There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[Serenity7855]

You must have confused WL Craig for another author.

You began here claiming that the evidence you had would be enough to convince any reasonable person - but this is what Craig believes (note that it is the opposite of what you imagined);

”The person who follows the pursuit of reason unflinchingly toward its end will be atheistic or, at best, agnostic.

— William Lane Craig*[1]

Just looking at the quote in context, he doesn't seem to be endorsing this view, but rather describing it: You are aware that the article this came from is 8 years old, don't you?

European Christian Apologists
Advice to European Christian Apologists
William Lane Craig
Tips to budding European Christian apologists.
In 1983, when Alvin Plantinga delivered his inaugural lecture as the John O’Brien Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, he chose as his topic 'Advice to Christian Philosophers.' Today I have chosen as my subject the related, but somewhat narrower, topic 'Advice to Christian Apologists,' more specifically European Christian Apologists.

Now some of you may be thinking, 'Who are you, an American, to be giving us advice?' Plantinga faced a similar question and provided the best means of handling it. He replied, 'That’s a good question. I shall deal with it as one properly deals with good questions to which one doesn’t know the answer: I shall ignore it.' So, too, shall I. I want only to assure you that the advice I shall give, though pointed, springs out of a deep burden for Europe and that I stand united with you in our common task.

It is part of the purpose of this conference to awaken a movement of Christian apologetics in Europe with a view toward reclaiming lost intellectual territory for Christ, to remold European intellectual life in such a way as to make the Christian Weltanschauung a viable intellectual alternative for educated European men and women today. The task is daunting, indeed, overwhelming; some might even say hopeless. But given that we serve a God for whom nothing is impossible (Matt. 19.26) and that this is the vision which inspires us and that such is the task which is laid upon us, how shall we best go about it?

Before we can answer that question, we need to have some grasp of the challenge confronting us. In general European culture is deeply post-Christian. It is the product of the Enlightenment, which introduced into European culture the leaven of secularism that has by now permeated the whole. The hallmark of the Enlightenment was 'free thought,' that is, the pursuit of knowledge by means of unfettered human reason alone. While it is by no means inevitable that such a pursuit must lead to non-Christian conclusions, and while most of the original Enlightenment thinkers were themselves theists, it has been the overwhelming impact of the Enlightenment mentality that European intellectuals do not consider theological knowledge to be possible. Theology is not a source of genuine knowledge and therefore is not a Wissenschaft, or a science. Reason and religion are at odds with each other. The picture of the world which emerges from the genuine sciences is a thoroughly naturalistic picture. The person who follows the pursuit of reason unflinchingly toward its end will be atheistic or, at best, agnostic.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/advice-to-european-christian-apologists#ixzz38LhL4QHndo=newreply&p=3853065[/url]

God has given evidence sufficiently clear for those with an open heart, but sufficiently vague so as not to compel those whose hearts are closed.
William Lane Craig

So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgment. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalising effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing.”
― William Lane Craig

Doubt is never a purely intellectual problem. There is a spiritual dimension to the problem that must be recognized. Never lose sight of the fact that you are involved in spiritual warfare and there is an enemy of your soul who hates you intensely, whose goal is your destruction, and who will stop at nothing to destroy you.

 

[Bunyip]

Just looking at the quote in context (which is on the fifth page of the article you linked to) he doesn't seem to be endorsing this view, but rather describing it:

"A robust natural theology may well be necessary for the gospel to be effectively heard in Western society today. In general, Western culture is deeply post-Christian. It is the product of the Enlightenment, which introduced into European culture the leaven of secularism that has by now permeated Western society. While most of the original Enlightenment thinkers were themselves theists, the majority of Western intellectuals today no longer considers theological knowledge to be possible. The person who follows the pursuit of reason unflinchingly toward its end will be atheistic or, at best, agnostic."
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=3853065

God has given evidence sufficiently clear for those with an open heart, but sufficiently vague so as not to compel those whose hearts are closed.
William Lane Craig

So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgment. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalising effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing.”
― William Lane Craig
tags: apologetics, bible, canaanites, god, immorality, israel, real-victims

Of course he's not endorsing that view - he is a professional apologist. It is nevertheless his statement, in his words. You are again obfuscating, Craig does not claim to have proof and admits the evidence to be vague.

You are using him to validate a position that he does not hold - that there is sufficient evidence to convince any rational person, and that the existence of god is thus proven.

You are referring to an authority who expressly rejects your position.

 

[Bunyip]

Serenity

"Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalising effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing.”*
― William Lane Craig

I can imagine no circumstance in which slaughtering women and children in their homes is in any way necessary, just or moral. That is the sort of perverse amorality only possible to justify in the context of religious faith.

 

[Bunyip]

Serenity

This is quoted from your OP;

"If I could take any reasonable man, from off the street, who was totally impartial and without mindless bigotry, void of the brain washing techniques of Atheists and open minded enough to learn, I could satisfy his mind, using the scientific knowledge that we currently have, that it is more likely for their to be a God, then not. Even with the little knowledge that I have of the universe we live on a knife edge in, I could demonstrate that a superior force caused the universe to come into existence. Indeed, Kalam's cosmological argument is sufficient to do that on its own, that is, without mentioning the singularity, the Big Bang, rapid expansion, anthropic principle, dark matter and energy, fine tuning, etc etc etc... So why is it that Atheists have such leverage in our society to preach their counterfeit arguments.*"

And yet your principle source, WL Craig tells us that reason would lead us to atheism, or agnosticism. That the evidence is NOT sufficient to convince the unbeliever and that theology is not science. What you ascribe to 'mindless bigotry', Craig ascribes to reason.

Oh and yes, I know that the article I referred to is 8 years old.

That makes it over a thousand years younger than the Kalam, which goes back to 9th century Islam.

 

[Serenity7855]

Serenity

This is quoted from your OP;

"If I could take any reasonable man, from off the street, who was totally impartial and without mindless bigotry, void of the brain washing techniques of Atheists and open minded enough to learn, I could satisfy his mind, using the scientific knowledge that we currently have, that it is more likely for their to be a God, then not. Even with the little knowledge that I have of the universe we live on a knife edge in, I could demonstrate that a superior force caused the universe to come into existence. Indeed, Kalam's cosmological argument is sufficient to do that on its own, that is, without mentioning the singularity, the Big Bang, rapid expansion, anthropic principle, dark matter and energy, fine tuning, etc etc etc... So why is it that Atheists have such leverage in our society to preach their counterfeit arguments.*"

And yet your principle source, WL Craig tells us that reason would lead us to atheism, or agnosticism. That the evidence is NOT sufficient to convince the unbeliever and that theology is not science. What you ascribe to 'mindless bigotry', Craig ascribes to reason.

You are being grossly dishonest. You are accussing William Lane Craig of saying something that he has not said as a statement of fact as much as it was a sarcastic remark. You have dishonestly presented those words to gain favour on you point of debate. Anyone who knows anything about WLC will know that he spends his entire life teaching reasonable faith. Frankly, your insidious Machiavellian attempts to denigrate him is embarrassing

For a principle such as Kalam to still be as valid today as it was a 1000 years ago gives it for more credence then a misquote.

 

[Bunyip]

You are being grossly dishonest. You are accussing William Lane Craig of saying something that he has not said as a statement of fact as much as it was a sarcastic remark. You have dishonestly presented those words to gain favour on you point of debate. Anyone who knows anything about WLC will know that he spends his entire life teaching reasonable faith. Frankly, your insidious Machiavellian attempts to denigrate him is embarrassing

No, I have even supplied the quotes and the citations. Once again, whilst you constantly complain of personal attack, it is your first resort when proven wrong. Nor am I denigrating Craig, I am representing his position far more accurately and honestl than you are.

You lodge false accusations of dishonesty whenever you can not refute a point.I would ask that you back up your accusation, but know that you can not.

Craig has indeed spent much of his life teaching reasonable faith - that is, in creating for believers a milieu in which faith in god is reasonable, as opposed to an evidential case for god sufficient to convince unbelievers.

 

[Bunyip]

You are being grossly dishonest. You are accussing William Lane Craig of saying something that he has not said as a statement of fact as much as it was a sarcastic remark. You have dishonestly presented those words to gain favour on you point of debate. Anyone who knows anything about WLC will know that he spends his entire life teaching reasonable faith. Frankly, your insidious Machiavellian attempts to denigrate him is embarrassing

For a principle such as Kalam to still be as valid today as it was a 1000 years ago gives it for more credence then a misquote.

The Kalam is a 9th century philosophical idea that you have misconstrued so catastrophically as to imagine it not only to be a scientific argument, but evidential. It is neither.

You are also deliberately lying - I have not misquoted.

 

[Serenity7855]

No, I have even supplied the quotes and the citations. Once again, whilst you constantly complain of personal attack, it is your first resort when proven wrong. Nor am I denigrating Craig, I am representing his position far more accurately and honestl than you are.

How on earth have you proven me wrong. I did not say anything for you to determine if it were right or wrong. You have taken a remark made by WLC and you have presented it here, out of context, and suggesting that WLC has done a complete U turn 8 years ago. We know that is not true as we have heard WLC saying the complete opposite and he is well known for what he believes in. You have tried to portray this man as something he is not. That is Dishonest. You should be ashamed of yourself for attempting to speak falsehoods about a well respected man.

You lodge false accusations of dishonesty whenever you can not refute a point.I would ask that you back up your accusation, but know that you can not.

Well it is not a false accusation. You have intentionally tried to malign and discredit the firmly held beliefs of an evangelist.

What point are you trying to say I refute. It is you doing the refuting here. You are trying to say that my claim of having much in common with WLC beliefs is a lie. You are trying to make me a liar in order to discredit my opinions. If you can achieve that then you will have succeeded in blackening the name of another Christian. This is not about debate you have made it personal.

Craig has indeed spent much of his life teaching reasonable faith - that is, in creating for believers a milieu in which faith in god is reasonable, as opposed to an evidential case for god sufficient to convince unbelievers.

I do not accept your description of my beliefs. I said If I could take any reasonable man, from off the street, who was totally impartial and without mindless bigotry, void of the brain washing techniques of Atheists and open minded enough to learn, I could satisfy his mind, using the scientific knowledge that we currently have, that it is more likely for their to be a God, then not. Even with the little knowledge that I have of the universe we live on a knife edge in, I could demonstrate that a superior force caused the universe to come into existence. Indeed, Kalam's cosmological argument is sufficient to do that on its own, that is, without mentioning the singularity, the Big Bang, rapid expansion, anthropic principle, dark matter and energy, fine tuning, etc etc etc... So why is it that Atheists have such leverage in our society to preach their counterfeit arguments.

I did not say convince. We have spoken about this but you obviously think that if you repeat it the somehow you can attribute it to me. You are taking this thread off course by using dishonest atheistic techniques intended to cause agitation and hostility.

 

[Bunyip]

How on earth have you proven me wrong. I did not say anything for you to determine if it were right or wrong. You have taken a remark made by WLC and you have presented it here, out of context, and suggesting that WLC has done a complete U turn 8 years ago. We know that is not true as we have heard WLC saying the complete opposite and he is well known for what he believes in. You have tried to portray this man as something he is not. That is Dishonest. You should be ashamed of yourself for attempting to speak falsehoods about a well respected man.



Well it is not a false accusation. You have intentionally tried to malign and discredit the firmly held beliefs of an evangelist.

Quite the opposite, what I have done is demonstrate that YOU have misrepresented Craig. I have not.

What point are you trying to say I refute. It is you doing the refuting here. You are trying to say that my claim of having much in common with WLC beliefs is a lie. You are trying to make me a liar in order to discredit my opinions. If you can achieve that then you will have succeeded in blackening the name of another Christian. This is not about debate you have made it personal.

You make a liar of yourself, with no need of assistance from anyone else. I have not misrepresented or misquoted Craig - you have.

I do not accept your description of my beliefs. I said If I could take any reasonable man, from off the street, who was totally impartial and without mindless bigotry, void of the brain washing techniques of Atheists and open minded enough to learn, I could satisfy his mind, using the scientific knowledge that we currently have, that it is more likely for their to be a God, then not. Even with the little knowledge that I have of the universe we live on a knife edge in, I could demonstrate that a superior force caused the universe to come into existence. Indeed, Kalam's cosmological argument is sufficient to do that on its own, that is, without mentioning the singularity, the Big Bang, rapid expansion, anthropic principle, dark matter and energy, fine tuning, etc etc etc... So why is it that Atheists have such leverage in our society to preach their counterfeit arguments.

I did not say convince. We have spoken about this but you obviously think that if you repeat it the somehow you can attribute it to me. You are taking this thread off course by using dishonest atheistic techniques intended to cause agitation and hostility.

I have not at any point been dishonest, nor have you at any point substantiated any of your allegations.

 

[Serenity7855]

The Kalam is a 9th century philosophical idea that you have misconstrued so catastrophically as to imagine it not only to be a scientific argument, but evidential. It is neither.

You are also deliberately lying - I have not misquoted.

And there it is. Accusing the Christian of doing something they loath. You accuse me of being a liar. You could have said my post was inaccurate but you had to attack my person, as you have done all the way through this thread.

I have not used Kalam as scientific evidence. I used it to open up the opportunity to use Sir Isaacs Newton's third law of motion, which is scientific. Indeed, you have used the word Kalam many more times then I have in your attempts to vilify me. You have brought it up again here. I have not mention it in recent posts. You are debating dishonestly.

 

[Bunyip]

And there it is. Accusing the Christian of doing something they loath. You accuse me of being a liar. You could have said my post was inaccurate but you had to attack my person, as you have done all the way through this thread.

I have not used Kalam as scientific evidence. I used it to open up the opportunity to use Sir Isaacs Newton's third law of motion, which is scientific. Indeed, you have used the word Kalam many more times then I have in your attempts to vilify me. You have brought it up again here. I have not mention it in recent posts. You are debating dishonestly.

Grow up buddy, you accuse me of gross dishonesty and then whine and pontificate about being called a liar. For a man who claims to loath lying - you do a lot of it.

Newton's third law of motion does not apply to quantum scale events ( the BB being a quantum scale event) you have been told that a number of times.
Cause and effect do not apply to the pre BB universe, they have no meaning before time and only apply to classical physics. You also posit a solution (God) that is a further exception to causality (special pleading).
I have not at any point been dishonest, nor have you substantiated any of your accusations. If you object to personal attacks, stop initiating them.

 

[Serenity7855]

Quite the opposite, what I have done is demonstrate that YOU have misrepresented Craig. I have not.

Where have I misrepresented WLC. You brought him up here with the sole intentions of creating a hostile and uncomfortable argument over trivialities because you do not have an inkling about the topic. You are out of your depth.

You make a liar of yourself, with no need of assistance from anyone else. I have not misrepresented or misquoted Craig - you have.

How have I made a liar out of myself or is this just more baseless assertions against my person.

Where have I misquoted WLC? Where have I misrepresented him. It was you who took a sentence, out of context, and tried to make him something he is not, specifically to try a prove my claim to having similar beliefs to him to be a lie. You failed miserably as you have failed in everyone of your attempts.

I have not at any point been dishonest, nor have you at any point substantiated any of your allegations

The proof is right here in your words. You have been underhanded and dishonest in your attempts to discredit Christians. I would exhort everyone to read the last 20 posts to see evidence of my allegations.

 

[Bunyip]

Where have I misrepresented WLC. You brought him up here with the sole intentions of creating a hostile and uncomfortable argument over trivialities because you do not have an inkling about the topic. You are out of your depth.

You begin by calling any who reject your empty arguments mindless, brainwashed bigots and then whine about my creating a hostile environment. I am not out of my depth buddy, you are.

How have I made a liar out of myself or is this just more baseless assertions against my person.

Where have I misquoted WLC? Where have I misrepresented him. It was you who took a sentence, out of context, and tried to make him something he is not, specifically to try a prove my claim to having similar beliefs to him to be a lie. You failed miserably as you have failed in everyone of your attempts.





The proof is right here in your words. You have been underhanded and dishonest in your attempts to discredit Christians. I would exhort everyone to read the last 20 posts to see evidence of my allegations.

That is nothing more than a tantrum. And nobody reading the posts will detect any dishonesty or misrepresentation from my side. They will not find the evidence of your allegations, you can not substantiate them either. You as me to substantiate my claims, and I did so -with direct quotes from the source you were relying on.

 

[Serenity7855]

Grow up buddy, you accuse me of gross dishonesty and then whine and pontificate about being called a liar. For a man who claims to loath lying - you do a lot of it.

Newton's third law of motion does not apply to quantum scale events ( the BB being a quantum scale event) you have been told that a number of times.
Cause and effect do not apply to the pre BB universe, they have no meaning before time and only apply to classical physics. You also posit a solution (God) that is a further exception to causality (special pleading).
I have not at any point been dishonest, nor have you substantiated any of your accusations. If you object to personal attacks, stop initiating them.

why are you telling me things that I already know and where is the relevance to anything I have said here. Is this another of your misrepresentations? I did not say that Newton's 3rd law of motion is operational outside of quantum sub atomic particles. Ah, you are trying to stupify me in your attempt to make me look uneducated. Some more dishonesty

 

[Bunyip]

why are you telling me things that I already know and what is the relevance have to do with anything I have said here. Is this another of your misrepresentations? I did not say that Newton's 3rd law of motion is operational outside of quantum sub atomic particles. Ah, you are trying to stupid me in your attempt of making me look uneducated. Some more dishonesty

Mate, you dig your own holes well enough without help from me.

 

[Serenity7855]

Mate, you dig your own holes well enough without help from me.

Mate, you hold grudges for far to long. We are about 1,660 of posts on from the OP.

 

[adi2d]

Mate, you dig your own holes well enough without help from me.

Yes but you should quit trying to stupid him to make him look uneducated

 

[Bunyip]

Mate, you hold grudges for far to long. We are about 1,660 of posts on from the OP.

I don't hold grudges at all, it just amuses me to see how you react when cornered.

As I said, don't whine about others being hostile when you began by calling them mindless, brainwashed bigots.It's called hypocrisy.

 

[Bunyip]

Yes but you should quit trying to stupid him to make him look uneducated

You made me spill my coffee.

 

[s2a]

Mate, you hold grudges for far to long. We are about 1,660 of posts on from the OP.

Agreed.

If the current commentaries had anything to do with the initial OP, fine.

They do not.

So...Next?