/lit/ - Literature

>william lane craig
there you go, refuted.

>>18014362
The works of WLC are so underrated. Behind his articles for the general public he published brilliant and profound articles, I think in particular of his work on time, the A and B theories, etc.

Even his defense of the kalam is much stronger than people think at first.

But hey, atheists gonna seethe.

If you haven't seen the author, his latest very good debate/discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOfVBqGPwi0

>>18015043
>If you haven't seen the author,
If you haven't seen it, OP,*

>>18015043
His work on his argument from mathematics (which most people do not understand but think to refute) is also very interesting. On the other hand, I do not subscribe to his theistic personalism, I am on the side of Feser and the classical theists on this point.

>>18014362
He said in an interview that Graham Oppy is the most formidable atheist and opponent of natural theology championed by WLC. You should probably check him out

>if god was outside truth I would side with the untruth
this one debunks itself.

Aquinas has been debunked so many times it's not even funny anymore.

>>18014362
The Enlightenment

>>18015077
They have a debate on YouTube, interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WE1y00bwCU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=re-kuNbHd4A

But for me the best debate so far against Oppy is this one from Feser, everyone should see it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoVDutpB4Cw (when you get to the technical difficulty, skip to 19:04)

>Aquinas has been debunked so many times it's not even funny anymore.

Kek, give one example please

>>18015131
He probably means Kant and Hume who offered pretty devastating critiques of schoolmen philosophy for that time but their critiques are somewhat dated

>>18015043
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOfVBqGPwi0
Yeah, little basedboy Alex got btfo'd hard
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Yw0CPmfXEU

>>18015156
The criticisms of Kant and Hume have been answered for a very long time by the neo-thomists. Just read Feser...

>>18015156
I mean every chump out there that has access to webcam

>>18015170
Just to be clear, I wrote s-o-y-boy. Fuck mods. I would never call Alex based.

>>18015190

>>18015043
Why is there nothing for northeast Germany?

Did the Prussians outlaw miracles?

>>18015364
Maybe it's not as well documented idk

>>18015364
>>18015043

>>18015403
>miracles happen with least frequency in areas which are not culturally Christian and thus need them the most
is there a biblical explanation for this?

>>18015156
He clearly means Dawkins. I mean, imagine a smelliest smell and intelligent design being two of the most important of the five ways lol

The Aristotelian/Thomist/ Islamic conception of God has always seemed a little fishy. It imposes far too many limitations to be compatible with any conception of omnipotence.

>>18015616
> any conception of omnipotence.
Except for the Aristotelian/Thomist/Islamic concept of omnipotence

>Christian
>truth
Pick one

>>18015403
I love how all of these are ‘confirmed’ (how exactly?) by an organization witha massive stake in the outcome.

It’s like Shell making a map of Nigeria, showing all the areas it turned into successful communities, and then never wondering why corruption is never mentioned once, but instead concluding that Shell must’ve resolved all corruption, and should be given full control over the country

>>18015654
Yeah, but there’s is too limited to actually consider it omnipotence. I’m saying that they’re conception of it is incomplete.

>>18015616
>It imposes far too many limitations to be compatible with my conception of omnipotence.
Fixed that for you.

>>18015687
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about
Miracles are authenticated by a committee of independent, often non-Christian, non-church affiliated doctors and experts

>>18015732
Healing miracles* like Lourdes
So I guess they are doing such a thorough research for the Marian apparitions

>>18015732
I highly doubt that, give me some academic sources on these ‘confirmed miracles’, because outside of the church, I’ve never heard of this. Besides, how does that rule out virtually everything else? Diseases tend to probabilistic, and cancers often go into remission based on a great number of highly complex factors which interact with one another. No God needed for that one. Finally, how do you ever know all of this comes from the Christian God? For all we know it could’ve been Allah, sending down Mary to warn people not to worship her as a goddess. Many of these miracles are Catholic miracles, do those count as well for Christians who don’t recognize the pope?

>>18015724
My conception is one that is consistent and meaningful. Theirs makes the authority of god arbitrary.

>>18015700
>>18015785
Whats your concept and what's your reasoning?

>>18015785
>My conception is one that is consistent
Yes, probably with the doctrine you affirm as accurate

>>18015794
I don’t affirm any doctrine, which allows me to avoid saying silly things like “perfection necessitates oneness” and other arbitrary crap.

>>18015809
Yeah I’m sure it’s not a doctrine, but a ‘relationship’, just like how Scientology isn’t a religion, but a ‘spiritual movement’

>>18015775
>Diseases tend to probabilistic, and cancers often go into remission based on a great number of highly complex factors which interact with one another. No God needed for that one.
I don't know if you understand French but the probabilistic argument against the miracles of Lourdes does not hold: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NusPvOmbMz4

>>18015809
>saying silly things like “perfection necessitates oneness” and other arbitrary crap
There are arguments for that, you moron, just because you ignore them (since you obviously don't know the metaphysics you're criticizing) doesn't mean it's arbitrary.

>>18015827
>Yeah I’m sure it’s not a doctrine, but a ‘relationship’, just like how Scientology isn’t a religion, but a ‘spiritual movement’
I’m not religious.
>>18015881
The arguments are all shoddy when you’re using them to argue for the existence of an omnipotent being.

>>18015874
Wait, I thought you had academic sources. This is like reading Pravda for proof of the glories of communism

>>18014362
i used to watch some debate videos years ago and he sometimes said pretty interesting things but most of the time got beaten up pretty badly on the main points the atheists made

>>18015903
>The arguments are all shoddy when you’re using them to argue for the existence of an omnipotent being.
Well now we're just chasing our tail here. How would you define omnipotence and how do you justify the definition?

>>18015902
All sources in the video are academic articles, big trisomic...

>>18015903
>The arguments are all shoddy when you’re using them to argue for the existence of an omnipotent being.
I can see your assertions but I'm waiting for the arguments, for the moment it's a slogan
>>18015909
>but most of the time got beaten up pretty badly on the main points the atheists made
A netflix series

>>18015931
Post those then, why do I need to watch agitprop in a language I don’t even understand?

>>18015942
>trisomic
Because there is a reasoning behind it, it's not enough to post a bunch of studies, it shows the studies against the studies for and the arguments made in both camps, but if that's what you want I think you're old enough to open the video description and find them

>>18015966
Why don’t you post those then? Again, I don’t speak French, so your video is completely useless to me.

Post your reasoning, and the data that backs it up

>>18015984
I don't have time to transcribe a video because you're too lazy to activate automatic subtitling and translation. I put a resource here, if you want the sources they are in the description, if you don't want to access it, it will interest other people. I'm sure you can find equivalent answers in English using Google anyway. In short: the statistics of spontaneous remissions are not consistent with the cases obtained in Lourdes.

I think religion if there is no God by kowlakowski is good. Gives some good philosophical arguments for theism and then gives counterpoints to give you some room for thought.

>>18015123
How to filter Butterfly:

1. Click Settings (bottom/top of page)

2. Click Filters & Post Hiding

3. Toggle and Edit "Filter and highlight specific threads/posts"

4. Toggle "On", "Auto", and "Hide". Leave "Boards" empty. Then enter a pattern:

For tripfags utilizing secure tripcodes, like « Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS for example, add this (as type "Tripcode"):

!!bGBGaUpA8kS

You can also filter tripfags on a name-basis. This will allow your filter to persist even though they switch username passwords.

5. Click "Save" and "Save Settings".

Only stubs will be left of comments made by these users.

>>18014362
>Did anyone refute this?
Five Tropes of Agrippa.
It is so fucking funny to see christcuck mental gymnastics whenever some trope is used against their bullshite.

>>18017059
fuck off redditor

>>18017094
Seems pretty reddit to blast someone for providing instructions on hiding a tripfag.

>>18017059
thanks

>>18014362
fuck imma have to refute that aren't i?

>>18016012
>somebody do the work for the argument that I’m making
How fucking predictable. I’m right, but I can’t explain why, here’s a video in another language, of some ‘experts’ who have ‘data’ on this that no one has ever heard of, despite that if this was true, it would be the single biggest revolution in pretty much the whole of science. Sad!

>>18017207
i agree. it seems very reddit to defend mentally ill trannies instead of trying to convince them to buck up a bit.

>>18017059
seethe redditor

>>18015123
The Enlightenment is the best argument in favor of pure theocracy, so no.

>>18015170
Why is WLC denigrating himself by going on the channel of a teenage youtube atheist

>>18018189
>why is WLC, a renown defender of the Christian faith, a legitimately humble human being?

>>18017774
>it would be the single biggest revolution in pretty much the whole of science
how naive, it's cute
the data is here and nothing change

https://web.archive.org/web/20210116110655/https://www.deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm

>>18018331
+ https://www.sheldrake.org/research/animal-powers/a-dog-that-seems-to-know-when-his-owner-is-coming-home-videotaped-experiments-and-observations

>>18015120
But craig is against Aquinas and the scholastic tradition

>>18018603
There really is no such thing as Christian philosophy, is there? Just christians with philosophy

>>18019392
Imagine being this ignorant

>>18019445
I'm struggling to see it. There were Christians before Augustine. Scholastics after Augustine. Then we get enlightenment philosophers challenging the scholastics, and then we get straight fideists like Kirkegaard. Certainly we have a Christian religion with set tenants. Is there one philosophy that can uniquely call itself Christian?

Christianity refutes itself within history.

>>18019518
Yet more reasons I am grateful for never having had a TikTok account. I pray for these people though. I know that any time someone provokes such strong negative feelings within me that there is some way that I would wind up being judged myself for something that is not directly apparent because it is only some mysteriously metaphorical connection. Hatred always bites you in the ass some way or another. I'm still glad I do not have to see this shit any more than what it keeps getting posted around here.

>>18019595
You wouldnt believe how much fun I used to have on tiktok.

>>18014362
Nobody needs to. No matter how many words someone writes saying otherwise, real things still aren't real.

>>18015724
There is only one valid definition for the word omnipotence.

>>18019616
Sounds retarded. I would bet serious money that it was retarded.

>>18019626
What is it?

>>18019626
>There is only one valid definition for the word omnipotence.
Well what is it?

>>18015123
Show tits

>>18019641
It absolutely was but it was extremely fun

>>18017059
Done. Thanks a lot anon.

How does someone this big brained end up an evangelical?

>>18019769
Because being David Lee Roth was already being occupied by another fellow. Well, at least we all assume them to be separate humans.

>>18019769
Specialist mindset. You see it in stem fields often, where someone will be hyperfixated on 2-3 things and be an absolute retard about everything else. And I am not talking about autists who can't into social situations, but incredibly smart people with no curiosity outside their focus within their field.

>>18015043
WLC is an entertaining debator, always fun to see him school people like Sam Harris, but god is still not real

>>18019769
What denomination do you want him to be, anon?

>>18015616
>The Aristotelian/Thomist/ Islamic conception of God
You know that's not one thing, right?

>>18020309
I'm not saying he's incorrect, I just dont associate sophisticated theology with evangelicals

Why wont anyone define omnipotence

>>18020316

>>18020692
It’s been done, my child.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/omnipotent

>>18020734
What is unlimited power?

>>18015497
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNxnGQDT0As
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1IZFZgHWj4

Dawkins is not a serious person.

>>18015909
>most of the time got beaten up pretty badly on the main points the atheists made
What? Post one debate where he has been annihilated? I’ve only seen him embarrass and make atheists look like utter fools

t. not a Christian

sniveling cuck who denies animal suffering for God.

>>18020309
Pretty sure he said his main gripe with Catholicism is divine simplicity. Since I believe in divine simplicity, and it seems to be the most reasonable choice, I think he should be Catholic.

>>18018331
>>18018360
>parapsychology and a dog waiting for his owner
Truly revolutionary breakthroughs in science

>>18020812
>not muh doggerinos

>>18020791
Smooth brains will claim that Sean Carroll bested him, even though wlc trounced hin

>>18020791
Not that guy, but I looked up one he did with Hitchens, and I thought Craig was flailing:

https://youtu.be/0tYm41hb48o

Mainly got that impression from the issue of how do you get from philosophical arguments for the existence of a personal God to believing in Christianity in particular, and even further, believing the other major religions are false. I don't think Craig handled that well, among other things.

>>18020846
I'm always amazed at how people interpret thing differently. That debate really showed Hitchens had nothing but rhetoric.

>>18020846
That’s because WLC is confidently wrong personified. That trumped up confidence convinces a lot of midwits, who are easily impressed by such side issues

>>18020846
Craig has never been debunked on the resurrection of Christ, and never will. This is his argument for the truth of Christianity.

>>18020779
Omni - All
Potency - A source of motion or of change, either in something else, or in something else as something else. (Aristotle)

>>18020846
After having watched that debate a while back I realized there is no substance in new atheism. I agree with
>>18020864
because Craig brought up quality points in a clear and orderly fashion. Likewise with his responses. Hitchens was extremely disordered and, yes, primarily rhetorical.

>>18020881
God, WLC fanboys are almost Jordan Peterson levels of mindless

>>18020779
Any logically non-contradictory act.

>>18020889
Prove me wrong

>>18020907
Then is logic god's god?

>>18020919
Okay, how do we get from physical causes to intentional ones, how do we get from intentional causes to a god, how do you know that god is actively intervening into the universe, how do we know it’s the only god, and finally, how do we know it’s your specific god, of your specific religion, of your specific denomination and of your specific interpretation? We’ll start with that.

>>18020935
No, simply part of his nature.

>>18020937
Literally besides the point, as said >>18020881

>>18020951
So you’re right, but you can’t answer my questions? Very curious

>>18020945
Can a being unable to control, dictate or overcome it's nature be thought of as having unlimited power?

>>18020963
>continues to push thinngs I was never even addressing
You’re scared to acknowledge the resurrection of Jesus Christ

>>18020965
>dictate or overcome it's nature
>Wanting to be less perfect, less good, less powerful, etc etc... lol

>>18020971
Very well, is there anything for that besides hearsay written down decades after the facts? Why is the resurrection accurate, but Muhammed climbing a ladder to God inaccurate? Do you mind explaining based on what you make this assessment?

>>18020965
Yes, since the concept of power itself is subject to logic. The "power" to do something contradictory is just an absurdity.

>>18020971
>Couple of peasant women allegedly said a cave was empty.
Woah, let me get baptized immediately.

>>18020865
>That’s because WLC is confidently wrong personified
I'm 100% convinced you just don't understand what he's saying. LOL.

>>18021022
The man literally said that even if he were proven wrong, his faith in the holy spirit would still convince him he’s right. The man is Kenneth Copeland using five dollar words

>>18020982
It's not about what such a being would want to do, but what it can do that concerns us here.
>>18021011
Then how can you take seriously any religion which claims god as the ultimate authority? How can you honestly consider a being governed by something else omnipotent?

>>18021045
Where did he say that? Also is that in the debate? I am referring to his philosophical statements, which you do not understand. Also Hitchens said something similar, actually, at another time.

>>18021072
God is not governed by anything, you simply have a nonsensical notion of omnipotence.

>>18021072
>It's not about what such a being would want to do, but what it can do that concerns us here.
I guess what I'm saying is, you're asking if God can destroy himself. Then there would be literal nothing. I don't actually know the answer here, but this is why your argument does not bother me.

>>18021085
I'm not the one trying to reconcile the concept of omnipotence with any number of limitations.
>>18021089
>>18021089
>I guess what I'm saying is, you're asking if God can destroy himself. Then there would be literal nothing. I don't actually know the answer here, but this is why your argument does not bother me.
I don't know the answer either. That's why I'm asking these questions. I don't really have an issue with people using faith to justify their beliefs when there is doubt, but when people try to assert these logical proofs, it becomes an issue.

>>18021131
>I'm not the one trying to reconcile the concept of omnipotence with any number of limitations.
That's the default theological use of the term. Sorry it took you so long to find out.

>>18021141
>That's the default theological use of the term. Sorry it took you so long to find out.
And it's clearly an incomplete one that leads to a bunch of nonsensical rationalization.

>>18021148
Omnipotence meaning every possible/meaningful action seems quite complete to me. Excluding incoherence is not a rationalization.

>>18021141
God cannot destroy himself. That's why Buddhas are superior to God.

>>18021075
>I am referring to his philosophical statements, which you do not understand.
Then answer the questions I posed here >>18020937
and here
>>18020993

>>18015043
He's just kinda retarded. Theology just boils down to imaginitive speculation and never goes beyond.

>>18021558
hard to imagine this is a sincere post but i know it is

>>18020881
sure the sheer number of internal contradiction, most likely misattributed text, historical innacuracy , myth that clearly derived from other religion and archeological proof of how the canon changed over time over shadows any ambiguity as to why somebody would lie about a 30 years old event.

>>18021208
You're a scatterbrain just like Hitchens. Here's plenty of answers for you on the metaphysical side. Craig himself has a book on the resurrection which should bridge the gap nicely.

>>18021131
Then read the book by Edward Feser I just posted if you have issues with metaphysical questions. When I said I don't know I did not mean humanity does not know, I meant I simply haven't looked into it because when my choice is order or absurdity I am forced to choose order.

>>18024196
Why don’t you tell them yourself, instead of pointing towards expert X and saying that this answers my questions. Why can’t you answer them? Do you think that the argument from authority will work on me?

>>18024239
For fuck sake man just read a fucking book. Did you forget this is a literature board?

>>18024247
Nice deflection. It’s also a board for discussing literature, and discussion isn’t ‘author X is right, read book Y and you’ll inevitably conclude that he’s right’. Explain why I’m completely and utterly wrong and answer the questions I posed, and embarras me and everything I stand for in front of this board. Hell, you can even make a screenshot of it and spread around on every tradcath larp board you frequent. You won’t, because you don’t have jackshit

>>18015043
Is this what the great modern philosophers do now? Internet debates with teenagers who have no understanding of philosophy? WLC is a fucking joke and while he is capable of making decent points his whole theology is wacked out. Thomism or the Kalam or whatever meme argument he uses needs to be abandoned.

Can you summarize the points? I can't read it.

>>18020786
IM MATT FRADD AND I FILL MY BLOODY POINT UP WITH COIKE OICIN MATE

>>18024276
I'm not even that anon. It just annoys me to no end when someone reccomends a book and someone else says "hurr durr just spoonfeed me."
I've read that Feser book and it does in fact address every question you've asked. And that feser book will answer that question better than I can, especially because it takes a good couple hundred pages tediously laying out all the groundwork. I'm not embarrassed to admit that I cannot recreate that here.
Take the anons reccomendation. It's an easy read and then you could have the background to argue finer points. You would rather argue online than actually read and expand understanding. Thats not the point of the board and i'm not obligated to indulge it

>>18020846
Here's the objective correct analysis of this debate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyYDBjG7EZI

>>18020846
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MWJIG8gpdo

Jay Dyer has a pretty good critique of WLC to me. Even Hitchens makes some good points against him despite the rhetoric.

Test

>>18024239
>Why don’t you tell them yourself, instead of pointing towards expert X and saying that this answers my questions.
1. My working knowledge on the subject matter is insufficient for the task. (Reading, understanding, and being compelled, is not the same as expert level knowledge).
2. Feser is probably about 100,000 times smarter than me and has completed the task in a much better way than I ever could.
3. Answers to questions like that require whole books, not off the cuff posts made by someone who should be working. (Do yourself a favor and focus on good men, not people like me, why the obsession with me? Do you just want to best me or something, and that's it?)
4. The conversation (it was more so just me taking a jab) I was having was about the debate itself, I didn't sign up to answer any and all questions.

>Do you think that the argument from authority will work on me?
I didn't even make an argument from authority, I just said this content should answer your questions. You're on lit, why would you be upset about being offered reading material? Besides, you do not answer to authority, you only answer to yourself, you proud man, of course I would never try something like that on you!

>>18024425
>Jay Dyer
You can literally smell the douchebag out of him
Even if he makes good points his content is unwatchable due to the narcissist overload

>>18024556
>I don't even understand the arguments but daddy Feser is like so smart please buy his book

>>18024682
>I don't want to read I just want to pretend I'm smart and then just get a two sentence summary of complex, technical, and highly important metaphysics.
Go away.

>>18024722
I 've read Scholastic Metaphysics, The Last Superstition and his book on his philosophy of mind. My criticism of you is that you speak authoritatively about Feser being right about everything even thogh you admit you don't understand his arguments. Which means yo treat him as a daddy figure instead of critically engaging with his work.

>>18021157
That's fair enough of you want to say that God is more powerful than man or is just powerful, but anyone claiming that a god is the ultimate authority without be able to do, create, and be sustained by acts that would otherwise be impossible to to being contradictory is just being silly.

>>18014362
Yeah me

>>18024825
>you speak authoritatively about Feser
I said he offers good answers.
>even thogh you admit you don't understand his arguments
No, I didn't.

Go away idiot.

>>18025196
Is he not claiming that whatever god he believes in is the ultimate authority or is he not using the theological definition of omnipotence given above?

>>18014362
I don't know if he refuted that book in particular, but Kevin Solway refuted another of Lane Craig's arguments here: https://archive.is/e45WF

>>18025318
>His argument reminds me of the old traditional argument which states that the Universe cannot have been beginningless because that would mean an infinite succession of past events.
>The problem with this argument is that rests on the false assumption that the Universe is actually made up of events. But "events" are things that the human mind artificially creates. They result from our mind's propensity to draw boundaries around things. Since, in reality, the Universe is a seamless continuum, the whole argument collapses. The argument's appeal to the shortcomings of mathematical infinity no longer has any basis.
uh huh

>>18025318
Here's a screenshot that doesn't cut off part of the text.