I was expecting this to be a debate about whether or not any sort of god exists, but it is specifically targeting the Christian perception of God.I wonder if it's even possible to discuss the existence of a creator without assigning presumptions. The question, "what would we expect to find", is not a neutral question. If there were a god, it would not need to be loving, kind, helpful or any other attribute we would ascribe to it. If the God of the Bible fails to meet the expectations of some, or even many, it is because the expectation has been awakened and not realized. The fact that it was awakened points to a source for the expectation.Dr. Dacey used the words tragic, pointless and disaster to describe the effect of disease in children, but this is the natural state of the world. If there is not a god, we would expect this as the modus operandi. Without the introduction of a specific idea of who God is, there can be no expectation as to how the world should work or that we can be better off. The question of the existence of a god is the first step in assigning value in any way shape or form. It is the first question which leads us outside ourselves in search of a standard for our value.What Dr. Dacey may not have realized in his opening speech is that he legitimized the opinion that strict adherence to the theory of macro-evolution and abiogenesis is just as much a religious view as any other faith based belief.He used the term, "natural selection drives" in regard to evolution. Natural selection has become an entity and is leading somewhere unknown, but it is still leading. That takes faith, my friends.The debate was at least enjoyable with an amiable tone and mutual (public) respect.
The question of the existence of a god is the first step in assigning value in any way shape or form. It is the first question which leads us outside ourselves in search of a standard for our value.What evidence do you give in support of this position?I would argue that the existence of a God who does not give clear, universal directions to his created beings is irrelevant, as the morals and their interpretation will always be done by human beings anyway. The better way to understand morality is to have a genuine historical understanding of our species, its origins, the nature of life on earth and the future trajectory of the natural world.
Hi Evan,I cannot give evidence of material nature, but I've been looking for a few years (about 14 now) for clues that the degree of peace and liberty we now experience, however fragile and incomplete, has flourished under or within some other paradigm. I haven't found the clues. Have you?
is it just me, or has Craig dropped one of his 4 facts about the resurrection, namely his usual number 1, that joseph of arimathea buried jesus? has craig taken a step back in terms of his 'concrete' evidence?in every other lecture he sets them out as a foursome.
Post a Comment