Recent content by Sheepdog11

Most atheists wouldn't argue that Christianity is NOT true, but rather that there is no good reason at the moment to believe it IS true. This is just another rephrase of "atheists, prove God doesn't exist", which is a straw-man of most atheist's positions.

I am fairly interested in this, but may or may not be able to attend.

Strawman.

No problem. I'm always inviting of intelligent discussion. Agreed to an extent. Axioms are, by definition, self-evident, but will always lack a satisfying explanation. But presupposing the Christian God also presupposes other things, including a state of identity, a consciousness outside...

Righteous is a description of good outside of simply being God's nature. How do you get there? Determining that "good" means anything other than "of God's nature" is circular. Isn't that how you would describe humanity's state of affairs right now? I think there are two flaws with your...

Is God's nature good because good is "right"? Or is good "right" because that's what God's nature happens to be? ... When you define "good" as simply "of God's nature", you lose any meaning the word "good" has. Saying "God is good" means nothing more than saying "God is God". In other words...

And I'm disappointed with most of his opponents. :p But the guy truly is an amazing debater, whether you agree with him or not.

That video is nothing more than a 5 minute appeal to consequence fallacy. William Lane Craig spends far too much time on his perceived ill consequences of subjective morality (nobody can say anything is objectively wrong!) and far too little time actually trying to show that objective morality...

Perhaps because it is simply human nature, and no religion can ever change that?

This simply means that the word "good" is redefined as "God's nature". In other words, when we say that God is good, we are merely saying that God is God; the term "good" becomes useless and irrelevant. So we can say that "goodness" is simply God's nature, but then it becomes a descriptive term...

Assuming that God exists already assumes other axioms: an existence outside of oneself, a state of identity, non-contradiction, etc. Thus, both groups are assuming axioms of logic, but one group is taking it a step further and also assuming God on top of that. Just thought I'd chime in.

...just in case this was a serious suggestion... A black hole wouldn't be able to distort our time like you suggest unless it was so massive and close that it would also be ripping Earth to shreds. The sky would also appear black and void of stars, due to the light being sucked into such a...

Care to exercise the implications of this statement? If so, what are you suggesting the age of the Universe is?

I disagree. While the church decided which books would become the canon of the Bible, they didn't really tamper much with what was already there. There are some later additions (forgeries) in the New Testament (Mark 16:9-20, John 8:1-11, etc) and many smaller discrepancies between manuscripts...

Thank you for the links. I'm reading the first one at the moment, and I feel it sufficiently resolves this thread.