Lincoy3304 wrote:
Would you mind moving this into PM’s?
Sure, but I'm not going to promise to talk a lot.
does life matter
Sort:
The main 5 are the following: the kalam cosmological argument, the cosmological argument from contingency, the teleological argument, the ontological argument, and the moral argument.
0
#84
And these are arguments for... what?
By the way... teleological argument I assume is 100% trash, from the name alone, lol.
0
#85
I guess that's rude of me... maybe you can explain it...
Things function because they exist, they don't exist because they function... teleology seems completely backwards to me... makes no sense... but again, maybe someone can explain to me why it's reasonable.
Lincoy3304 wrote:
The main 5 are the following: the kalam cosmological argument, the cosmological argument from contingency, the teleological argument, the ontological argument, and the moral argument.
What does that mean
Èøṯṟâî
0
#88
Lincoy3304 wrote:
The main 5 are the following: the kalam cosmological argument, the cosmological argument from contingency, the teleological argument, the ontological argument, and the moral argument.
Ok, I read them. Nice collection of arguments. I've come across them all but didn't know they had names and had been put together into a big 5.
The problem of infinite regress is a good one, and I don't mind if people choose to be theists because of the fact that there are clearly things about existence that are beyond human understanding.
What I dislike is when they think this supports their specific religion (whatever it happens to be... usually whatever they were born into). Humans are well known to make up religions, so I don't trust them to get the details correct. It's better, IMO, to say sure the supernatural might exist, be we don't know the details.
Yes
#107
That’s just arguing for theism; I haven’t yet argued for the historical reliability of the resurrection yet. Even then, I have to argue against Mormonism after that.
DailyKitty1099 wrote:
Lincoy3304 wrote:
The main 5 are the following: the kalam cosmological argument, the cosmological argument from contingency, the teleological argument, the ontological argument, and the moral argument.
What does that mean
Those are just the names of the arguments
I understand
Do you want me to put the arguments here?
The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy caterpillar
Elite-Strategist wrote:
Lincoy3304 wrote:
Well I’m assuming you’ve already heard the main five by William lane Craig of course? Would you mind moving this into PM’s?
William Lane Craig may indeed be amongst the most-sophisticated of Christian-Theologians, but, even his flaws are exposed by Dr. Bart Ehrman. Whilst I do place more «credibility» with WLC over the pseudo-skeptical materialists, I also most-certainly place far more credibility on Dr. Bart Ehrman than I do on WLC.
People have this logical-fallacy idea that Atheism and Christendom are some-how polar-opposites that are diametrically opposed (ignoring the fact that NEITHER are in opposition when it comes to their shared belief in the NON-existence of reincarnation), almost like a two-sides-of-the-same-coin fallacy, then there is para-psychology which is vehemently opposed by both the main-stream religions and the materialists (all «Materialists» are «Atheist» by default even though it is not necessarily true for the other way around).
What are his flaws in thinking?
And Atheism and Christendom are most definitely opposing each other. If atheism is true, there was no resurrection. If Christendom is true, there most definitely was a resurrection. There’s only a couple major fundamental disagreements that, if mentioned, would get this thread locked, but they are practically polar opposites.
Elite-Strategist wrote:
Lincoy3304 wrote:
#107
That’s just arguing for theism; I haven’t yet argued for the historical reliability of the resurrection yet. Even then, I have to argue against Mormonism after that.
I do dialogue with Mormons as I do deem them to have a much closer «truth» than the vast majority of religions/beliefs, but, I also necessarily mention to them that I deem what I learned from para-psychology (combined with my pre-earth-life memories) to be the most-accurate information in regards to the life-system (both current-life as well as after-life existence).
Again, you need to give us positive evidence for your view on para-psychology as well as evidence that would be negative to our view of it. A piece of evidence cannot be both.
Please Sign Up to comment.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
Not sure what the main 5 are, but I've watched some William Lane Craig debates, yeah. He gets a lot of hate, but he actually did well in some of his debates IMO.