• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

GOBLIGOOP AND ANYTHING GOES

spirituality religion christianity

  • Please log in to reply
173 replies to this topic

#61 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 19 December 2013 - 03:35 PM

Yes if you followed the forum guidelines and rules you would not try to derail the discussion by off topic nonsense and endless logical fallacies. . The proof is in the pudding. Just look at his posts.


GOBLIGOOP AND ANYTHING GOES

'
What posts Shadowhawk? I posted nothing here. Do you find my corrections to your beginner's logic so hard to deal with that you have to sneak around behind my back to get revenge? Is your ego really that fragile? Do you really want to be known for the infantile dishonest underhand attacks you make on people? You do appear to imagine you are massively more intelligent than anyone else here so I'm guessing the answer is probably another deluded "Yes".

Just more name calling. HO Hummm :sleep:


POT CALLING KETTLE BLACK FALLACY
This fallacy can take several forms:
1. A, who is black faults B for being black while ignoring As own color. Hypocrisy.
2. A, who is black, calls B, who is not black, “black.” Projection of ones own faults.


Read carefully. I was not posting on this conversation. I only looked at it to see what the odd title meant but then was appalled to see that you were subjecting me to your usual abuse behind my back. How do you justify this? What did you hope to achieve? Did you think anyone else would be interested in helping out with your petty spiteful vendetta?

#62 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 19 December 2013 - 03:52 PM

Mediterranean diet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia....iterranean_diet


This article is about the dietary recommendation that became popular in the 1990s. For food of the areas around the Mediterranean Sea, see Mediterranean cuisine.
The Mediterranean diet is a modern nutritional recommendation inspired by the traditional dietary patterns of Greece, Spain and Southern Italy.[1] The principal aspects of this diet include proportionally high consumption of olive oil, legumes, unrefined cereals, fruits, and vegetables, moderate to high consumption of fish, moderate consumption of dairy products (mostly as cheese and yogurt), moderate wine consumption, and low consumption of meat and meat products.[2]
On November 17, 2010, UNESCO recognized this diet pattern as an Intangible Cultural Heritage of Italy, Greece, Spain and Morocco.[3] On December 4, 2013, UNESCO recognized, during its meeting in Baku, that this diet pattern as an Intangible Cultural Heritage of Spain, Portugal, Morocco, Italy, Greece, Cyprusand Croatia.[4] “ While there were similarities between the countries, there are also important differences in the food habits of the Mediterranean countries. Neighbouring countries' food habits are closer than those on opposite sides of the Mediterranean Sea.... There is no single ideal Mediterranean diet.[5]
Despite its name, this diet is not typical of all Mediterranean cuisine. In Northern Italy, for instance, lardand butter are commonly used in cooking, and olive oil is reserved for dressing salads and cooked vegetables.[6] In both North Africa and the Middle East, sheep's tail fat and rendered butter (samna) are the traditional staple fats, with some exceptions.[7] Indeed, one researcher concludes: "It appears that currently there is insufficient material to give a proper definition of what the Mediterranean diet is or was in terms of well defined chemical compounds or even in terms of foods.... The all embracing term 'Mediterranean diet' should not be used in scientific literature...."[8]
The most commonly understood version of the Mediterranean diet was presented, amongst others, by Dr Walter Willett of Harvard University's School of Public Health from the mid-1990s on.[9][10][11][12][13][14] Based on "food patterns typical of Crete, much of the rest of Greece, and southern Italy in the early 1960s", this diet, in addition to "regular physical activity," emphasizes "abundant plant foods, fresh fruit as the typical daily dessert, olive oil as the principal source of fat, dairy products (principally cheese and yogurt), and fish and poultry consumed in low to moderate amounts, zero to four eggs consumed weekly, red meat consumed in low amounts, and wine consumed in low to moderate amounts". Total fat in this diet is 25% to 35% of calories, with saturated fat at 8% or less of calories.[15]
Olive oil is often considered characteristic of the Mediterranean diet, though in Egypt, Malta, and Israel, olive oil consumption is negligible.[5] It contains a very high level of monounsaturated fats, most notably oleic acid, which epidemiological studies suggest may be linked to a reduction in coronary heart disease risk.[16] There is also evidence that the antioxidants in olive oil improve cholesterol regulation and LDL cholesterol reduction, and that it has other anti-inflammatory and anti-hypertensive effects.[17]



Contents
[hide]

History[edit]

Although it was first publicized in 1945 by the American scientist Ancel Keys stationed in Pioppi, Italy, the Mediterranean diet failed to gain widespread recognition until the 1990s. Objective data showing that Mediterranean diet is healthy, first originated from the Seven Countries Study. Portugal was included in Keys observations and studies, and the scientist found in the country the diet in its more pure form, however Salazar convinced the scientist to remove references of the country from his conclusions, as the ruler did not wanted Portugal's name associated with the "diet of the poor".[18]
Mediterranean diet is based on what from the point of view of mainstream nutrition is considered a paradox: that although the people living in Mediterranean countries tend to consume relatively high amounts of fat, they have far lower rates of cardiovascular disease than in countries like the United States, where similar levels of fat consumption are found. A parallel phenomenon is known as the French Paradox.[19]
A diet rich in salads was promoted in England during the early Renaissance period by Giacomo Castelvetro in A Brief Account of the Fruits, Herbs, and Vegetables of Italy.[20] He attempted, without success, to convince the English to eat more fruits and vegetables.
Health effects[edit]

A number of diets have received attention, but the strongest evidence for a beneficial health effect and decreased mortality after switching to a largely plant based diet comes from studies of Mediterranean diet, e.g. from the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study.[21]
The Mediterranean diet often is cited as beneficial for being low in saturated fat and high in monounsaturated fat and dietary fiber. One of the main explanations is thought to be the health effects of olive oil included in the Mediterranean diet.
The Mediterranean diet is high in salt content.[22] Foods such as olives, salt-cured cheeses, anchovies, capers, and salted fish roe all contain high levels of salt.
The inclusion of red wine is considered a factor contributing to health as it contains flavonoids with powerful antioxidant properties.[23]
Dietary factors are only part of the reason for the health benefits enjoyed by certain Mediterranean cultures. A healthy lifestyle (notably a physically active lifestyle or labour) is also beneficial.[24][25] Environment may also be involved. However, on the population level, i.e. for the population of a whole country or a region, the influence of genetics is rather minimal, because it was shown that the slowly changing habits of Mediterranean populations, from a healthy active lifestyle and Mediterranean diet to a not so healthy, less physically active lifestyle and a diet influenced by the Western pattern diet, significantly increases risk of heart disease.[26][27][28] There is an inverse association between adherence to the Mediterranean diet and the incidence of fatal and non fatal heart disease in initially healthy middle aged adults in the Mediterranean region.[29]
A 2011 systematic review found that a Mediterranean diet appeared to be more effective than a low-fat diet in bringing about long-term changes to cardiovascular risk factors, such as lowering cholesterol level and blood pressure.[30]
A 10-year study found that adherence to a Mediterranean diet and healthful lifestyle was associated with more than a 50% lowering of early death rates.[31] A 5-year study of 7,447 people reported that the Mediterranean diet reduced the risk of heart disease in people at high risk by "about 30 percent" when compared with individuals on just a low fat diet.[32][33]
The putative benefits of the Mediterranean diet for cardiovascular health are primarily correlative in nature; while they reflect a very real disparity in the geographic incidence of heart disease, identifying the causal determinant of this disparity has proven difficult. The most popular dietary candidate, olive oil, has been undermined by a body of experimental evidence that diets enriched in monounsaturated fats such as olive oil are not atheroprotective when compared to diets enriched in either polyunsaturated or even saturated fats.[34][35] A recently emerging alternative hypothesis to the Mediterranean diet is that differential exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation accounts for the disparity in cardiovascular health between residents of Mediterranean and more northerly countries. The proposed mechanism is solar UVB-induced synthesis of Vitamin D in the oils of the skin, which has been observed to reduce the incidence of coronary heart disease, and which rapidly diminishes with increasing latitude.[36] Interestingly, residents of the Mediterranean are also observed to have very low rates of skin cancer (which is widely believed to be caused by over-exposure to solar UV radiation); incidence of melanomas in the Mediterranean countries is lower than in Northern Europe and significantly lower than in other hot countries such as Australia and New Zealand.[citation needed] Its been hypothesized that some components of the Mediterranean diet may provide protection against skin cancer.
A study published in the Archives of General Psychiatry shows that people who followed the Mediterranean diet were less likely to develop depression.[37]
Medical research[edit]

The Seven Countries Study[38] found that Cretan men had exceptionally low death rates from heart disease, despite moderate to high intake of fat. The Cretan diet is similar to other traditional Mediterranean diets, consisting mostly of olive oil, bread, abundant fruit and vegetables, fish, and a moderate amount of dairy foods and red wine.
The Lyon Diet Heart Study[39] set out to mimic the Cretan diet, but adopted a pragmatic approach. Realizing that some of the people in the study (all of whom had survived a first heart attack) would be reluctant to move from butter to olive oil, they used a margarine based on rapeseed (canola) oil. The dietary change also included 20% increases in vitamin C-rich fruit and bread and decreases in processed and red meat. On this diet, mortality from all causes was reduced by 70%. This study was so successful that the ethics committee decided to stop it prematurely so that the results could be made public immediately.[40]
According to a 2008 study published in the British Medical Journal, the traditional Mediterranean diet provides substantial protection against type 2 diabetes.[41] The study involved over 13 000 graduates from the University of Navarra in Spain with no history of diabetes, who were recruited between December 1999 and November 2007, and whose dietary habits and health were subsequently tracked. Participants initially completed a 136-item food frequency questionnaire designed to measure the entire diet. The questionnaire also included questions on the use of fats and oils, cooking methods and dietary supplements. Every two years participants were sent follow-up questionnaires on diet, lifestyle, risk factors, and medical conditions. New cases of diabetes were confirmed through medical reports. During the follow-up period (median 4.4 years) the researchers from the University of Navarra found that participants who stuck closely to the diet had a lower risk of diabetes. A high adherence to the diet was associated with an 83% relative reduction in the risk of developing diabetes.[42]
A 2008 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine examined the effects of three diets: low-carb, low-fat, and Mediterranean. The study involved 322 participants and lasted for two years. The low-carb and Mediterranean diet resulted in the greatest weight loss, 12 lbs and 10 lbs, respectively. The low-fat diet resulted in a loss of 7 lbs. One caveat of the study is that 86% of the study participants were men. The low-carb and Mediterranean diets produced similar amounts of weight loss in the overall study results and in the men. In the remaining participants who were women, the Mediterranean diet produced 3.8 kg (8.4 lbs) more weight loss on average than the low-carb diet. However, the low-carb diet produced more favorable changes in blood lipids.[43]
A meta-analysis published in the British Medical Journal in 2008 showed that following strictly the Mediterranean diet reduced the risk of dying from cancer and cardiovascular disease as well as the risk of developing Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease. The results report 9%, 9%, and 6% reduction in overall, cardiovascular, and cancer mortality respectively. Additionally a 13% reduction in incidence of Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases is to be expected provided strict adherence to the diet is observed.[44] As well, a 2007 study found that adherence to the Mediterranean diet (MeDi) may affect not only risk for Alzheimer disease (AD) but also subsequent disease course: Higher adherence to the MeDi is associated with lower mortality in AD. The gradual reduction in mortality risk for higher MeDi adherence tertiles suggests a possible dose-response effect.[45]
See also: Alzheimer's disease and diet
A study published in the British Medical Journal in 2009 showed some components of the Mediterranean diet, such as high vegetable consumption and low meat and meat product consumption, are more significantly associated with low risk of mortality than other components, such as cereal consumption and fish consumption. As part of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition study, researchers followed more than 23,000 Greek men and women for 8.5 years to see how various aspects of a Mediterranean diet affect mortality. Moderate alcohol consumption, high fruit and nut consumption, and high legume consumption were also associated with lower risk of mortality.[46] Mediterranean Diet, articulated into extensive lifestyles interventions in a clinical follow-up study, improves renal artery circulation, decreasing renal resistive index, even without significant modifications of Insulin Resistance. This is a beneficial effect and modifies the pathophysiology of essential hypertension.[47] Another study reported in February 2010 found that the diet may help keep the brain healthy by reducing the frequency of mini-strokes that can contribute to mental decline.[48] Mediterranean Diet is becoming a comprehensive popular and successful translational paradigm for the promotion of healthier lifestyles.[47]
A 2011 meta-analysis published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology analyzed the results of 50 studies (35 clinical trials, 2 prospective and 13 cross-sectional) covering about 535,000 people to examine the effect of a Mediterranean diet on metabolic syndrome. The researchers reported that a Mediterranean diet is associated with lower blood pressure, blood sugar, and triglycerides.[49]
A 2012 follow-up study in Israel, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, found that even people who regain some weight after going on a Mediterranean diet can derive lasting benefits from it.[50]
A meta-analysis published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 2013 compared Mediterranean, vegan, vegetarian, low-glycemic index, low-carbohydrate, high-fiber, and high-protein diets with control diets. The research concluded that Mediterranean, low-carbohydrate, low-glycemic index, and high-protein diets are effective in improving markers of risk for cardiovascular disease and diabetes.[51]
A recent randomized Spanish trial of diet pattern published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2013 followed almost 7,500 individuals over around 5 years found that individuals on a Mediterranean diet supplemented with mixed nuts and olive oil had a 30 percent reduction in risk of having a major cardiovascular event and a 49 percent decrease in stroke risk. Subjects followed one of three different diets. They included either a low fat diet, a Mediterranean diet with 50 ml of extra virgin olive oil daily or a Mediterranean diet with 30 grams of mixed nuts. The nuts were primarily walnuts which have a high amount of omega-3 fatty acids.[32]
Recently, an observational study published, November 5, 2013, in the Annals of Internal Medicine concluded that following a Mediterranean diet might help middle-aged women to live longer and thrive. The study was a 15 years long observational study done to examine the association between dietary patterns at midlife and health in aging. The participants in this study were 10,670 women with dietary data and no major chronic diseases between 1984 and 1986. In addition, all the women were in their late 50s and early 60s. After reviewing the data of 15 years, researchers in this study calculated the outcomes and reported that middle-aged women who followed the Mediterranean diet had a 40% more chance to live up to age 70, compared with other participants who followed a dissimilar eating style. [52]
I've copied in the whole article because it contains a number of interesting points. This diet is ill-defined and never was the diet of the whole of the Med. Some peasant farmers came more or less close to it, but many people did not. Many in Spain and Italy for example, use a great deal of pork and pork fat for cooking. Much of the traditional diet of Andalucia is cooked in pork fat, and the Spanish as a whole eat an enormous amount of cured meat, chorizo, jamon, morcilla, lomo etc. Very likely why they have the highest level of strokes in Europe. (ref forgotten) The Mediterranean diet is mostly a construct, actually eaten only by a few poor peasants in marginal areas.

PS just found tables putting Spain well down the stroke list....must research further.

Edited by johnross47, 19 December 2013 - 03:57 PM.


#63 N.T.M.

  • Guest
  • 640 posts
  • 120
  • Location:Reno, NV

Posted 20 December 2013 - 02:40 AM

Funny video of incoherent theist failing to prove the Kalam valid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u9ZIQ33a8c

Very life enhancing.


Apparently the girl's question at 6:23 (paraphrasing), "If I were God, could I be God?", was a little confusing. lol If God = whatever definition, and if I, hypothetically, met all those conditions (meaning God = me), would I be God? The answer's in the question lmao.

#64 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 20 December 2013 - 12:51 PM

It shows just how hard it is to deal with issues like this in real time without rehearsal. It brings home just how artificial many of those staged debates are, where you have well prepared (mostly) advocates presenting well rehearsed cases. Just as in the equally artificial situation of criminal court cases, the truth does not always triumph; the winner is just whoever sounds most convincing at the time to the unrehearsed non-expert audience or jury. Many may change their minds later after reflection. As somebody said, truth cannot be decided by a vote.

#65 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 20 December 2013 - 08:06 PM

Funny video of incoherent theist failing to prove the Kalam valid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u9ZIQ33a8c

Very life enhancing.


Apparently the girl's question at 6:23 (paraphrasing), "If I were God, could I be God?", was a little confusing. lol If God = whatever definition, and if I, hypothetically, met all those conditions (meaning God = me), would I be God? The answer's in the question lmao.


I think what she is asking is "if I had the power you ascribe to a god could I be the creator?"

#66 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 20 December 2013 - 11:09 PM

http://www.pitzer.ed..._on_Atheism.pdf

This is a very solid essay on atheism and morality. It's too long to paste in here but well worth a read......full of facts and figures from lots of studies showing the general superiority of secular nations.

#67 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 21 December 2013 - 01:45 AM

Yes if you followed the forum guidelines and rules you would not try to derail the discussion by off topic nonsense and endless logical fallacies. . The proof is in the pudding. Just look at his posts.


GOBLIGOOP AND ANYTHING GOES

'
What posts Shadowhawk? I posted nothing here. Do you find my corrections to your beginner's logic so hard to deal with that you have to sneak around behind my back to get revenge? Is your ego really that fragile? Do you really want to be known for the infantile dishonest underhand attacks you make on people? You do appear to imagine you are massively more intelligent than anyone else here so I'm guessing the answer is probably another deluded "Yes".

Just more name calling. HO Hummm :sleep:


POT CALLING KETTLE BLACK FALLACY
This fallacy can take several forms:
1. A, who is black faults B for being black while ignoring As own color. Hypocrisy.
2. A, who is black, calls B, who is not black, “black.” Projection of ones own faults.


Read carefully. I was not posting on this conversation. I only looked at it to see what the odd title meant but then was appalled to see that you were subjecting me to your usual abuse behind my back. How do you justify this? What did you hope to achieve? Did you think anyone else would be interested in helping out with your petty spiteful vendetta?


What conversation? You should be posting here. Be my guest.
  • dislike x 1

#68 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 21 December 2013 - 02:05 PM

This is the recipe for one of my favourite stuffings. I'm using it in the neck end of the turkey, while the cavity gets a pork, sausage, apple and chestnut stuffing.

100gms Basmati rice
whole lemon.....ideally unwaxed
5 pods of cardamon
generous handful of fresh tarragon
olive oil
30 gms butter
large onion
a little stock or made-up stock cube or 2 tsps stock powder

put the rice on to cook...10-12 mins
finely chop and clarify the onion in a little oil
shred all the lemon peel.
add the cardamon seeds, lemon peel, butter and stock powder to the frying pan. Stir.
when the rice is cooked add it to the frying pan
stir in all the tarragon and the juice of the lemon.
season to taste with salt and black pepper.

If you are using this fresh, put it straight into the bird, hot, seconds before putting it in the oven. Otherwise freeze it to save time on Christmas day, and then reheat before using. I take the legs off the turkey and lay them in the bottom of the roasting tin. It cooks in half the time without drying out.

#69 DukeNukem

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 141
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 21 December 2013 - 06:19 PM

Sounds yummy, John.

And in other yummy news, the church decides that, while angles do exist, they are wingless:

Angels Exist But Have No Wings, Says Church
http://news.sky.com/...ngs-says-church

I wonder what the church's official stance in on whether God has a belly button or penis? After all, we're made in his image, and depictions of Adam and Eve always show them with a belly button. Does God need to pee?

#70 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 21 December 2013 - 08:18 PM

Sounds yummy, John.

And in other yummy news, the church decides that, while angles do exist, they are wingless:

Angels Exist But Have No Wings, Says Church
http://news.sky.com/...ngs-says-church

I wonder what the church's official stance in on whether God has a belly button or penis? After all, we're made in his image, and depictions of Adam and Eve always show them with a belly button. Does God need to pee?

Some people think angels have wings and it has been a theme in art to show their other worldly aspects. Are you one of those who, like many artists, like wings to show this, or not? Is the Church wrong in your view? Hmmm, I have a picture hanging somewhere, of an angle with wings. Now I have to believe they have no wings? Wow!!!

#71 N.T.M.

  • Guest
  • 640 posts
  • 120
  • Location:Reno, NV

Posted 21 December 2013 - 09:18 PM

Funny video of incoherent theist failing to prove the Kalam valid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u9ZIQ33a8c

Very life enhancing.


Apparently the girl's question at 6:23 (paraphrasing), "If I were God, could I be God?", was a little confusing. lol If God = whatever definition, and if I, hypothetically, met all those conditions (meaning God = me), would I be God? The answer's in the question lmao.


I think what she is asking is "if I had the power you ascribe to a god could I be the creator?"


Yes, I understand that, but the only logical answer to the question is yes. If you answer no, then, by definition, ascribing God as the creator of the universe would be just making an arbitrary choice (again, because she was willing to meet whatever definition for God he proposed). It's a double-standard.

*edit* The joke is that nobody should have to think that hard to decide that a double standard is worth avoiding. lmao

Edited by N.T.M., 21 December 2013 - 09:19 PM.

  • like x 1

#72 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 21 December 2013 - 10:27 PM

Lets get serious. Here are some argiments for the Kalam, not some joke radio talkshow.

http://winteryknight...iam-lane-craig/

Site that deals with most of the issues of the Kalam in a serious wa y.
http://www.youtube.c...E5&feature=plcp




#73 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 21 December 2013 - 11:23 PM

Sounds yummy, John.

And in other yummy news, the church decides that, while angles do exist, they are wingless:

Angels Exist But Have No Wings, Says Church
http://news.sky.com/...ngs-says-church

I wonder what the church's official stance in on whether God has a belly button or penis? After all, we're made in his image, and depictions of Adam and Eve always show them with a belly button. Does God need to pee?

That is ........hilarious. It's one those minor contradictions that has made its way into popular culture. There is an old Scottish joke about a hellfire preacher who invites the congregation to ask questions......somebody asks, "Do Angels have sexual organs?" And a voice calls out from the body of the kirk, " Do they fuck'inhell?" The minister replies...."One question at a time please!"

This may require some cultural understanding.

#74 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 21 December 2013 - 11:36 PM

Sounds yummy, John.

And in other yummy news, the church decides that, while angles do exist, they are wingless:

Angels Exist But Have No Wings, Says Church
http://news.sky.com/...ngs-says-church

I wonder what the church's official stance in on whether God has a belly button or penis? After all, we're made in his image, and depictions of Adam and Eve always show them with a belly button. Does God need to pee?

That is ........hilarious. It's one those minor contradictions that has made its way into popular culture. There is an old Scottish joke about a hellfire preacher who invites the congregation to ask questions......somebody asks, "Do Angels have sexual organs?" And a voice calls out from the body of the kirk, " Do they fuck'inhell?" The minister replies...."One question at a time please!"

This may require some cultural understanding.

Lets get serious. Here are some argiments for the Kalam, not some joke radio talkshow.

http://winteryknight...iam-lane-craig/

Site that deals with most of the issues of the Kalam in a serious wa y.
http://www.youtube.c...E5&feature=plcp


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJPnooYOEqQ&feature=em-uploademail

Off topic! Actually, when I think about it for 0.000001 of a second it's not. "Where those inclined can fill up the topic with anything that comes to mind. The Topic is whatever comes to mind and whenever. It does not have to relate in any way to anything. "

Edited by johnross47, 21 December 2013 - 11:56 PM.

  • like x 1

#75 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 22 December 2013 - 12:02 AM

Sounds yummy, John.

And in other yummy news, the church decides that, while angles do exist, they are wingless:

Angels Exist But Have No Wings, Says Church
http://news.sky.com/...ngs-says-church

I wonder what the church's official stance in on whether God has a belly button or penis? After all, we're made in his image, and depictions of Adam and Eve always show them with a belly button. Does God need to pee?

That is ........hilarious. It's one those minor contradictions that has made its way into popular culture. There is an old Scottish joke about a hellfire preacher who invites the congregation to ask questions......somebody asks, "Do Angels have sexual organs?" And a voice calls out from the body of the kirk, " Do they fuck'inhell?" The minister replies...."One question at a time please!"

This may require some cultural understanding.

Lets get serious. Here are some argiments for the Kalam, not some joke radio talkshow.

http://winteryknight...iam-lane-craig/

Site that deals with most of the issues of the Kalam in a serious wa y.
http://www.youtube.c...E5&feature=plcp


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJPnooYOEqQ&feature=em-uploademail

Off topic! Actually, when I think about it for 0.000001 of a second it's not. "Where those inclined can fill up the topic with anything that comes to mind. The Topic is whatever comes to mind and whenever. It does not have to relate in any way to anything. "


I should know, being the one who started the topic. :-D It took that long to figure it out? You had to edit it and re-post it! That took more than 0.000001 of a second. ;) On topic.

Edited by shadowhawk, 22 December 2013 - 12:23 AM.


#76 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 22 December 2013 - 12:06 AM

This came to mind...
"The existence of our universe might be explained by scientific cosmology, but such an explanation would still have to refer to features of some larger reality that contained or gave rise to it. A scientific explanation of the Big Bang would not be an explanation of why there was something rather than nothing, because it would have to refer to something from which that event arose. This something, or anything else cited in a further scientific explanation of it, would then have to be included in the universe whose existence we are looking for an explanation of when we ask why there is anything at all. This is a question that remains after all possible scientific questions have been answered." :)

#77 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 22 December 2013 - 01:58 PM

This came to mind...
"The existence of our universe might be explained by scientific cosmology, but such an explanation would still have to refer to features of some larger reality that contained or gave rise to it. A scientific explanation of the Big Bang would not be an explanation of why there was something rather than nothing, because it would have to refer to something from which that event arose. This something, or anything else cited in a further scientific explanation of it, would then have to be included in the universe whose existence we are looking for an explanation of when we ask why there is anything at all. This is a question that remains after all possible scientific questions have been answered." :)



Another question that remains to be answered is why you thought it was clever to post attacks on people who had not posted anything in this topic?

Answer in your own words please, and with as much honesty as you can scrape up.

Edited by johnross47, 22 December 2013 - 01:59 PM.

  • like x 1

#78 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 22 December 2013 - 10:50 PM

Looking back over past posts in a number of topics I think that perhaps SH thinks he is teaching a class. He's doing it very badly and antagonising the class so they keep disrupting his grand plan to have them all converted by lunch time. The trouble is they have minds of their own and would probably rather discuss lunch, or the much more interesting and well-run classes going on all around. He invites us to post whatever interests us and then gets upset when we do, rather than following his plan. Some of us find the question of why anything exists, fascinating, but we keep wanted to explore it and ask questions about evidence rather than accepting W L Craig's willfully wrong interpretation of things.

Well Christmas is coming......I have a very large meal to cook for family and guests so I shouldn't spend any more time on here. Merry Christmas to all.

#79 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 23 December 2013 - 10:58 PM

johnross47: Looking back over past posts in a number of topics I think that perhaps SH thinks he is teaching a class. He's doing it very badly and antagonising the class so they keep disrupting his grand plan to have them all converted by lunch time. The trouble is they have minds of their own and would probably rather discuss lunch, or the much more interesting and well-run classes going on all around. He invites us to post whatever interests us and then gets upset when we do, rather than following his plan. Some of us find the question of why anything exists, fascinating, but we keep wanted to explore it and ask questions about evidence rather than accepting W L Craig's willfully wrong interpretation of things.


Nothing but ad hominem logical fallacies.
1. I do not think I am teaching a class. Nonsense. Straw man.
2. Anyone that wants to discuss something else is free to do so. There are many existing topics and you can start your own. More nonsense.
3. In this topic I invited anyone to post anything but that is this topic. I have no objection to anyone posting anything. Another false charge.

Ad Hominem Tu Quoque
This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that a person's claim is false because 1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or 2) what a person says is inconsistent with her actions
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
3. Therefore X is false.
http://www.nizkor.or...-tu-quoque.html

4. Calling W.L. Craig names, such as stating he makes, “willfully wrong interpretation of things.” is another logical fallacy. I did not even quote Craig! Johnross47 has actually said nothing. Typical in a topic where you can say anything. My next post will be about Johnrosses attempt to derail another topic by continually going off topic.

#80 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 23 December 2013 - 11:12 PM

This came to mind...
"The existence of our universe might be explained by scientific cosmology, but such an explanation would still have to refer to features of some larger reality that contained or gave rise to it. A scientific explanation of the Big Bang would not be an explanation of why there was something rather than nothing, because it would have to refer to something from which that event arose. This something, or anything else cited in a further scientific explanation of it, would then have to be included in the universe whose existence we are looking for an explanation of when we ask why there is anything at all. This is a question that remains after all possible scientific questions have been answered."
:)

Another question that remains to be answered is why you thought it was clever to post attacks on people who had not posted anything in this topic?

Answer in your own words please, and with as much honesty as you can scrape up.


This topic is "anything."
Is it "clever"? Why?
How is this an attack on anyone? Nonsense.

Do Atheists have faith? Do you honestly, think Craig said this? What is willfully wrong with it?

Edited by shadowhawk, 23 December 2013 - 11:16 PM.


#81 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 24 December 2013 - 02:19 PM

SH "This topic is "anything."
Is it "clever"? Why?
How is this an attack on anyone? Nonsense."

Can anyone tell me what this means? I know what he is avoiding admitting in the third sentence, by using his frequently used tactic of pretending that a post doesn't make sense; are the first two sentences just a particularly stupid application of the same technique?

#82 DukeNukem

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 141
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 24 December 2013 - 04:52 PM

Can anyone tell me what this means? I know what he is avoiding admitting in the third sentence, by using his frequently used tactic of pretending that a post doesn't make sense; are the first two sentences just a particularly stupid application of the same technique?


Remember, you're dealing with the same source that can somehow justify the existence of gods, against all sane reasoning. So don't expect sane arguments in other areas.

#83 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 24 December 2013 - 07:08 PM

I had posted “This came to mind...
"The existence of our universe might be explained by scientific cosmology, but such an explanation would still have to refer to features of some larger reality that contained or gave rise to it. A scientific explanation of the Big Bang would not be an explanation of why there was something rather than nothing, because it would have to refer to something from which that event arose. This something, or anything else cited in a further scientific explanation of it, would then have to be included in the universe whose existence we are looking for an explanation of when we ask why there is anything at all. This is a question that remains after all possible scientific questions have been answered." :)
This had nothing to do with you. http://www.longecity..._60#entry631415

YOU RESPONDED and I Just answered your statement, http://www.longecity..._60#entry631492
where you asked, “Another question that remains to be answered is why you thought it was clever to post attacks on people who had not posted anything in this topic?"

I replied, http://www.longecity..._60#entry631877
“This topic is "anything."
Is it "clever"? Why?
How is this an attack on anyone? Nonsense”.


I know you don’t comprehend this, “Can anyone tell me what this means?” http://www.longecity..._60#entry631968 Yes, it is on topic and it is not an attack on anyone. It is a rather good statement on the question of Leibniz.

DukeNukem with his usual hate speech bigotry and ad hominims can also take this as a response.

How about answering my questions. Do Atheists have faith? Do you honestly, think Craig said this? What is willfully wrong with it? http://www.longecity..._60#entry631877

Right now I have better things to do. It’s Christmas! The incarnation of God. :)

Edited by shadowhawk, 24 December 2013 - 07:24 PM.


#84 sthira

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 406

Posted 24 December 2013 - 10:16 PM

We're seeing the last gasps of god fantasies. These are shrill and protracted death rattles, these beliefs, and yet still churches sit tax-free on nearly every US street corner. Ain't it a sad disgrace that these hocus pocus palaces keep robbing confused old people of their hard earned cash. God and winners like SH need to fade faster from the landscape so we can get on with solving some of the problems in this beautiful, troubled world.

#85 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 24 December 2013 - 11:30 PM

We're seeing the last gasps of god fantasies. These are shrill and protracted death rattles, these beliefs, and yet still churches sit tax-free on nearly every US street corner. Ain't it a sad disgrace that these hocus pocus palaces keep robbing confused old people of their hard earned cash. God and winners like SH need to fade faster from the landscape so we can get on with solving some of the problems in this beautiful, troubled world.


Your future looks bright, at least in the near future. However, outside Europe, Christianity is the fastest growing movement among humans and in Europe it is Islam. Overall Christianity is the fastest growing movement in the world.

Atheists have a wonderful record of how they have carried for people. Their politics are also wonderful in the last century.. How they have carried for the poor, the homeless and downtrodden. Yep, this isn’t the half of it. Again, just look at the last century. I am waiting to see how you do it. So far...

Isn’t going to happen.


T|he Atheists lost the debate badly.
http://www.theguardi...williams-debate

#86 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 27 December 2013 - 02:28 PM

Obviously another post in his own words, but it's really not worth the effort is it? He's admitted elsewhere that his aim is to bring god to us, or bring us to god (?whatever), but he's doing such an appallingly bad job of it. It's like advertising a beer by saying "Hi, I'm Adolph Hitler and I hate you all, so I want you to buy this bottle of beer," and the bottle turns out to be visibly empty and the label describes horrible ingredients. He should employ someone else to do it or get a personality transplant. I know some very nice religious people and lots of nice atheists, but I also know of lots of vile religious organisations and only good and moral atheist ones. He may of course, be confusing atheist and secular. Nazi Germany was a secular state, more or less, but Hitler was a catholic who died in good standing with the church. He was responsible for the laws that still make Bavarians hand over taxes to the church unless they actively opt out. Stalin was educated in a seminary, which might explain his antagonism towards religion. Both, of course, suffered from serious personality defects which were not connected to religion or its lack as far as we know. Basically, bad history proves very little except superficial scholarship.

#87 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 27 December 2013 - 08:54 PM

http://rosarubicondi...gs-cock-up.html

you can view the video referenced via the above link


William Lane Craig's Cock-Up.
Here's a fascinating example of how William Lane Craig tries bamboozles his lay audience with highly technical arguments and how he relies on their ignorance and credulity to get away with it.

In this example he uses a statistical theorem which will be obscure if not unknown to his audience, Bayes' Theorem, and purports to show that it 'proves' the resurrection of Jesus was hugely more likely than unlikely.

Unfortunately, as Richard Carrier, who understands this stuff, shows, his method actually showed that the resurrection could also be shown to be almost impossible using precisely the same technique, and how Lane Craig either deliberately, or through incompetence, made a school-boy error. No one in the audience appeared to notice the sleight of hand, or, if they did, they didn't have the courage to speak out.

Watch it now, and I'll discuss it more in a few minutes to see what conclusions we can draw about William Lane Craig and religious apologetics in general.

Okay?
Hallelujah! Er... or not.
So, by the simple trick of concentrating on just one variable in the equation, Lane Craig seems, to the uneducated, to show that the probability of the resurrection of Jesus actually happening approaches 1 (certainty).

However, his reason for choosing this variable seems to be because it gives the answer he wants, or at least the answer he wants his audience to believe. Had he included the other variable, as he should have done, he would have shown that the probability of the resurrection of Jesus being true approaches zero (impossible).

In fact, of course, you can play exactly the same trick with any mythical event and 'prove' it is hugely likely to have really happened, especially if your audience is credulous and eager to believe it.

So, what can we conclude here?

William Lane Craig has implicitly presented himself as an expert in maths and as someone who understands Bayes' Theorem, and his audience is suitably impressed with this. Here is a 'brilliant thinker, Christian apologist and mathematician' using maths to prove Jesus almost certainly rose from the dead, just as the Bible claims.

So, there are two possibilities here, neither of which are to Lane Craig's credit:
He is as clever as his audience has been lead to believe, and he is deliberately misleading them.
He is misleading the audience about his cleverness in order to fool them.
It is unrealistic to assume that William Lane Craig does not know his audience well, and knows what he can and can't get away with so we can be sure that either one or other of these deceptions was deliberate.

It actually matters not which. The effect was the same: to trick his audience into thinking they had just watched a very clever argument by one of the leading Christian apologists which proved that the resurrection of Jesus was almost certainly true. In fact, all they had witnessed was a trick worthy of any conjurer, snake-oil pedlar, or confidence trickster. Lane Craig knew well enough that the wool between their ears could be pulled down over their eyes, and he knew exactly how to do it.

There is one more thing that this tells us about William Lane Craig and his commitment to truth, honesty and integrity. He claimed, apparently in all seriousness, that Bayes' Theorem, as he presented it, was a compelling argument that Jesus had indeed risen from the dead just as the Bible says. Certainly his audience were convinced by it and he did nothing to disavow them them of that belief.

Why then, now the mathematical error has been pointed out, and Bayes' Theorem has shown, by Lane Craig's own method but without the school-boy error, that Jesus almost certainly didn't rise from the dead, is this suddenly not the evidence it once was? Why is William Lane Craig not touring the country showing how Bayes' Theorem refutes the Christian Bible and the central Christian dogma? He wouldn't be selecting his data would he?

Is this a seeker after truth at work, or a seeker after book sales, speaking engagement fees and TV appearance money?

No prizes for the best answer.

What of the audience?

Well, we know that none of them pointed out Lane Craig's error so either they lacked the maths to spot it or lacked the courage to speak out. One of the tricks religious apologists employ is the 'Emperor's New Clothes' trick. This depends on people either not speaking out because they either don't have the courage to go against the crowd - probably through fear of what the crowd might do to them - or because they persuade themselves that maybe it's they who have the problem; that they saw the mistake or deception but think they are mistaken because no one else has seen it, so they keep quiet rather than look silly. In effect, it's a form of passive-aggressive mob bullying or peer pressure. One wonders how many people come out of a William Lane Craig lecture wondering to themselves why they couldn't follow the intricacies of his reasoning but agreeing with everyone else how brilliant had been his argument, how unarguable had been his conclusions, and how right they are to hold the 'faith' they've just had so brilliantly 'proved' true.

This is a very powerful trick to use on an audience and accounts, at least in part, for so many charlatans getting away with it so often. It's the same trick as is used by preachers and priests on their congregation and by dishonest politician on their voters.

Religious apologists almost invariably talk to audiences composed largely of people who agree with them already and who are there simply to enjoy a celebrity apologist 'confirming' what they already know and to share in that nice warm, self-affirming glow of a shared experience and sense of being part of the in-group. In other words, the audience is already receptive and keen to agree with the speaker. The last thing they are looking for is dishonesty and sleight of hand. Apologists almost invariably speak to credulous audiences eager to agree and have any little doubts dispelled. It's what they are buying and the apologist knows well what he's selling.
- See more at: http://rosarubicondi...h.VED0kPND.dpuf

Edited by johnross47, 27 December 2013 - 09:03 PM.

  • like x 1

#88 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 27 December 2013 - 09:12 PM

johnross47: Obviously another post in his own words, but it's really not worth the effort is it? He's admitted elsewhere that his aim is to bring god to us, or bring us to god (?whatever), but he's doing such an appallingly bad job of it. SH: What other post? Nonsense, none exists. Straw man.

It's like advertising a beer by saying "Hi, I'm Adolph Hitler and I hate you all, so I want you to buy this bottle of beer," and the bottle turns out to be visibly empty and the label describes horrible ingredients. He should employ someone else to do it or get a personality transplant.
SH: More Logical Fallacies and name calling.

I know some very nice religious people and lots of nice atheists, but I also know of lots of vile religious organisations and only good and moral atheist ones. He may of course, be confusing atheist and secular. Nazi Germany was a secular state, more or less, but Hitler was a catholic who died in good standing with the church. He was responsible for the laws that still make Bavarians hand over taxes to the church unless they actively opt out. Stalin was educated in a seminary, which might explain his antagonism towards religion. Both, of course, suffered from serious personality defects which were not connected to religion or its lack as far as we know. Basically, bad history proves very little except superficial scholarship.
SH: And what is johnross’s point?
1. He knows some nice religious people and Atheists. Who doesn’t? So...
2. He knows lots of vile religious organizations but no vile Atheist ones. Think of that statement!
3. Communism and Nazism were a result of religion. We could debate that.
4. I have heard Hitler was a Jew! Bigotry.


The real truth.
http://en.wikipedia....of_Adolf_Hitler
http://www.nytimes.c...nted=all&src=pm
http://www.amazon.co...PR7ZFPS8Q047M5N
http://constitutiona...eftist/id2.html
http://www.jewishvir...ishVictims.html



Hitler was not a Christian.
He killed 4 million Christians
He planned to kill the rest after he finished with the Jews.

Edited by shadowhawk, 27 December 2013 - 09:26 PM.


#89 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 27 December 2013 - 09:12 PM

Dealing with William Lane Craig


By LAWRENCE KRAUSS - RD.NET
Added: Tuesday, 05 April 2011 at 4:01 PM - An RDFRS Original

It sometimes surprises me, although it shouldn’t, how religious devotees feel the need to regularly reinforce their own convictions in groups of like-minded individuals. I suppose this is the purpose of regular Sunday church services, for example, to reinforce the community of belief in between the rest of the week when the real world may show no evidence of God, goodness, fairness, or purpose.

Nevertheless I was not prepared for the self-congratulatory hype that I have seen spouted on the web, and have received in emails, including a typically disingenuous email from Wiliam Lane Craig to his followers regarding a debate I had with him in North Carolina last week. While carrying out the debate in the first place was something that broke my normal rules--as I said during the debate, I far prefer civil conversation and discourse as a way of illuminating knowledge and reality--I will break another rule and write this blog-like note on my own perspectives, in the hope that it may circulate and counter some of the nonsense that has propagated in the fundamentalist and religious blogs of late. Perhaps Craig will post this on his blog and send it out as well.

I believe that if I erred at all, it was in an effort to consider the sensibilities of the 1200 smiling young faces in the audience, who earnestly came out, mostly to hear Craig, and to whom I decided to show undue respect. As I stressed at the time, I did not come to debate the existence of God, but rather to debate about evidence for the existence of God. I also wanted to demonstrate the need for nuance, to explain how these issues are far more complex than Craig, in his simplistic view of the world, makes them out to be. For this reason, as I figured I would change few minds, I decided also to try and illustrate for these young minds the nature of science, with the hope that what they saw might cause them to think. Unfortunately any effort I made to show nuance and actually explain facts was systematically distorted in Craig’s continual effort to demonstrate how high school syllogisms apparently demonstrated definitive evidence for God.

Let me now comment, with the gloves off, on the disingenuous distortions, simplifications, and outright lies that I regard Craig as having spouted. I was very disappointed because I had heard that Craig was more of a philosopher than a proselytizer, but that was not evident the other evening.

Craig began with an attempt to demonstrate his scientific and mathematical credentials by writing a rather meaningless equation on this first slide, which he then argued would be the basis for his ‘evidence’. The equation, in words said that if the probability, given the data, gave one a greater than 50% likelihood for God’s existence, then this was evidence. He even presented this as a pseudo- Bayesian Argument.

The problem is that using mathematical probabilities in this fashion ONLY makes sense if you have a well defined probability measure, and if one can check that the conclusions one draws are not sensitive to one’s priors. He did not explain this at all, nor do I think he understood it when I tried to explain it to him. For the rest of the evening Craig simply proceeded to spout his claimed evidence, and then proceeded to state that each gave him a greater than 50% belief in God. The whole purpose of the mathematical nonsense at the beginning was to give some kind of scientific credibility to a discussion which was anything but. It was disingenuous smoke and mirrors. (Moreover, as I tried to explain, in modern scientific experiments, merely finding an unexpected result, with say only a 20% chance of being wrong, is not sufficient to establish evidence. One needs to go to much higher levels of confidence, especially if the claim being made disagrees with all other evidence. It is hard to think of a grander claim than evidence for a divine being who creates the universe without apparent purpose, dominated by dark matter and dark energy and containing hundreds of billions of galaxies, lets it evolve untouched for billions of years, and then roughly a million years into human evolution decides to intervene at a time before Youtube or any other objective recording and archiving tool was available.)

Next, if one is going to frame the argument scientifically, as I argued is essential when discussing empirical evidence, which Craig later took great pains to disavow, one must point out that in science when one is trying to explain and predict data, one tries to explore all possible physical causes for some effect before resorting to the supernatural. Happily it is precisely this progress in our natural philosophy that ended such religious atrocities as the burning of witches. In each and every case the actual syllogism that one ended up with was:
  • Craig either doesn’t understand how something could happen, or instead believes that events happened that confirmed his pre-existing belief system.
  • In the absence of understanding physical causes or exploring alternatives, this implies evidence for the existence of God.
  • Therefore there is evidence that God exists.

This is what I framed as the “God of the Gaps” argument and I continue to view, upon reflection, most of the claims of Craig as falling in this well-known theological trap.

Let me work backwards through his 5 “arguments”:

  • The resurrection of Jesus, and that fact that the followers of Jesus were willing to die for their beliefs provides evidence of God: I admit that this claim is so sloppy and fatuous that in an effort to demonstrate some margin of respect for Craig I tried to avoid it for as long as I could. Craig argued that most New Testament scholars believe in the resurrection. Even if this were true, though Craig provided no evidence of this, this of course is simply proof that New Testament scholars have an a priori faith that guides them. It is like claiming that most Islamic scholars may believe that Mohammed actually ascended to heaven on a horse. In the first place, there are no definitive eyewitness accounts of these events, and in the case of the claimed resurrection the scriptures were written decades after the claimed event, and the different accounts are not even consistent. Not only are there serious theologians who doubt the resurrection, there are historians who doubt the historical existence of Jesus himself. Whatever one’s views in this regard, however, one must ask oneself the simple question: Is it more likely that all known physical laws were suspended so God could demonstrate divinity--and moreover demonstrate this in a hackneyed way that recreated previous resurrection myths, down to the number of days before being raised from the dead, of several previous, and now long-gone religious cults—or is it more likely that those who were preaching to convert fabricated a resurrection myth in order to convince those to whom they were preaching of Christ’s divinity? Finally, the remarkable, and completely trite claim that the fact the Christians were willing to die for their beliefs demonstrates the validity of these beliefs would be laughable, if it weren’t so pitiful. Especially, as I indicated during the event, in light of the fact that people were recently willing to fly planes into skyscrapers because of their beliefs in a religious framework that I know Craig has openly disavowed. Throughout history people have been willing to die for their beliefs, and it is often the beliefs one is willing to die for that are most suspect. Did Roman soldiers believe in Romulus and Remus? Did Viking warriers believe in Thor? Did Nazi soldiers believe in the superiority of the Aryan race? I found and still find Craig’s statement not only facile, and not even worthy of a high school debater, but I find the claim offensive.

  • FineTuning: The appearance of design is one of the most subtle and confusing aspects of our Universe. Charles Darwin, with his Origin of Species, brilliantly and masterfully explained how the modern world, with its remarkable diversity of life forms may have the appearance of design without any design at all. It was one of the greatest and most striking scientific discoveries of all time, and it is the basis of modern biology and medicine, leading to countless other discoveries that have continued to save countless lives. Craig is aware, from his superficial reading of cosmology, of fine tuning problems in Cosmology, which he then immediately argued requires the existence of intelligent life, implying purpose to the universe. Not only does he fall prey to the same fallacy that those who, before Darwin enlightened us, ascribed design in biology fall prey to, he also continually misrepresented the nature of any apparent fine-tuning of quantities that we currently may not understand from first principles. I tried to explain to him that the current entropy of the universe is not fine tuned, nor need the initial entropy be fine tuned, because Inflation provides a mechanism to wipe out initial conditions and produce huge amounts of entropy, without God. I tried to explain to him that the Cosmological Constant, which is perhaps the most confusing finely tuned parameter we know of in the Universe, is fine tuned in a mathematical sense, compared to the naïve value we might expect on the basis of our current understanding of physical theory. While it is also true that if it were much larger, galaxies would not form, and therefore life forms that survive on solar power would not be likely to form with any significant abundance in the universe, I also explained that if the Cosmological Constant were in fact zero, which is what most theorists had predicted in advance, the conditions for life would be, if anything, more favorable, for the development and persistence of life in the cosmos. Finally, even if some parameters in our currently incomplete model of the universe do appear fine tuned for human life to be possible, (a) we have no idea if other values would allow other non-human-like intelligent life forms to evolve, since we have no understanding of the locus of all possible intelligent life forms. And, beyond this, just as bees are fine tuned to see the colors of flowers which they can pollinate as they go about their business does not indicate design, but rather natural selection, we currently have no idea if the conditions of our universe represent a kind of cosmic natural selection. If there are many universes, for example, as may be the case, and as are predicted in a variety of models, none of which were developed to address God issues, we would certainly expect to find ourselves only in those in which we can live. All of these are subtle and interesting issues worthy of discussion by knowledgeable and honest intellects. I found Craig to be lacking in both of the qualities during his discussion of this issue.

  • Absolute Morals: Craig argued that the existence of absolute morality gives evidence for God. Once again this is simple minded. Indeed in a meeting we convened at my Origins Project of distinguished philosophers and neuroscientists we debated the subtle issues of morality and human evolution, the possible variants of morality, and a host of other issues, without once ever resorting to God. As I tried to explain to Craig, paraphrasing Steven Pinker, if there were a God, either God would have the choice to determine what is right and wrong or not. But in this case, if God determined that raping and murdering 2 year-olds is morally acceptable would it be so? If not, as reason and experience suggests, then God really has to resort to other considerations, kindness, compassion, etc (except for the Old Testament God!), on which to base God’s decisions. But if that is the case, why not just dispense with the middle-man? Lastly, if there is evidence that God provides absolute Morality, it is missing from the world of our experience, where different religious groups, all of whom claim divine inspiration, have incompatible moral views, often leading to horrendous and violent acts against women and children, for example. Indeed, the Old Testament is full of such acts.

  • Contingency: Frankly the argument that humans or the universe do not have to exist but they do as providing evidence for God is something I find unfounded, so I will not devote any more words here to this subject. Many ‘contingent’ phenomena occur by natural causes, from earthquakes to snowflakes and I do not have to invoke God’s will to explain them. What applies to earthquakes and snowflakes applies to the Universe. Just because I cannot yet explain the origin of the Universe does not imply the existence of God…again God of the Gaps.

  • Our Universe had a beginning, therefore God must have created it: Actually the issue of the beginning of the Universe is the only truly interesting question worth discussing here. A host of scientific arguments need to be discussed here, and there is no doubt the question of chicken and egg is a vexing one for cosmologists as well as theologians. However, let me make a few points here: (1) All things that begin may have a cause, even if the cause is rather obscure and purposeless. However, what is important to note is that every known physical effect whose cause we understand has a physical cause. There is no reason therefore to assume the same will not be true of our universe itself. (2) There are no arguments that our universe need be unique and not derived from something pre-existing, or even eternal. Indeed, the Ekpyrotic Universe promoted by Turok and Steinhardt, which I don’t find compelling, argues for potentially eternal periods of expansion and contraction. Craig doesn’t understand the physics. (2) I continued to try and explain that quantum gravity may imply that space and time themselves are created at the moment of the big bang. This is a rather remarkable statement if true. But if it is true, in the absence of time itself, how one can ascribe arguments based on causality is unclear at best.

This last point illustrates what I tried hardest to explain. Classical human reason, defined in terms of common sense notions following from our own myopic experience of reality is not sufficient to discern the workings of the Universe. If time begins at the big bang, then we will have to re-explore what we mean by causality, just as the fact that electrons can be in two places at the same time doing two different things at the same time as long as we are not measuring them is completely nonsensical, but true, and has required rethinking what we mean by particles. Similar arguments by the way imply that we often need to rethink what we actually mean by ‘nothing’, from empty space, to the absence of space itself.

What I hoped I could convey to the truly open minded intellects in the audience, of which of course Craig was not one, was that the amazing effort to understand how the universe works reveals wonders far more remarkable than those presented by Bronze age myths, developed before we had any clear understanding of how the universe works. Simply arguing that one doesn’t understand the results, or doesn’t like the results and therefore one has to resort to supernatural explanations, which was the crux of Craig’s rather monotonous repetition of his syllogisms, is indeed intellectually lazy, as I did say at the time.

I have taken great effort to describe our actual understanding of the Universe and its implications for understanding how it might be possible for something to come from nothing, i.e. non-existence, in my new book, which will come out in January of 2012

.http://old.richardda...liam-lane-craig


#90 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 27 December 2013 - 09:54 PM

Dealing with Lawrence Krauss;











Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: spirituality, religion, christianity

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users