Another God Debate
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-05-2012, 04:08 PM
Another God Debate
I posted a thread about this guy a while ago. Now there's a debate he had against Peter Atkins. I'm currently watching it but I'm rather wary of Atkin's responses.

But his 3 main arguments are:

1. The laws of physics stay the same today and always will. There's a small probability of these things being the case under atheism but a high probability under theism.
2. Fine tuning, life permitting universe etc
3. Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Then he moves on to say that, the atheist does have some burden of proof. To show that either theism is false (not disproving god) or god is improbable. Otherwise we should remain agnostic as we also do that for many parts of life. Just not knowing. He reminds me a bit of WLC but without the really annoying voice.

Atkins (of what I can understand) says that theism is a 'lazy hypothesis', it's unnecessary and the problem of evil.

You can watch the debate here.

The same arguments (of course), I'm not expecting them to change drastically, but it's more about how they're presented and responded to which is important. Unless something new comes up.

Sapere aude! Have courage to use your own understanding!
Take the risk of thinking for yourself, much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way.


Enlightenment is liberating.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ALovelyChickenMan's post
14-05-2012, 05:06 PM (This post was last modified: 14-05-2012 10:55 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Another God Debate
(14-05-2012 04:08 PM)ALovelyChickenMan Wrote:  I posted a thread about this guy a while ago. Now there's a debate he had against Peter Atkins. I'm currently watching it but I'm rather wary of Atkin's responses.

But his 3 main arguments are:

1. The laws of physics stay the same today and always will. There's a small probability of these things being the case under atheism but a high probability under theism.
2. Fine tuning, life permitting universe etc
3. Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Then he moves on to say that, the atheist does have some burden of proof. To show that either theism is false (not disproving god) or god is improbable. Otherwise we should remain agnostic as we also do that for many parts of life. Just not knowing. He reminds me a bit of WLC but without the really annoying voice.

Atkins (of what I can understand) says that theism is a 'lazy hypothesis', it's unnecessary and the problem of evil.

You can watch the debate here.

The same arguments (of course), I'm not expecting them to change drastically, but it's more about how they're presented and responded to which is important. Unless something new comes up.



I started to watch, and am not sure I can watch the whole thing. There is SO much wrong with the first 15 minutes, it may not be worth it.
This one is sorta like playing tennis with a beginner .. not much fun.

1. false and 2. false - been endlessly discussed before. The Anthropic Principle. If there are an infinite number of universes, this just happens to be one of the very small number where the laws that crystallized out were conducive to life. (+ many many other reasons .. will revisit after watching the whole thing). The probability of ONE universe arising supportive to life IS very small, The fact that we just happen to be in the one that happened to not 'fiz out" in it's first few nanoseconds because of incompatible properties, in no way proves their god exists, (which is a completely separate problem, because they doesn't have one).

3. False. The fact that some of Yeshua's followers were executed means nothing. He does not have anyway of knowing why they were executed, or what their mental state was, prior. (He can't state they were "martyred"..he doesn't know..it's a statement of faith... it's not evidence). That the followers were said to have experienced a resurrection, and since all the resurrection stories are different, it gives one pause, and does not mean it was physical, and there is good reason to think their mythological literature, may not have intended it literally. Mark's original gospel had no resurrection, only an empty tomb. And if he knew anything about the long, complex, convoluted deveolopment process of the myths, he wouldn't make this argument, as it's self-refuting.

It's just a rehash of god of the gaps.

(And BTW, with the breathtaking advances in Physics in the last ten years, refutes #1 totally).

His repeated statements about a "loving god" are laughable, for obvious reasons.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-05-2012, 08:35 PM
RE: Another God Debate
Theists are running out of ideas and out of time.
It's like a sporting event where they are behind in points and time is running out.
They have to score to win. Atheists just need to play good defense to win.
The die hards theists on the debate circuit will soon loose their audiences with nothing new to say.
The kids today are smarter than their parents.

The old gods are dead, let's invent some new ones before something really bad happens.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-05-2012, 10:39 PM
RE: Another God Debate
(14-05-2012 08:35 PM)Thomas Wrote:  Theists are running out of ideas and out of time.
It's like a sporting event where they are behind in points and time is running out.
They have to score to win. Atheists just need to play good defense to win.
The die hards theists on the debate circuit will soon loose their audiences with nothing new to say.
The kids today are smarter than their parents.

"Running out of ideas and out of time?" I would have said they were running out of ideas before watching this video, but Calum Miller actually takes an original tack in his argument. He defines evidence for his audience using atheist sources, which is a smart idea. And then he shows a logical proof for God (and there is at least one logical proof disproving God that I know of called the Solomonoff Induction) just because he knows how much his opponents will care about that kind of evidence. And best of all, he makes an argument for the statistical likelihood of God.

I'm not won over by his argument (his "statistical likelihood of God" assumes things about God that aren't previously in evidence, and could have been adjusted just to fit his argument) but it is clever... and more importantly, it's a novel idea.

And running out of time? Christianity has been around for 2000 years. I think such a statement also assumes things that aren't in evidence, and ignores history.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2012, 05:13 AM
RE: Another God Debate
Dammit Starcrash! I wasn't even gonna bother checking this out till you started flapping yer gums...

And I wuz like, two hours of this shit?!?! I made it through ten minutes. I wasn't impressed, I was annoyed. The heck kinda science they teaching peeps over there? That first argument, ain't the dumbest thing I heard, but it's definitely on that end of the spectrum. It took twelve thousand years to look past the inconsistencies to come across what is consistent. First it was the inconsistencies giving rise to gods, like Zeus and the lightning, and now it's the consistencies? WTF?!?!

That wasn't so bad, but "fine tuning" is straight horeshit. That's when I hadda click the big red x and make that tab go away. I mean, what's this if shit? This fuck can go 10^123 tolerance on one parameter, then give me a tailbone? WTF? Besides, a mofo arguing Almighty with ifs, ain't mighty. Simple math. Big Grin

And, of course, the clincher. Whatever god they think they're proving, ain't the one in the Bible.This all reads like so:

Skip along on my Razor to work, and I tell my coworkers, I had a nice ride in, and they go - cool! Let's check out yer Bugatti. I mean, WTF? And this fucking guy, just because this "evidence" can be explained by alternate theories, that doesn't mean we should discount the possibility of it being evidence for god. I mean, yeah it does; fucking duh! Big Grin

I mean, my TV is gone, my window is broke; and there's some guy in a ninja suit beating feet up the street with a widescreen under his arm... but he didn't do it, god did it! Obviously! Oh my Gwynnies. Big Grin

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: