Atheistic Double Standard?

[1robin]

So God was practicing social Darwinism then. Drowning everybody except eight of the best.

The word God does not appear in what you responded to. I don't know what you trying to say?

 

[ChristineM]

Nope, God is independent of time. His actions are not bound by time (unless he chooses to break into time to take some specific action). God is causally prior to time, but not temporally prior to time. God is not bound by the natural, that is why he is called supernatural.

You are right about physics and the singularity but as neither were part of my argument this is irrelevant.

BTW When I say time I am referring to space-time.

And where does the bible say this? Or perhaps you speak for your god?

 

[1robin]

I truly find those two arguments incredibly unintuitive -- to the point of being just plain wrong.

That must be why they have survived all scrutiny for at least 3000 years.

Do you not believe that some action, by some person, and at sometime was actually wrong?

Okay, the first one perhaps not "wrong" so much, as leading nowhere. Because "if God (Yahweh) exists" and "then objective morality exists," that doesn't help you in the slightest unless you know, objectively and in a demonstrable fashion, what that "objective morality" entails. And as it is, I'm afraid, you only have a number quite non-objective views of what that might be from entirely human sources. And the fact that much of that "objective morality" contains contradictions, you have even more reason to suspect that the human input was an important (and perhaps the only) contributor.

Leading nowhere? I need to crawl under my desk for a few minutes.

It leads directly to racial equality (actual not assumed), the sanctity of life, ultimate purpose, ultimate meaning, ultimate origins, ultimate destinations, human rights (actual not assumed), inherent value, moral truths (actual not assumed), the proper hierarchy of sovereignty, etc.........ad infinitum. Nothing leads to more of the most profound concepts in human history than God's existence.

But the second is simply specious, especially your comment about "it usually comes in the form of might makes right." This simply ignores the fact of human society here on the ground, where we live. In fact, surprisingly few humans have given themselves over to making themselves "the right" by resorting to might. Most humans, throughout history and right now, today, are primarily engaged in surviving and thriving as best they can through mutual cooperation. We've been raising each others barns forever. We come together to save a life in peril, and as the saying goes, "it takes a village to raise a child," and that's what we've being doing throughout our history.

Are the laws of the United States not enforced by death, injury, loss of freedom, or loss of property? You know, down here where we live. Did those purged by Stalin volunteer, did those killed in the Ukraine starve on purpose, did millions of Pol Pot's victims commit suicide by running into bullets, and did Mao send hundreds of thousands of troops or hundreds of thousands of suggestions pouring over N Korea's borders. Police carry guns and Billy clubs, not pamphlets.

You try too hard to simplify what cannot be simplified. We are a social species, and much of our behaviour reflects that. We are also an intelligent species, with a well-defined sense of individual self, and that interferes with our social nature in a way that it cannot in ants, bees and termites -- but can in wolves and apes, if you observe.

Our behavior justifies any behavior because it consists of all behaviors. Our behavior has nothing what so ever to do with determining the ontology of moral values and duties.

And then you ignore the limits to how large our "social group" can get, how our societies evolve cultures and belief systems that differ from one another, and how the interaction of those larger groupings can lead to the conflicts -- small scale and huge scale -- that are so quintessentially human.

Of course I ignored it, it has absolutely nothing to do with either "if - then" argument I made.

And when seen from the perspective I just gave you, there simply is zero room for God at all -- Yahweh or any other.

What on earth are you talking about?

 

[Willamena]

You previously say "the claim of atheism is that there is no god".

Do you think "there is no god" must necessarily be the claim of atheism?

Yes.

Do you think all atheists claim there is no god?

No.

Please explain your full definitions for "atheism" and "atheist".

Atheism is no belief in God or gods. Belief is the attitude that says, "This is true." Its antithesis is the belief that says, "This is not or cannot be true."

An atheist is the person in whom, implicitly or explicitly, atheism is seen.

 

[ArtieE]

The word God does not appear in what you responded to. I don't know what you trying to say?

You said and I quote:

"1. Hitler thought the Arian/Tibetan race that eventually wound up in Germany was the superior race.
2. To make the human race stronger he basically attempted to promote the strong and weed out the week.
3. That would naturally lead to Arian breeding farms.
4. Mass exterminations of races thought to be weaker.
5. Euthanizing the old.
6. Sterilizing criminals and the insane.
7. Medically experimenting on the few in hopes of helping the many.
8. ETC.......

It is very easy to see that the above is consistent with social Darwinism on steroids."

Then a lot of the Old Testament is a demonstration of social Darwinism on steroids.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't thing there is another option unless you consider other types of theologies. There are few things in theological debates as obviously true and simplistic as moral ontology. When someone assumes the counter position of every premise and every conclusion regardless of type it starts to look like a tactic instead of sincere conclusions.

I told you a couple of times why and how I think these are wrong. First, I don't think that the existence of non-existence of God determines whether morality is objective. Second, I don't agree that in the absence of God all morality boils down to 'might makes right'.

What are you using asterisks to indicate?

Emphasis.

In this context your distinction makes little difference and you. What ethics came about? Since some societies pray for their neighbors and some prey of their neighbors and there exists no transcendent moral truth to appeal to. Who is right?

Morality comes about because some systems for society promote human well-being better than others. So the societies that prey *on* their neighbors tend to do worse in the long run than those that help out their neighbors. Cooperation is a survival tool.

Since humans subdue every other form of life on the planet then we are left right where we began, might makes right or preference. Every moral argument that excludes God will right back in this same place every single time. Hitler's Germany had their own ethics, Stalin's USSR had it's own ethics, Mao's China their own. By your standards they are just as "right" as anyone else and should have been left alone to do as they prefer.

No, that is not my position. I would appreciate it if you wouldn't put words in my mouth. Once again, what I promote is a variety of humanism: that human well-being is what determines morality. So the autocratic societies that you mention are NOT moral because they do not promote human well-being. But, neither are theocracies, and for the same reason. Furthermore, I find that the autocratic societies and the theocracies are very similar in that they all promote *one* viewpoint over all others rather than allow a diversity of opinions and goals.

So the mere fact that we can consider moral issues makes our incarceration of cows and pumping them full of hormones ok? What about flooding the lungs of race horses with glucose and baking soda? Or our raising dogs purely to fight? That's all fine because we can thing about ethics?

Pumping cows full of hormones isn't going to promote human health very well. In fact, the record is that it hurts. Similarly, the type of insensitivity of the sports you mention is exactly the type of insensitivity that leads people to hurt other people. Again, not a good thing for human well-being.

No it does not. God's essence (nature) determines moral values and duties. God is composed of all "great making properties".

Uh huh. Tell me another story. Why would I expect there to be a single being that embodies all 'great properties', even assuming it can be agreed what that even means.

God's nature is just - this makes injustice actually wrong, not just inconsistent with God's opinion.

So, justice is actually something that is objective even if God didn't exist. It's just that God *happens* to agree with that morality because of his 'nature'.

God has been equated with love its self - which makes hate (and probably indifference) actually wrong, not merely inconsistent with God's opinion.

Love is a human emotion. It happens inside of people, not outside of them.

God did not decide that Murder was wrong one day and decide to let Moses know. Murder had been wrong since before creation existed. The ten commandments were given to confirm that what the moral consciences of most human beings apprehended was in fact true, and to ground those truths in an eternal objective foundation. Euthyphro's dilemma is irrelevant.

Sorry, but that is too glib of an answer. The Euthyphro dilemma is still very relevant. To say that a property is great means something independent of the existence of God otherwise the definition of God as embodying all such great properties is circular. SO, if one of the 'great properties' is morality, it make sense to ask whether something is moral independent of the existence of a God.

Now, I reject God as a standard for morality. Instead, I emphasize the effect on real, live humans.

1. Hitler thought the Arian/Tibetan race that eventually wound up in Germany was the superior race.
2. To make the human race stronger he basically attempted to promote the strong and weed out the week.
3. That would naturally lead to Arian breeding farms.
4. Mass exterminations of races thought to be weaker.
5. Euthanizing the old.
6. Sterilizing criminals and the insane.
7. Medically experimenting on the few in hopes of helping the many.
8. ETC.......

It is very easy to see that the above is consistent with social Darwinism on steroids. I am glad the sleeping Christian giant of industrial excellence finally woke up and stopped Hitler.

Sorry, but Hitler was promoting an old Christian viewpoint that goes back to Luther. He succeeded, in part, because the German people had a bias against the Jews because of *religious* bigotry, which he promoted further.

However on your world view, morality is preference based, and lacks any objective standard to determine which preference is actually true, and so we should have left the Germans alone. You can show that the human race would have been stronger on the whole if Hitler's Germany was successful.

Garbage. First of all, lessening the gene pool is usually a very bad thing for the survival of a population. Second, his policies hardly promoted the well-being of those who lived under his regime.

So God is either composed entirely of an opinion or he cannot exist. Glad we got that straightened out. You said above God's opinion determines reality and here you say the opposite. Which is it?

I am an atheist. I am attempting to figure out what *you* believe in this regard. I don't believe any deities exist.

But I am glad that you agree that God is entirely an opinion. I would agree. Then we have to ask if that opinion is correct. I propose that it is not.

 

[Polymath257]

No, your trying to govern the supernatural by the one thing that can't govern it "the natural". God's decisions and actions are not governed by what governs what they are independent of.

Either the supernatural has patterns and properties (natural laws) or it has none and is chaos.

God and Necessity

Again, a confusion about the relationship between time and causality. Causality is *part* of the natural world. It requires time. So even talking about the cause of time and the natural world is contradictory.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

That must be why they have survived all scrutiny for at least 3000 years.

They haven't. Philosophers have rejected both for nearly as long. They have survived only the scrutiny of those who also believe in an all-loving god meeting out perpetual torture for purely finite "crimes," some of which includes simply not believing what you've never heard of! That's twaddle of the first order.

Do you not believe that some action, by some person, and at sometime was actually wrong?

I think lots of actions by lots of people -- very much including myself -- have been actually wrong. I try to atone when I can, to forgive myself, but never send myself to hell. I try to do the same for others -- wish your Yahwah would do likewise, but that doesn't appear to be in his nature.

Leading nowhere? I need to crawl under my desk for a few minutes.

It leads directly to racial equality (actual not assumed), the sanctity of life, ultimate purpose, ultimate meaning, ultimate origins, ultimate destinations, human rights (actual not assumed), inherent value, moral truths (actual not assumed), the proper hierarchy of sovereignty, etc.........ad infinitum. Nothing leads to more of the most profound concepts in human history than God's existence.

Perhaps you should crawl under your desk -- and while sitting there in the dark, quiet your mind of religious fervour and ask yourself a couple of questions: where is the "racial equality" in the Bible? How about the "sanctity of life?" Don't you really mean "the sanctity of the the lives of the obedient, self-abasing slavish types." Everybody else is, according to your very own Yahweh, required to be killed -- usually painfully and slowly just to "set a good example," as it were.

What "ultimate purpose, meaning" and such-like crap-trap. According to everything the Bible speaks of, you and everybody else is being groomed to be a pet -- and the ones that don't take to the grooming get to be hell-fodder. Hey, great expectations or what, eh? You're going to go on (in the next section) about nasty dictators, but I'm going to focus on your "inherent value, moral truths and proper hierarchy of sovereignty from your religious viewpoint -- and ask about humanity's never-ending killing of others over nothing more than matters of faith and belief. God's "existence," and what people can make of it -- because God doesn't make it very clear -- is the direct, proximate cause of most of that. If God is so utterly incapable of making himself and what he wants known to mere humans -- and this is PROVED by the simple fact of so very many competing beliefs despite his presumed "existence."

Yeah, yeah, and Christians will natter on about "free will" until hell freezes over, but free will in the case of God is an utterly useless thing to have if you don't know the facts. And as I've said, the simple fact of so many competing beliefs and the presumption of an omnipotent deity, are all the proof required for that statement.

Are the laws of the United States not enforced by death, injury, loss of freedom, or loss of property? You know, down here where we live. Did those purged by Stalin volunteer, did those killed in the Ukraine starve on purpose, did millions of Pol Pot's victims commit suicide by running into bullets, and did Mao send hundreds of thousands of troops or hundreds of thousands of suggestions pouring over N Korea's borders. Police carry guns and Billy clubs, not pamphlets.

Yes, the United States enjoys its killings, apparently -- perhaps not as much as Saudi Arabia or China, but still. You talk aout Stalin and Pol Pot? Why? Did the Canaanites volunteer to be slaughtered -- man, woman, child and beast except the virgin girls (for cooking and cleaning of course, which only virgin females can do well)? Did the apparent killing of Ananais and Sapphira (for giving lots of money to the Apostle's but apparently keeping a little back for their own well-being) seem like perfect and beautiful justice to you? Just think, next time you're dithering over the collection plate -- maybe you should toss everything in -- jewelry, debit card and PIN, and deed to the house -- just to be sure you're on the right side of God! That's the message I see.

 

[Polymath257]

God is causally prior to time, but not temporally prior to time.

And *that* is incoherent. There is no 'causality prior to time'. Causality requires time.

God is not bound by the natural, that is why he is called supernatural.

So? If there are patterns of behavior in the supernatural, then it is possible to study it using the scientific method. If such patterns are discovered, they are *by definition* natural.

Furthermore, if something interacts with the natural, it is *by definition* again natural. So the only way to get a supernatural is to have something that doesn't interact with the natural and has no patterns of behavior.

 

[Polymath257]

I do not think so. Leibnitz's argument states that everything that exists has an explanation of it's self either within it's self or external to it's self. God is his own explanation, but what that explanation is does it go any further than that existence is a component of God's nature. I think these are what are called brute fact or properly basic beliefs.

And why could you not just claim the same about the universe? Ex: It is simply a brute fact that the universe exists. It is its nature to exist.

Why multiply assumptions by claiming the existence of a God?

 

[gnomon]

You are so angry all the time it impedes your ability to listen.

Any atheist that makes the assertion they never make an unsubstantiated claim is flat out a lair. That assertion could be anything, like the Moon is made of cheese. That is the double standard.

I'm not angry. Bemused.

And the notion that "any atheist that makes the assertion they never make an unsubstantiated claim is a flat out liar"........which pocket did you pull that out of?

That is your creation.

Why do you keep creating false claims to support your useless OP?

Have you read the thread beyond this useless diatribe?

edit: But don't forget. I love you.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Any atheist that makes the assertion they never make an unsubstantiated claim is flat out a lair. That assertion could be anything, like the Moon is made of cheese. That is the double standard.

Not only have I never seen anybody state that they don't make unsubstantiated claims, I never seen anybody insist that others substantiate every claim that they make. What atheist here has even asked you one to substantiate any claim that you have made including the ones in the post I am responding to?

You have descrbed a rare if not nonexistent person, called him an atheist and then a hypocrite. Your claim is dead in the water. You can't support it, and don't even try.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Not only have I never seen anybody state that they don't make unsubstantiated claims, I never seen anybody insist that others substantiate every claim that they make. What atheist here has even asked you one to substantiate any claim that you have made including the ones in the post I am responding to?

You have descrbed a rare if not nonexistent person, called him an atheist and then a hypocrite. Your claim is dead in the water. You can't support it, and don't even try.

"

"Not only have I never seen anybody state that they don't make unsubstantiated claims, I never seen anybody insist that others substantiate every claim that they make. "

I am not talking about "every claim that they make."

"What atheist here has even asked you one to substantiate any claim that you have made including the ones in the post I am responding to?"

I think you need to rewrite that.

---

I will bet my house that you hold several beliefs that you have no evidence for, unproven beliefs that are also irrational. If you do, it is hypocrisy to then criticize a belief in God for being an irrational belief with no evidence.

We are all hypocrites, the difference with me, is that I acknowledge it.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I'm not angry. Bemused.

And the notion that "any atheist that makes the assertion they never make an unsubstantiated claim is a flat out liar"........which pocket did you pull that out of?

That is your creation.

Why do you keep creating false claims to support your useless OP?

Have you read the thread beyond this useless diatribe?

edit: But don't forget. I love you.

"which pocket did you pull that out of?"

Are you really suggesting you never made an unsubstantiated claim?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I will bet my house that you hold several beliefs that you have no evidence for, unproven beliefs that are also irrational.

I am not aware of any belief that I hold that is not justified, although I probably hold some of which I am unaware. If I realize that tomorrow, I will examine that belief, and adjust it accordingly if necessary. Very few beliefs are proven. They only need to be supported, and the degree of belief should be no greater than the quantity and quality of the available evidence support.

If you do, it is hypocrisy to then criticize a belief in God for being an irrational belief with no evidence.

Disagree.

A belief in God is faith based, meaning that it is an unjustified belief. If I accept your view, I must never request evidence for any belief lest I hold some unexamined belief myself about which I am unaware.

 

[1robin]

OK, so make an argument for tensed time. Relativity does a good job of showing the necessity of dealing with tense-less time

Boy this is annoying. I got almost done with my response to this monstrous post and the popups locked up my computer and I lost it all. Sorry but I am going to have to give you briefer responses.

There is an A (tensed) and B (tens less) theory of time. You rejected theory B, why do you want me to prove that the theory we both believe in exists?

True, although I took the graduate classes in it and passed the PhD quals in it.


On the contrary, it has a history now of over 100 years and was built up originally because of the failures of classical physics. Again, it is now the basis for a very large amount of very practical technology.


Well, since it is a subject that is relevant to your arguments, it might behoove you to learn something about it. You seem to have at least some math education, so a basic undergraduate course shoudl not be beyond you.


Which means we should not discount that possibility a priori. Which is a big part of my counter-rgument: that you have discarded alternative possibilities without consideration.



We can address one argument at a time.

I didn't give arguments, I gave about 6 reasons why claims about the quantum are not persuasive IMO.

Well, because Newtonian mechanics assumes a deterministic description of the universe dominated by causality at every level. Because Newtonian physics views the universe as 'clockwork' and is thereby more consistent with deist theology? And because arguments based on causality have been undermined by the non-causal nature of quantum mechanics? And because the pre-Cantorian views on infinity were often vague and contradictory?

ALL those are good reasons why. You also seem to think that any arguments should be based on old ideas that have been shown to be incorrect in detail and not on the more accurate and precise replacements.

This still does not explain why does 100% of the evidence for God not existing resides entirely within the least understood 1% of science?

OK, so?

You make arguments that are only founded upon tens less time, yet you reject tens less time.

And, once again, I am not doing so. I am showing the weaknesses of your argument. There are many situations where there is a partial order with multiple 'smallest values'.

Your not doing what?

Actually, I am not. I am pointing out that there are more possibilities than your argument has addressed. I don't know which possibility is correct, but neither do you. For your argument to go through, you have to show the other possibilities do not hold.

Give my the theory that contradicts with God's existence, its probability, and how it was calculated?

It comes up in calculus as well. Usually in the form of what can't be reached.

I think this is my statement. Why is it here?

No, you make a positive existence claim: that God exists. The burden of proof is on you.

And here we have it, the answer to the OP. Your placing the burden of science upon claims of faith, and your placing the burden of faith upon science.

The burden of claims to faith only require the absence of a known defeater. I usually raise that bar to the inference to the best explanation but I don't have to. Scientific claims carry a far heavier burden. Your swapping the two.

That it did. And for macroscopic things it is accurate enough for the vast majority of purposes. But the differences between classical physics and reality have been measured even at the level of time between different floors of a building. The differences are small, but they are there. To use the old system when the new system leads to different conclusions is foolish.

We are not talking about small things. Your trying to introduce actual infinites.

No, but you claimed you can ignore quantum mechanics because it is purely theoretical. That is false. It has very important things to say about a great number of things related to technology and has never been shown to be wrong. This is in contrast to Newtonian physics which is wrong at the atomic level (for example).

I can ignore what I wish, in fact 99.9% of the human population pretty much ignores the quantum and suffers no loss.

Newton's ideas work very well in their purview. But they are approximations and not accurate in detail. To use them when the more modern, accurate ideas lead to a different conclusion is a basic mistake.

Again we are not talking about tweaking something slightly. Your assuming infinites, causeless effects, and universal negatives.

Occam has a lot of value. We don't multiply assumptions unnecessarily. That is a very good policy. But that often means that we have to allow for possibilities where our arguments can fail.

All Christians scrutinize their faith constantly, but for most, we do not find better explanations.

Vilenkin has a lot of good work, showing singularity theorems in several important cases. The question is whether his assumptions apply in the versions of quantum gravity currently being discussed. They don't.

Then show me where he, or the other authors of that paper retracted their findings.

Aquinas ans Aristotle bsed their ideas on a physics that is *totally* wrong and on a view of the universe and motion that is completely inaccurate. Why *anyone* would use their ideas today is beyond me They aren't even decent approximations (unlike Newtonian ideas).

I do not know about Aristotle, but Aquinas was discussing philosophy and you have never seen an actual exception to his 5 ways in the real world.

I have read a bit of Craig (none of Lennox) and have found him to spout the usual arguments poorly.

Craig is a legendary philosopher, I am currently reading one of his books. I have never seen a book that cited more sources in my life. His opponents have said that he is the only philosopher that can put the fear of God into an atheist. However you may find Lennox (pure mathematics professor) more relatable. Dismissing scholars of this caliber without even attempting to show why does more damage to your credibility than theirs. I posted actual reasons to doubt Hawking for example.

Pure math doesn't use labs. Applied math often produced ideas that others (like physicists) check for in labs.

I can't remember why the use of a lab was relevant. I guess being able to actually test what you claim is true in a lab would make it more credible that it simply being an idea.

Again, I do not care whether you use the word 'inconsistent' or 'incoherent'. They are both wrong here.

Since it seems a mere declaration is all that is required, I disagree.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

a lot of the Old Testament is a demonstration of social Darwinism on steroids.

Agreed. Jehovah pioneered the method with His great flood. His plan was to improve the human race by culling the undesirables from it.

Of course, He was doomed to failure from the start - his second in two tries with man. He picked a family that he considered righteous to save to repopulate the earth, and apparently thought that that would transmitted genetically.

Sadly though predictably even without omniscience, here we are again - a planet of sinners.

 

[shunyadragon]

Speaking in general and in your opinion, do non-believers hold a double standard when it comes to religion?

Such as for example: Demanding religious claims be backed by hard evidence, but then not holding the same standards for their own claims.

Probably not the case with most atheists. They simply believe what they believe, because there is no objective verifiable evidence that anything exists beyond our physical existence. The inconsistent views of God or Gods, and miracles by the many different belief systems further makes them question the existence of Gods.

 

[Polymath257]

Boy this is annoying. I got almost done with my response to this monstrous post and the popups locked up my computer and I lost it all. Sorry but I am going to have to give you briefer responses.

There is an A (tensed) and B (tens less) theory of time. You rejected theory B, why do you want me to prove that the theory we both believe in exists?

I believe I stated that my position is closest to that of B. But I have problems because both are rather naive.

I didn't give arguments, I gave about 6 reasons why claims about the quantum are not persuasive IMO.

Mostly because of arguments from ignorance. Sorry, but if you don't want to learn how the universe actually works, your arguments will fail.

This still does not explain why does 100% of the evidence for God not existing resides entirely within the least understood 1% of science?

Have I ever given an argument that God does not exist?

What I have done is show that the standard 'proofs' for the existence of God fail. And the failure of cause and effect is *one* thing that has been discovered in the last 100 years (and is very well understood) that is relevant for one of the failed arguments for that existence.

Since I haven't seen a good definition of the term 'God', I am not going to make a specific argument against the existence of such. But I can still point out the flaws in the usual arguments.

I might point out that evolutionary biology is seen by some as an argument against their viewpoint of God. So your 100% is hardly correct here.

You make arguments that are only founded upon tens less time, yet you reject tens less time.

Of the two options given, it is closest to my viewpoint. Certainly, tensed time is wrong.

And here we have it, the answer to the OP. Your placing the burden of science upon claims of faith, and your placing the burden of faith upon science.

Nope. I am placing the burden of proof on the positive existence claim.

The burden of claims to faith only require the absence of a known defeater. I usually raise that bar to the inference to the best explanation but I don't have to. Scientific claims carry a far heavier burden. Your swapping the two.

If that is the low bar of faith, then no wonder faith has so little claim to finding truth.

We are not talking about small things. Your trying to introduce actual infinites.

Once again, I am pointing out that they are a consideration that needs to be addressed. I am not claiming we know either way.

I can ignore what I wish, in fact 99.9% of the human population pretty much ignores the quantum and suffers no loss.

And most people would be perfectly happy with Aristotelian physics. But it was still wrong.

Again we are not talking about tweaking something slightly. Your assuming infinites, causeless effects, and universal negatives.

And you are claiming the existence of a supernatural.

Craig is a legendary philosopher, I am currently reading one of his books. I have never seen a book that cited more sources in my life. His opponents have said that he is the only philosopher that can put the fear of God into an atheist. However you may find Lennox (pure mathematics professor) more relatable. Dismissing scholars of this caliber without even attempting to show why does more damage to your credibility than theirs. I posted actual reasons to doubt Hawking for example.

I have read Craig. In particular, he spouts most of the usual arguments for the existence of God without addressing their known failures. In particular, he is the origin of the faulty argument you gave involving the subtraction of infinities. That in no way shows a contradiction to actual infinities. It merely shows that subtracting infinities isn't well defined. But that is the case for the mathematical constructs anyway. Nothing changes for actual infinities in this.

Since it seems a mere declaration is all that is required, I disagree.

I showed where the argument you gave went wrong. Subtracting infinities isn't a well defined operation. I grant that. Now, how does that show that an actual infinity cannot exist?

Second, you claim that there cannot be an infinite amount of time between a start and now. I agree.

But that isn't the effect of time being infinite into the past. For an infinite time, the interval between any two times is still finite. No point was infinitely far in the past. So your argument fails.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

That's twaddle of the first order.

What "ultimate purpose, meaning" and such-like crap-trap.

LOL.

I'm adding "twaddle" and "clap-trap" to my growing list of their synonyms: balderdash, poppycock, blatherskite, flapdoodle, codswallop, jabberwocky, foofaraw, gobbledygook, piffle, godwottery, bafflegab, flumadiddle, clishmaclaver, bushwa and tommyrot.