AiGbusted is dedicated to exposing creationist hoaxes, especially the leading organization, Answers in Genesis.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Please Vote
If you recall I had a debate recently on debate.org Please go and vote for whomever you think had the most persuasive arguments: http://www.debate.org/debate/10352/
A rather thrilling title, and having just picked up a copy of 'A virtue Epistemology', I was rather hoping this would be a view on how we know what we know, in relation to things such as 'God's existance.'.
I was marginally disappointed. However I felt that you're arguement 'the problem of evil', was well played. But Con as you expressed, was unable to fantham a reason on why God would allow evil. From High School Theology, I would've used an 'the fall' as one example. (Which was really caused by a design error by the 'intelligent' creator.)
I also didn't grasp by what he meant, that 'Theistic worldview' is a better explantion than Naturalism. It seemed to me that 'phenonomen' in Theology is just human's attempt to make sure it's still kind of 'supernatural'. (Pun unintended.)
There's also the grey area of Necessity and Purpose, which I think at sometime appeared mutually exclusive in his arguement. That life is not necessary yet still has a purpose... Food for thought, I presume.
But related is on how God is necessary, Con stated that, you didn't explain how 'necessity' was a trait of God, but the nature of God, from my Theology course is composed of different traits, which sometimes clash against each other. Eg. Omni-Loving, yet Omni-Righteous need to love it's creation yet punish it for misdeeds?
One part in Round Four, It seems rather amusing that one point, where Con talked about the universe being non-necessary for existence, I thought of problems Existentialist would think about.
But in his conclusion, I still feel, that an 'immaterial' God would still require an explantion, as it differs from the 'norm' which would be matter, which is accountable to our senses, and which we can explain through Scientific view of Cosmology or the Big Bang as he often refers to.
I still found the arguements a bit lacking, but it was fun to drift through the logic and format of the debate. I've never heard of Debate.org until now.
"The existance of God is unlikely."
ReplyDeleteA rather thrilling title, and having just picked up a copy of 'A virtue Epistemology', I was rather hoping this would be a view on how we know what we know, in relation to things such as 'God's existance.'.
I was marginally disappointed. However I felt that you're arguement 'the problem of evil', was well played. But Con as you expressed, was unable to fantham a reason on why God would allow evil. From High School Theology, I would've used an 'the fall' as one example. (Which was really caused by a design error by the 'intelligent' creator.)
I also didn't grasp by what he meant, that 'Theistic worldview' is a better explantion than Naturalism. It seemed to me that 'phenonomen' in Theology is just human's attempt to make sure it's still kind of 'supernatural'. (Pun unintended.)
There's also the grey area of Necessity and Purpose, which I think at sometime appeared mutually exclusive in his arguement. That life is not necessary yet still has a purpose... Food for thought, I presume.
But related is on how God is necessary, Con stated that, you didn't explain how 'necessity' was a trait of God, but the nature of God, from my Theology course is composed of different traits, which sometimes clash against each other. Eg. Omni-Loving, yet Omni-Righteous need to love it's creation yet punish it for misdeeds?
One part in Round Four, It seems rather amusing that one point, where Con talked about the universe being non-necessary for existence, I thought of problems Existentialist would think about.
But in his conclusion, I still feel, that an 'immaterial' God would still require an explantion, as it differs from the 'norm' which would be matter, which is accountable to our senses, and which we can explain through Scientific view of Cosmology or the Big Bang as he often refers to.
I still found the arguements a bit lacking, but it was fun to drift through the logic and format of the debate. I've never heard of Debate.org until now.