Firstly, there are a lot of times in the Bible when God makes himself immanent to people - it may not explicitly specify "face to face", which is why the quote from Exodus may be the best in the whole book, but there are a lot of parts which imply one person talking to or seeing God directly and...
The question is not about validity, but rather the process which governs validity. One person wants to use their mind to work out which position is the most logically viable; another wants to say that all positions are equally viable and leave it at that. One wants to make decisions which are...
Yes, but the fact that they are "intellectuals" makes no difference whatsoever, because "intellect" is not needed! All that is needed to destroy any argument for God (and, as always, I welcome you to prove me wrong), regardless of who is phrasing that argument (be it you, or William Lane Craig)...
There is no argument which atheism "needs" to answer! I can obliterate any theistic argument you set out in front of me in a matter of seconds. People like Hawking do not bother with rubbish like this; it is way too far beneath them to answer such arguments. They only do it when it is through...
LOL, what a horribly poor topic.
1. LOL, you think Hitchens couldn't beat William Lane Craig in an argument? You see, none of these logical debates extend beyond the area of the easy-to-understand or beyond basic logic. And thus, no point ever made by a theist ever gets rammed home; there is...
I don't enjoy shattering the hopes and dreams of others. I'm conducting an experiment into why people are trying to provide arguments for God when the truth is that once these arguments are disproved, they will continue to believe in God. Why not admit that it is all down to faith if that is...
Firstly, quote me if you want a response. If you don't, just leave the thread; "beliefs" without justification are not being requested here.
I wrote a rather lengthy post which completely annihilated the Anthropic Principle Argument in a large number of ways. You "agree" with me on the first...
What Pascal meant with the Wager makes absolutely no difference to its validity as evidence for God. This is odd, because you seem to understand clearly that the Wager doesn't work as evidence for God; and yet you're defending a user who clearly brought it up under the impression that the Wager...
That really is the way that "fact" is taken today. Anything which is extremely likely to be true as to render another opinion on the matter delusional is called a "fact"; mathematical-type proof is not necessary. I would happily say that it is "a fact that there are no fairies in my garden"...
Firstly, I propose to you the Copernican Principle. While this is not a direct counter-argument against the fine-tuned universe argument, it does attack the idea of purpose behind the Anthropic Principle. It states that humans seem to support a privileged place in the universe where, indeed...
Firstly, quote my post in full, just so I know when you are referring to me and when to someone else (i.e. keep my name and the reference in there, just as I have done with you in this post).
Now, let's clarify which version of the Design Argument you're putting forward:
To quote Wikipedia...
Sometimes people say that something is a "fact" when all they really mean is that it is the likeliest reality by far, and God not existing is a far likelier reality than God existing. ;)
BTW, Off-Topic: How does someone get over 400,000 frubals in 617 posts? I thought the only way to get them...
Oh no, I would never suggest on the basis of an online description that you leave your wife/girlfriend! I was merely a bit shocked at her world-view as regards science's place.
Surely, even though no-one really believes in Pastafarianism, it's existence as an idea makes it valid in her eyes...
In seriousness, I would have to say "No".
It might still be easier said than done to disprove it. :p
Wow, I'm not sure I meant anything at all. :p
Thank you. ;)