William Lane Craig's "Five Reasons" for Belief in God

Discussions on a ranges of philosophical issues including the nature of truth and reality, personal identity, mind-body theories, epistemology, justification of beliefs, argumentation and logic, philosophy of religion, free will and determinism, etc.
User avatar
Furstentum Liechtenstein
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3295
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 6:55 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: It's Complicated
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Lower Canuckistan
Has liked: 110 times
Been liked: 34 times

Re: William Lane Craig's "Five Reasons" for Belief in God

#16

Post by Furstentum Liechtenstein » Mon Jan 20, 2014 3:37 am

Silvertusk wrote:
Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:I agree with Ivellious. The ''Five Reasons'' to believe in God are not very convincing. They'll work if you're preaching to the converted but laughable to anyone else. Sorry.

FL

Really - they are one of the main reasons I came to Christ. I find them utterly convincing, and I am not stupid by any stretch. If it wasn't for people like WLC and Rich Deem I would be headed for eternal damnation. So frankly I find your comment somewhat bewildering and arrogant.

Silvertusk.
Bewildering and arrogant?! :pound: Such melodrama! Has only neo-x understood?
neo-x wrote:It is strange to think that a given set of arguments will convince everyone. That is certainly an unreasonable expectation given that not everyone's objection to faith is the same in nature.
FL :amen:
Hold everything lightly. If you don't, it will hurt when God pries your fingers loose as He takes it from you. -Corrie Ten Boom

+ + +

If they had a social gospel in the days of the prodigal son, somebody would have given him a bed and a sandwich and he never would have gone home.

+ + +

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 21487
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kitchen
Has liked: 200 times
Been liked: 1099 times

Re: William Lane Craig's "Five Reasons" for Belief in God

#17

Post by RickD » Mon Jan 20, 2014 5:46 am

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:
Silvertusk wrote:
Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:I agree with Ivellious. The ''Five Reasons'' to believe in God are not very convincing. They'll work if you're preaching to the converted but laughable to anyone else. Sorry.

FL

Really - they are one of the main reasons I came to Christ. I find them utterly convincing, and I am not stupid by any stretch. If it wasn't for people like WLC and Rich Deem I would be headed for eternal damnation. So frankly I find your comment somewhat bewildering and arrogant.

Silvertusk.
Bewildering and arrogant?! :pound: Such melodrama! Has only neo-x understood?
neo-x wrote:It is strange to think that a given set of arguments will convince everyone. That is certainly an unreasonable expectation given that not everyone's objection to faith is the same in nature.
FL :amen:
FL,

I think what Neo said is not what you said. Neo basically said those arguments won't work on everyone. You said they won't work on anyone.
John 5:24
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

Kenny wrote:
"You don’t need faith, logic, reason, proof, or anything else to be atheist, all you need to do is reject what someone told you."



St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

User avatar
Furstentum Liechtenstein
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3295
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 6:55 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: It's Complicated
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Lower Canuckistan
Has liked: 110 times
Been liked: 34 times

Re: William Lane Craig's "Five Reasons" for Belief in God

#18

Post by Furstentum Liechtenstein » Mon Jan 20, 2014 2:09 pm

RickD wrote:I think what Neo said is not what you said. Neo basically said those arguments won't work on everyone. You said they won't work on anyone.
You are right! This is what I said:
Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:I agree with Ivellious. The ''Five Reasons'' to believe in God are not very convincing. They'll work if you're preaching to the converted but laughable to anyone else. Sorry. FL
Neo's answer is better than mine. I should have said, ''laughable to many other people''. I should add that the ''Five Reasons'' wouldn't have worked on me when I was an atheist, and I can't see them working on any of the unbelievers I now know.

Everybody is unique. A one-size-fits-all approach won't do, but the Five Reasons are a nice exercise.

FL :wave:
Hold everything lightly. If you don't, it will hurt when God pries your fingers loose as He takes it from you. -Corrie Ten Boom

+ + +

If they had a social gospel in the days of the prodigal son, somebody would have given him a bed and a sandwich and he never would have gone home.

+ + +

User avatar
Kurieuo
Honored Member
Posts: 10003
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia
Has liked: 644 times
Been liked: 662 times

Re: William Lane Craig's "Five Reasons" for Belief in God

#19

Post by Kurieuo » Mon Jan 20, 2014 4:25 pm

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:Everybody is unique. A one-size-fits-all approach won't do, but the Five Reasons are a nice exercise.

FL :wave:
"Unique" is a nice way of calling someone strange.

To those who are strange, I prefer to whack them on the head until they see sense, and then use the five reasons.

Speaking of unique...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZA2KMWBFC0[/youtube]
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

domokunrox
Valued Member
Posts: 456
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 12:52 am
Christian: Yes
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: William Lane Craig's "Five Reasons" for Belief in God

#20

Post by domokunrox » Mon Jan 27, 2014 7:48 am

Ivellious wrote:As a non-Christian, I figured I would give my personal responses to these arguments, as well as explaining why many atheists, agnostics, and non-Christians might reject them.


Sure, I'll respond to them.


To me, this is both a good and bad place to start. On one hand, I find it hard to reject the logic that a beginning of the universe had to have a first cause. And most people (myself included) are not well-versed enough in physics of philosophy to seriously start making heavy arguments over this for either side. That said, I reject the notion that this proves that the cause in question absolutely has to be the God that Craig describes. So his argument might poke a hole in atheism, but not any other type of belief that includes any kind of god-like being.


This is argument from ignorance. Nice try, but intellectually invalid.

The universe is nicely fine-tuned for us, yes (and the other living things on Earth and those potentially living elsewhere). But I reject the notion that it is impossible for a universe slightly different than ours to not support life of some sort, even if it wouldn't support us. Just like I think it is silly to think that life on distant worlds will look and live exactly like we do, and live on planets identical to Earth. I concede that our universe is good for our brand of life, per say, but a differently tuned universe could be just as good for a different type of life to flourish, even if it is infinitely different than life as we know it.

Craig is wrong, in my opinion, to claim that life cannot possibly exist in any other universe than one with our laws of physics. Such theoretical life just couldn't be us.


You reject the notion that it is impossible for a universe that is slightly different from ours being able to support life, but you are severely wrong. What Craig is arguing in fine tuning is well established in physics. An ever so slightly small change in calculations to our universe makes it impossible for ANY kind of organism to exist.

It is the precision of mathematical equations that life can exist at all. Not what kind of life it is.

Craig actually gives my answer in his explanation. I could very easily argue that human morality is just a function of evolutionary processes and that social norms are simply learned from those who raise us. It is undeniable that social behaviors and norms are evolved traits in every other species out there, so why can't our basic human morals be similarly evolved and learned?


Simple, because moral values as argued by Craig are objective AND for humans. His position is that animals are amoral agents. If it is your claim that we are animals like wildlife out there, then you need to prove such a position. Good luck with that.
I'll be honest, I physically laughed out loud at this one. To claim that it is established historical fact and consensus that Jesus performed miracles, exorcisms, rose from the dead, and was God is absurd on so many levels. Maybe to Christian scholars such things are considered factual, but such events are not confirmed by any historical evidence beyond the Bible. No non-Christian who actually looks into this claim is going to go very far without finding it to be incorrect.


You may laugh out loud, but you're not very well educated in 1st century history. You actually are commiting the fallacy of begging the question, too. If you reject the resurrection story, then you need to have an explanation on the missing body. Providing no explanation would put you in the position of arguing from ignorance.

Also, there is in fact plenty of historical evidence outside the bible. Joke is on you here. The Talmud historical writings said that Jesus was doing "magic" or "sorcery", and Roman Historian Tacitus directly referenced the execution and controversy in the Annuls, I believe it was in 13.22

This just isn't a very helpful argument. It might be true, but a non-Christian who has never "experienced" God will find this to be a pretty lame proof of God. Combine that with the fact that, for centuries (or longer), people of literally every religion to ever exist have claimed to personally know and experience their religion...and this argument really only rings true to those already considered Christians.
Craig has said on many occasions that this one isn't really an argument. Really nothing to see here.

User avatar
jlay
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3616
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 2:47 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 9 times

Re: William Lane Craig's "Five Reasons" for Belief in God

#21

Post by jlay » Mon Jan 27, 2014 10:34 am

Ivellious wrote:As a non-Christian, I figured I would give my personal responses to these arguments, as well as explaining why many atheists, agnostics, and non-Christians might reject them.
1. God provides the best explanation of the origin of the universe.
To me, this is both a good and bad place to start. On one hand, I find it hard to reject the logic that a beginning of the universe had to have a first cause. And most people (myself included) are not well-versed enough in physics of philosophy to seriously start making heavy arguments over this for either side. That said, I reject the notion that this proves that the cause in question absolutely has to be the God that Craig describes. So his argument might poke a hole in atheism, but not any other type of belief that includes any kind of god-like being.
I don't think he'd disagree with anything other than "any kind of god-like being." What does this mean? Remember, this is an argument for belief in GOD. God, being a creator who by definition would have to possess certain qualities to be the author of the universe. What world religions provide a creator that fits? That immediately discounts all religions other than middle-eastern mono-theistic traditions. Judiasm, Christianity and even Islam all share the books that speak to this.

The universe is nicely fine-tuned for us, yes (and the other living things on Earth and those potentially living elsewhere). But I reject the notion that it is impossible for a universe slightly different than ours to not support life of some sort, even if it wouldn't support us. Just like I think it is silly to think that life on distant worlds will look and live exactly like we do, and live on planets identical to Earth. I concede that our universe is good for our brand of life, per say, but a differently tuned universe could be just as good for a different type of life to flourish, even if it is infinitely different than life as we know it.

We are not talking petri dish stuff here. The reality is that slight changes to several physical constants make life impossible. Stars turn to either red dwarfs blue giants. Detailed paper here. http://quake.stanford.edu/~bai/finetuning.pdf
Admitting that you are ignorant of the data and then stating you 'reject the notion' is extremely problematic. As Dom stated, you are arguing from ignorance. I'm showing you why that is the case.
Craig is wrong, in my opinion, to claim that life cannot possibly exist in any other universe than one with our laws of physics. Such theoretical life just couldn't be us.
Craig is familiar with the details of the argument, and you admit that you are not. So, from what ground do you claim that Craig is wrong? Ignorance? You state, 'your opinion,' which you already prefaced as being unfamiliar with those details.
Craig actually gives my answer in his explanation. I could very easily argue that human morality is just a function of evolutionary processes and that social norms are simply learned from those who raise us. It is undeniable that social behaviors and norms are evolved traits in every other species out there, so why can't our basic human morals be similarly evolved and learned?
Human morality is an ontological question. You seem to be actually dealing with ethics. Human morality is a metphysical issue. So, if you care to demonstrate how evolution accounts for this, I'm sure it would be groundbreaking. You say social NORMS are learned. But you are smuggling in an OM inference here without accounting for it. Norm accoring to.......? Where do the norms exist. How did they get there? Accoring to Maslow, who would agree with you, the basic instincts are all self-serving. So what about Self sacrifice and other aspects that are counter to survival that are considered virtuous?

If morals are simply evolved, then the implications are frightening. The problem with arguing norms is twofold. If you are appealing to nature, then you are presented with the fact that survival is a norm. So, only the strong survive can also be the norm. If you are appealing to statistics, then morals are relative and what is evil and good is simply a majority rule prefernece. If more people prefer puppy torture then it becomes the norm. I would recommend examining the cultural practices of Sparta. If you are right, then they were right. If you are right, then chatell slavery was right. If you are right, then the caste system is right. It's just passed down.
4. God provides the best explanation of the historical facts concerning Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.
I'll be honest, I physically laughed out loud at this one. To claim that it is established historical fact and consensus that Jesus performed miracles, exorcisms, rose from the dead, and was God is absurd on so many levels. Maybe to Christian scholars such things are considered factual, but such events are not confirmed by any historical evidence beyond the Bible. No non-Christian who actually looks into this claim is going to go very far without finding it to be incorrect.
I think you misunderstood. It is a historical fact that Jesus existed. The NT Gospels are reliable in their history, and the authors were writing about real events, people and places. (Compare to traditional mythology, and paganism.) Therefore, they wrote that the miracles and the resurrection where actual events and facts in history. You can certainly disagree with those claims, but you can't reject that this is what the authors were claiming. So, yes, God does best explain those things. Especially in light of examining the other explanations. (Fable, lie, mass hallucination, etc.)
5. God can be personally known and experienced.

This just isn't a very helpful argument. It might be true, but a non-Christian who has never "experienced" God will find this to be a pretty lame proof of God. Combine that with the fact that, for centuries (or longer), people of literally every religion to ever exist have claimed to personally know and experience their religion...and this argument really only rings true to those already considered Christians.
On this we agree. Although I can testify to knowing and experiencing God, this is not empirical for you. Unless of course the other arguments hold true. Then you may have good reason to trust my testimony and taste and see if the Lord is good.
-“The Bible treated allegorically becomes putty in the hands of the exegete.” John Walvoord

"I'm not saying scientists don't overstate their results. They do. And it's understandable, too...If you spend years working toward a certain goal and make no progress, of course you are going to spin your results in a positive light." Ivellious

Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3663
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 74 times

Re: William Lane Craig's "Five Reasons" for Belief in God

#22

Post by Kenny » Sat Apr 12, 2014 7:58 am

Philip wrote:His five evidences for atheists to consider belief in God: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/12/ ... p=HPBucket

Was posted today on Fox News - some of it might have been better worded.
1.
The problem with this claim is he insists on the scientific explanation to remain within the laws of what we currently know about the Universe, but his explanation doesn’t have to. If he is going to claim that it is possible for his explanation to exist without a beginning; (God) then it is just as logical to assume anything to exist without a beginning; like the matter that eventually became the Universe.


2.
I don’t know much about this claim so I will leave it alone.


3.
The problem with this claim is it assumes most atheists believe morals are objective rather than subjective. I don’t believe this is the case


4.
The problems with this claim is it is only believed by the religious community; Christians at that. There isn’t any official record of any of this stuff actually happening. Had Jesus made resurrection known to the leaders of the city it could have gone down in history as an actual event. Assuming Jesus actually did rise from the dead, to only show yourself to those who already believe is kinda like preaching to the choir; it only confirms to those who already believe; not to those who don’t.


5.
The problem with this claim is it applies to other religions as well. They can’t all be right! Lots of things transform lives; some for the good some for the bad.


Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

Post Reply