|
|
Post by Vodmeister on Jun 30, 2014 11:22:29 GMT 5
We have came to a point where William Lane Craig will present 8 arguments for theism in his God debate, as he did in his latest debate against Alex Rosenberg. This mathematics argument is a new one by WLC and I hadn't heard about it until recently; it sounds good on the surface for someone who is mostly ignorant about this argument (such as myself), then again, so do most Craig arguments until you into further detail. Argument SummaryGod is the best Explanation for the Applicability of Mathematics to the Natural World1. If God did not exist, the applicability of mathematics would be a happy coincidence. 2. The applicability of mathematics is not a happy coincidence. 3. Therefore, God exists www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dcxw0ierjPE |
|
|
|
Post by coherentsheaf on Jul 1, 2014 0:58:21 GMT 5
- If God did not exist, the applicability of mathematics would be a happy coincidence.
It seems to me that there is no good justificaton for this.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jul 1, 2014 1:28:27 GMT 5
From what I see, it seems to be the same logic as in the Fine Turning argument, but I could be easily wrong, due to my superficial knowledge.
|
|
|
|
Post by malikc6 on Jul 3, 2014 0:52:14 GMT 5
You know, I do think that there is a creator, but its unknown. We truly have no idea how we got here. I personally do think that everything was created by something, but I stand by no religion. I'm somewhat of a spiritualist. I believe in the spirit realm and that humans are souls living in physical bodies. When you die, you roam the earth, or go to the spirit realm. I also think that spirits are an advanced form of life that we at this time don't know what they are exactly. There is infinite possibilities and wonders.
But trying to prove that YOUR god exists is foolish and impossible. Anyone can argue that there had to be something that created everything, but no one can prove that their religion is correct.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jul 3, 2014 2:00:26 GMT 5
Most theist arguments Vodmeister regularly introduces to us are only used for the existence of a very broadly defined God and not for a particular one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vodmeister on Jul 3, 2014 7:39:03 GMT 5
malikc6 used to be quite religious back in 2011, he is one of the few posters who I have personally seen evolve from Christianity to Deism.
|
|
|
|
Post by malikc6 on Jul 3, 2014 10:47:11 GMT 5
I used to be a religious fanatic at a time dude. I tried to follow the ten commandments and believe nearly everything in the bible, but I just couldn't. My skepticism and understanding of human nature overcomed me. I started questioning what I was believing and questioning the bible itself. There are things I still believe, but nowhere near as I used to. I don't consider myself a christian at all. I am my own thinker.
I just wish everyone else could be to instead of following others like blind sheep. Can they not see that the ones who lead them are most likely leading them for political/economic purposes that benefit them?
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jul 3, 2014 19:07:21 GMT 5
malikc6 used to be quite religious back in 2011, he is one of the few posters who I have personally seen evolve from Christianity to Deism. Well, I was a bit of a fundie, too, some time ago. I even made posts in 2012 which were obviously pro Christianity. |
|
|
|
Post by Vodmeister on Jul 4, 2014 12:07:40 GMT 5
Amazing how mere skepticism and actually thinking about a problem instead of accepting it like a mindless sheep can lead you to discover new truths and expose old lies, what previously appeared only to be common sense.
There is he who has thinks about the problem, analyses theories and made rational judgments.
There is him who mindlessly accepts a certain position out of nothing but propaganda or convenience, does not think for himself but allows his surroundings to do the thinking for him.
And then there is he who is bonded to a certain position, practices defending it, is too stubborn change his mind, and denies any evidence presented to him.
Unfortunately the majority of the population belongs to the 2nd one.
|
|
|
|
Post by malikc6 on Jul 6, 2014 11:47:33 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by Vodmeister on Jul 7, 2014 9:10:54 GMT 5
That is hilarious.  |
|
|
|
Post by malikc6 on Jul 7, 2014 10:49:40 GMT 5
He had people actually blow him because of that... Human stupidity is enhanced when it comes to religion.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Mar 17, 2016 20:50:15 GMT 5
I wondered if I should create a thread called "The Logic Argument", but logic and mathematics are closely related anyway, so why not try it here? The astrophysicist and creationist Dr. Jason Lisle once made this syllogism: 1. If the Bible were not true, logic would not be meaningful. 2. Logic is meaningful. 3. Therefore, the Bible is true. answersingenesis.org/logic/not-sound-logic/So, Dr. Lisle tries to prove Bible using logic? Interesting and he knows logic is valid because of the Bible? 1. The Bible is true because logic says so. 2. Logic is valid because the Bible says so. Ladies and gentlemen, this is one of the most obvious instances of circular reasoning I have ever seen. |
|
|
|
Post by Venomous Dragon on Mar 17, 2016 23:10:15 GMT 5
I wondered if I should create a thread called "The Logic Argument", but logic and mathematics are closely related anyway, so why not try it here? The astrophysicist and creationist Dr. Jason Lisle once made this syllogism: 1. If the Bible were not true, logic would not be meaningful. 2. Logic is meaningful. 3. Therefore, the Bible is true. answersingenesis.org/logic/not-sound-logic/So, Dr. Lisle tries to prove Bible using logic? Interesting and he knows logic is valid because of the Bible? 1. The Bible is true because logic says so. 2. Logic is valid because the Bible says so. Ladies and gentlemen, this is one of the most obvious instances of circular reasoning I have ever seen. It's the standard holy book reasoning simply swapping "God" for logic God is real because the Bible say so The Bible is correct because it gets its authority from God. Standard bs |
|
