



Views: 1091

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

@Kevin --- The inherent problem with Craig is that he automagically makes the presupposition for something like "an unembodied mind". Which then leads into his God exists hypothesis. Which is why his arguments fail. .... Granted he's decent at what he does, but he breaks the cardinal rule right off the bat every single time.. He makes an assumption and then uses what he sees as 'evidence' to back his claim. When instead he needs to keep an open mind to all possibilities not just the one he wants. By making that presupposition of  mind of any sorts he's already closed off all other possibilities. .

So in my book, any claim he makes about an "unembodied mind" is an unfounded assumption on his part. 

@Kevin Harris

You know, Kevin, every time I shut you down you just shuffle off and engage other people rather than dealing with the hard questions.  I think you just don't know what to do when your rhetorical constructs turn out to be fundamentally flawed.

Rhetorical constructs are really nothing more than schoolyard trickery - silly little games.  When I was 5 years old saw a comedy sketch that highlighted this, as well as how a rudimentary physical test can completely undo a word game.

Here is a link to that sketch:


@Kevin Harris

So, Kevin, have you any solid arguments as to how the aforementioned rhetorical silliness is any different than your ow?  Also, Kevin, would you please explain to me why you aren't immediately jumping on the bandwagon of "They Wholey TV Set"?  I mean, what makes your cult doctrines superior to those of this other theist?

Kara.. the funny thing about that is. if you were a being who lived in the void. Had no point of reference for anything. How could you make the universe, let alone all life as we know it.? How would you know *to* make it in the first place? Those are the questions which theists avoid by giving the "God works in mysterious way" coverall. Have to love that cop-out. 

Oh, you disagree - well, I guess that settles it --

It is amazing how we stand at the moment of 'creation', in our minds, and then say how it happens 14 billion years latter or there abouts.

I like playing this game also, but I still wonder about the details, one of which is 'How can I say much about X if I can't observe it?' I want to think that my 'thinking/imagining' can connect me to realites, but assuming this is always true causes me to catch my mental shirt tails before I fall into the hole of infalibility.

We might know something about 'being', but are we just pretending to know something about timelessness, spaceless....? Pretending to know can make us feel very good about ourselves, but honesty can be a painful pill. 

I think that atheists don't believe that there is only 'material', by necessity. It is unclear at what point the concept of the 'material' breaks down. Is energy material, or does it need matter to carry it? If something is 'immaterial', does that mean that it does not exist or is only a mental construct? Propositions might be considered linguistic constructs that might or might not refer to 'existing' objects/processes/etc.

I tried being the wise sage a few times in my life, but the strait dope sticks to the bottom of my shoes as a reminder.


Kevin do you believe in a personal God? One that you turn to in times of despair and answers prayers?

Yes. I think God is a personal being. I think God has revealed himself  not only in nature but in Jesus and we can turn to God at anytime.

How can someone revere Science....yet believe in a magical being in the sky? Boggles my mind.

I don't believe in a "magical being in the sky". Is that what you de-converted from? I don't blame you!


Dear Dale:







© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service