Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Round 13
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
EUFA EURO 2024 - Group Stage ⚽ EPL 24/25 starts Aug 17
Do you think he was an atheist trying to troll the board?He wasn't legitimate. Jab is right.
20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
Romans 1:20New International Version (NIV)
Interesting: those who haven't heard about God or Jesus, can't be saved
How so? what about those who have had no contact with any civilization? there are still places in the amazon.Everyone has heard of God.
Pretty simple explanation really, not limited to atheists or theists, people are just assholes who do assholic things, perfectly easy explanation. That might explain why non-religious people can be good people and religious people can be bad, coz they're all people, and good and bad is the luck of the draw
But in some Christians' world, bad things done by bad people happen because apparently this all knowing, all people, all seeing God who can save anyone, who can stop anything, intentionally allows these evil to happen so that some apparent intangible unseenable "good" can come outta these atrocities. That's not an explanation, that's just delusion
If "God" stopped people from doing stupid things what is the point of free will?
If "God" stopped people from doing bad things what is the point of the ten commandments?
People do stupid things because we have free will.
Some food for thought...
If "God" stopped people from doing stupid things what is the point of free will?
If "God" stopped people from doing bad things what is the point of the ten commandments?
So God gives us free will and then gives us ten commandments?
Erm the ten commandments are there to stop people from doing those bad things...............
And an apparently just, loving and omnipotent/omniscient God will allow free will for people to do bad things against good people because.....?
Free will is as lousy an explanation as you can conjure. Yes I allow you to do whatever you want, even heinous things, I am just, I am love, I am good, but I will allow these bad things to happen to those undeserving. You don't see the contradiction?
WHAAAAAAT?Unfortunately for WLC the kalam argument presupposes and infact requires a god to exist. I wrote this a few months ago
The kalam argument relies on the controversial a-theory of time (tensed theory). that the present is intrinsically real and other moments cease to exist or have not yet existed.
From William Lane Craig "the nature of time"
Quote:
The moments of time are ordered by past present and future, and that these are real and objective aspects of reality. The past is gone, it no longer exists. The present is real. The future has not yet existed and is not real.
Craig further explains how the kalam argument relies on a-theory time in "the Blackwell companion to natural theology" (p. 183 - 184)
Quote:
from start to finish the kalam argument is predicated upon a-theory time. On b-theory time the universe does not infact come into being or become actual at the big bang. It just exists tenselessy as a 4 dimentional space-time block which is infinitely extended in the earlier than direction. If time is tenseless then the universe never really came into being. Therefor a quest for a cause of it's coming into being are misconceived.
Ok cool. The problem with this is that a-theory time is not compatible with Einstiens theory of special relativity which tells us that you cannot place absolute values on time as time is relative. The present is no more reality than the past or the future.
From Einstiens "on the electrodynamics of moving bodies" (1905)
Quote:
So we can see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the concept of simultaneousity, but that two events, which, viewed from a system of coordinates, are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events when envisanged from a system which is in motion relatively to that
In response to this, Craig wrote a number of books on time and put forward neo-lorentzian relativity, which Craig claims is as observationally correct as Einstiens theory (albeit a lot more complicated)
So what reason do we have to believe neo-lorentzian relativity over Einstiens simpler theory?
Craig from "time and metaphysics of reality" (p179)
Quote:
we have good reason for believing neo-lorentzian theory is correct, namely, the existence of god in a-theory time implies it.
Hooray for deductive reasoning with circular logic
Also free will is not a lousy explanation of anything. It is a fundamental existential question. It substantially alters your viewpoint if you believe you have free will or you believe that everything is pre-destined.
Unfortunately for WLC the kalam argument presupposes and infact requires a god to exist. I wrote this a few months ago
The kalam argument relies on the controversial a-theory of time (tensed theory). that the present is intrinsically real and other moments cease to exist or have not yet existed.
From William Lane Craig "the nature of time"
Quote:
The moments of time are ordered by past present and future, and that these are real and objective aspects of reality. The past is gone, it no longer exists. The present is real. The future has not yet existed and is not real.
Craig further explains how the kalam argument relies on a-theory time in "the Blackwell companion to natural theology" (p. 183 - 184)
Quote:
from start to finish the kalam argument is predicated upon a-theory time. On b-theory time the universe does not infact come into being or become actual at the big bang. It just exists tenselessy as a 4 dimentional space-time block which is infinitely extended in the earlier than direction. If time is tenseless then the universe never really came into being. Therefor a quest for a cause of it's coming into being are misconceived.
Ok cool. The problem with this is that a-theory time is not compatible with Einstiens theory of special relativity which tells us that you cannot place absolute values on time as time is relative. The present is no more reality than the past or the future.
From Einstiens "on the electrodynamics of moving bodies" (1905)
Quote:
So we can see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the concept of simultaneousity, but that two events, which, viewed from a system of coordinates, are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events when envisanged from a system which is in motion relatively to that
In response to this, Craig wrote a number of books on time and put forward neo-lorentzian relativity, which Craig claims is as observationally correct as Einstiens theory (albeit a lot more complicated)
So what reason do we have to believe neo-lorentzian relativity over Einstiens simpler theory?
Craig from "time and metaphysics of reality" (p179)
Quote:
we have good reason for believing neo-lorentzian theory is correct, namely, the existence of god in a-theory time implies it.
Hooray for deductive reasoning with circular logic
42WHAAAAAAT?
People do stupid things because we have free will.
Some food for thought...
If "God" stopped people from doing stupid things what is the point of free will?
If "God" stopped people from doing bad things what is the point of the ten commandments?
That is the point of free will, you can do what you want.
If God intervenes, then we do not have free will.
That is the point.
You assume that if "God" gave us laws, we have free will.
It would be stupid if "God" gave us laws, but did not give us free will. Seems like a pointless exercise.
That is the point of free will, you can do what you want. If God intervenes, then we do not have free will.
I don't see the contradiction.
However I do appreciate that if you believe in a "God" that is supposed to be all-powerful and all-merciful, that can be confusing and angering.
Also free will is not a lousy explanation of anything. It is a fundamental existential question. It substantially alters your viewpoint if you believe you have free will or you believe that everything is pre-destined.
if i'm not mistaken 'free will' is just a christian patch-job on the problems created by god allowing evil. and just like all the other supernatural nonsense that only the indoctrinated mind can believe, it is a nonsense concept to the unindoctrinated.
free will would be the ability to chose between an awesome outcome and an even more awesomer outcome in a safe and loving environment?
No, you are missing the point. How can a God that freely allow evil and heinous acts on those undeserving, be loving, just, fair and powerful at the same time?
You can't claim free will is the reason for all this clusterbeep
when even the bible itself disagree with you and tells you at the very least some form of predestination exists. You don't get to blank out bits of the bible that doesn't suit your warped premises
Is this to say that you have its answer?
If there was no God, then how would morality evolve into the world?
Without organised religion, where would billions of people in the world get their social network, which is proven to provide a blanket of happiness and economic prosperity?
LOL. I highly doubt that. Sorry.
There's a reason being a good person is synonymous with being a Christian.
I'd like to believe Hitler would go to hell, since he was an atheist in life, but then everyone deserves God's love and forgiveness so it comes down to his judgment day and whether God thinks he purified his heart as a result of his actions or not.
dear god this get's better and better, you believe hitler would go to hell for being an atheist. not for you know, ordering the executions of millions of people, bribing the christian churches or trying to start his own paganist cult where he was worshipped like an idol which is strictly prohibited in your bible.
nope biggest crime is not believing the bible was a crock of shit.
christian morality at it's finest.
No, you are missing the point. How can a God that freely allow evil and heinous acts on those undeserving, be loving, just, fair and powerful at the same time?
Yeh because abusing someone for their beliefs is far more interesting than finding out the fantasy behind them
I'd like to believe Hitler would go to hell, since he was an atheist in life, but then everyone deserves God's love and forgiveness so it comes down to his judgment day and whether God thinks he purified his heart as a result of his actions or not.