"I haven't bothered to read many books promoting atheism. I tried very hard to seriously read a few, but they weren't well-written and their points weren't very coherent."
...Says the guy recommending books by William Lane Craig :P
But I do agree that Hitchens is 100% overrated. It'd be difficult to find a worse spokesperson for the atheist movement.
"Basically, if our universe has a beginning then there must have been something before that."
Where do you get this premise from?
"But it seems most likely that we were created from by Someone/something intelligent that has always existed."
Again, how so? Is this just a case of "well, I feel this way emotionally," or are you making a factual claim?
"I had it worked out in my head earlier, but I can’t remember my brilliant argument anymore."
If you can't remember it, don't trust it - chances are it had flaws that you overlooked (something that's easy to do when you don't have very long to mill it over)
"So “knowing” something doesn’t necessarily entail having absolute knowledge, just having information or evidence that points in that direction."
I agree with this definition more, actually, but I still think I can improve upon it. Essentially, knowledge has two criteria: firstly, that you believe it. Secondly, that it's true. Absolute certainty is something different.
"My “belief” in God is more than just a belief. It is knowledge of Him."
I disagree on the basis that although you believe this, it isn't true.
"My relationship with Him is real and tangible."
If that were true, then other people would be able to discretely observe it. I'm not sure if you were confused about the meaning of the word "tangible" or if you're just trying to BS people here... hopefully the former :s
^The fact that you don't agree with William Lane Craig does not mean he has no credentials. He's a spectacularly brilliant man with a stellar career. Two PhD's and 86 articles published in peer-reviewed journals. Not to mention the fact that his philosophical thought is far more substantive than the shallow c.rap men like Atkins and Dawkins throw around. Craig is disrespected far too much by an arrogant secular academia who have little respect for his intellect merely because he uses it to minister. I think it's a ballsy move on his part. He could act like he wasn't religious and be respected by his narrow-minded peers. But he doesn't.
. . . . . *
Ya... plus he studied in Germany. which effin' rocks. :) (Collin has ranted about this to me before.... :P)
Before we begin, can I clarify a few things?
1. Like I said, I'm not immensely fond of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Probably at least partially because it relates to physics. Ew.
2. Are you saying you don't think the universe had a beginning?
3. If the universe had a beginning, would you agree with the rest of the argument?
Thanks :) *
Also, Christopher Hitchens' book God is Not Great made me want to asjdabsfuabfioafnulasfbf something.
My friend is reading it right now and she likes it. WHY?!? WHY?!?! Probably cuz he believes in 's.exual freedom' or whatever. He was such a bigot.
No asterisk cuz I'm mad >:(
"The fact that you don't agree with William Lane Craig does not mean he has no credentials."
Yes, I get it, you think credentials determine a person. The point is that the man really is a laughing stock among general well-educated public, and for good reason. I feel as bad for theists for putting up with him as I do for atheists for putting up with Hitchens, whether or not either group on the whole knows what they've bought into.
SDD, genuinely curious: What don't you like about WLC? *
The fact that he's outrightly dishonest, believes firmly that if a logical argument does not conform to scripture then it must be wrong (I'm not even inferring this, he openly declares it in the first chapter of "Reasonable Faith"), seems to believe that confusing his audience beyond all repair with contradictory statements and vague terminology is a legitimate debate technique, can't seem to ever actually make a coherent and valid logical argument, and to top it all off he's not even a good writer.
BUT IT'S THE SAME THING!!!! YOU'RE STILL BEING IGNORANT OF SOMETHING!!!!!! Ignorance of ignorance is bliss can be simplified down to ignorance is bliss.
I think my statement is a little more specific, but to each thier own. :)
"BUT IT'S THE SAME THING!!!! YOU'RE STILL BEING IGNORANT OF SOMETHING!!!!!!"
No, it's not the same, because what you're ignorant about is what really matters, not that you're ignorant in the first place.
Credentials don't determine a person, but they certainly determine a person's worthiness to speak on a topic, and if there's anyone qualified to speak on philosophy of science and philosophy of religion, then it's William Lane Craig. What else would make the person? My own subjective opinion of them? As much as I'd like to be the single omnipotent force doling out diplomas to all those I deem worthy: I recognize that this isn't so and that I'm merely one person in the midst of a huge (rather efficient) system for sifting out those who aren't qualified to speak authoritatively on philosophy. For instance, though I dislike and disagree with both Bill Maher and Nietzche, I dimiss Maher as a blathering idiot and argue with Nietzche. Why? Because Nietzche is worth arguing with due to the fact that he has a thorough philosophical education. As does William Lane Craig.
If by "general well-educated public" you mean the small portion of society that poops itself every time it ever even hears the name of God, then you're probably right. But there are many atheist philosophers who are not too cowardly to accept the fact that Craig is as or better educated than they are and who take him very seriously. To dismiss him because you disagree with his system is arrogant, pretentious, and small-minded.
He is not dishonest and his debate techniques are just that: debate techniques, not glimpses into his soul or his academic career. And they're far more ethical than yours: at least he, you know, treats people like human beings and isn't pitifully arrogant and condescending, as he should be towards someone who hasn't even been in grade school as long as he's been in graduate school, and who hasn't spent as much time breathing as he has reading the great philosophers, but undoubtedly wouldn't because he's also a wonderful, God-fearing human being who is a model example for schaolars and debaters of all beliefs, not just Christianity.
Nuff said. This conversation is over.
I get what you're saying SDD, but my point is (and perhaps my last post could've been worded or explained better) that even if ignorance of ignorance is actually bliss, you're still being ignorant which is why ignorance is bliss.
I saw the bottom of your post and, alright. I don't really care to read or respond to your post if you won't even consider my response and aren't willing to have a discussion. So I guess that's that.
Izuo: Oh, okay, I'm pretty sure I get what you're saying now.
Ahh I haven't read Reasonable Faith. THanks for the reply though :) When I get around to reading it (if ever) I'll formulate my opinion. *
Ahh, welcome to the world of conversing with you, stuntdude.
Yes, you're very welcome, Collin. Of course you declined the invitation to the world of conversing with me, but you're welcome to come back any time.