraine complications can all cause relatively spiritual but nonetheless illusionary / hallucinatory studies. Finally, the sheer will to want to believe can effortlessly colour your everyday stories into high-quality stories, slanting those normal experiences towards your selected direction, even subconsciously. Being of sound mental fitness does not avoid having illusionary reviews. You can enjoy an imaginary situation or being, assume it is a real revel in, and nonetheless be sane.
*William Lane Craig says that the motive of human existence - together with your existence - isn't always happiness or the pursuit of pride, but just to individually come to realize God. Why isn't the cause of life to come to know Zeus, or Brahma or Allah? In any event I idea God said the purpose of human life was to "be fruitful and multiply" (Genesis 1: 28). If so, God have to have acknowledged higher than to trouble that directive, a directive which has led to all kinds of unwanted outcomes.
Summation
*In precis, William Lane Craig first two arguments (advent and first-rate-tuning) 'proving' God's life should equally apply to a whole pantheon of deities, not just the Christian God. In truth they don't have to practice to any god(s) in any respect. His 0.33 argument (goal morals) is genuinely incorrect as morals are relative now not absolute (in Star Trek lingo, 'the needs of the many outweigh the desires of the few, or the one' and every so often vice-versa). And in any occasion getting your morals from God is corresponding to getting your chemistry classes from an alchemist; your astronomy lessons from the newspaper's each day astrology column. Since God is the maximum immoral entity ever conceived of (if you receive a literal Bible), it's absurd to take your moral lessons from God. Craig's fourth argument (Jesus) is dicey in view that Jesus may not have even existed and there's no independent historical or archaeological proof for the death and resurrection of Jesus. Further, the character of Jesus is not even specific in the cultural document of humankind. Lastly, Craig's argument for God primarily based on non-public experience keep no water in view that private experiences aren't simply personal but are particularly subjective for the reason that there is no accompanying slab-in-the-lab evidence. Further, such stories can often be defined by neurological method and tactics.
Regarding Jesus
*Jesus talks approximately the evils of divorce however he by no means even mentions homosexuality, but what is the Big Issue current Christians rant and rave about? - You guessed it; homosexuality and LGBT rights
*Speaking of the motive of residing here on Terra Firma, Jesus maximum in reality did NOT obey God's training to "be fruitful and multiply".
Regarding Atheists & Atheism
*What probably upsets atheists more than something else isn't always that some deluded human beings consider without evidence that they have got an invisible 'pal' up within the sky, however that these people act on behalf in their 'friend' and within the so doing devote all way of atrocities. For example people who perform and defend genital mutilation defend the faith and not the kid.
0 comments:
Post a Comment