[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 427 KB, 1280x1024, universe2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4634082 No.4634082 [Reply] [Original]

Hello, /sci/.

I recently watched the 2:30:00 long debate between Dr. William Lane Craig and Christopher Hitchens.

I heard arguments from both sides, tryed to remain as objective as possible despite my preconceived notions and beliefs, and decided that neither argument was satisfactory for the topic, which was the "existence of god."

Am I expecting too much? Or do we simply NOT KNOW for sure.

I tend to take an agnostic approach to the entire matter but apparently that is unsatisfactory to both camps. What are /sci/'s thoughts on the matter?

>> No.4634087

OHLOOKITSTHISTHREDAGAINFORFUCKSSAKE

>> No.4634086

Religion isn't allowed here

enjoy your ban

>> No.4634096
File: 119 KB, 400x547, chillbill1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4634096

I don't frequent /sci/ very regularly, so I have no idea how frequent "god" threads are, but will bump once for discussion if anyone is interested.

>> No.4634101

>>4634086
>>4634087
Well then...

Guessing this is old news.

>> No.4634109

I used to be pretty hardcore "agnostic atheist" and felt that while the existence of God is the remotest of remote possibilities, is it possible.

After thinking I've become more and more agnostic. The one thing I hate the most about creationists when you argue with them are statements like "Complex organisms didn't evolve naturally and without guidance. I just don't think it happened." or "My intuitions tells me there has to be an intelligence guiding the progression of the universe."

After some thought it occurred to me that I was doing the same thing. My thoughts were, in a nut shell "Given the insignificance of humanity relative to the stars and our universe as a whole and the fact that there is a complete lack of evidence, I just feel that the existence of God is something we can't know." And that's the same sort of "I'm going to use my intuition" bullcrap that doesn't work. A teacher of mine once told me about how futile it is to try to know everything, but even if you know 99% of everything, the last 1% has to potential to change everything (conceptually, at least). So, in the same spirit, I won't be bashing believing in God as much as I have in the past.

>> No.4634119

i dont like being a grammar nazi but every time i see "tried" spelled with a "y" i just cant take it seriously.

>> No.4634138

>>4634119
Where... says the sentence maker with no capitalization or punctuation.

>>4634109
Right, it seems that the religious camp usually, at some point in the argument, falls to fallacies such as "You can just look around and FEEL it in your heart," or "As a Christian you can FEEL the Holy Spirit in your heart." The Doctor used that second sentence as part of his argument for a god's existence. But, in the same vein, Hitchens used the same fallacy in his favor, essentially saying that he FELT that there was no god for fear of it being incredibly wasteful with universal resources, relative to our insignificance.

So, again, neither was able to entirely refute the other's claims. Though I suppose if it was the case that one camp were able to come up with irrefutable evidence, the majority of rational thinkers would stop wondering about such matters.

>> No.4634160

>>4634138

Right, exactly. Intuition won't get us anywhere, so I would definitely shy away from listening to any argument based on that sort of premise.

Besides, Hitchens is assuming that a divine being created the universe exclusively for humanity. We as a species aren't even aware of the frequency of alien life on other planets. If that frequency ends up being rather large, the Universe's resources wouldn't have been wasted after all!

>> No.4634189

Debating god in this century is like debating the existence of Yot.

"He exists" "Nop, he doesn't"
"I'm agnostic whether Yot exists or not" etc

>> No.4634202

>>4634189
Riveting argument there, brother.

Care to expand on it a bit?

>>4634160
Not to mention it is mathematically probable there is other life.

>> No.4634201

>>4634189

He fucking exists. Trust me. I found the golden tablet that says so.

>> No.4634229

>>4634160

> Hitchens is assuming that a divine being created the universe exclusively for humanity

Wait, are we talking about the same Hitchens, here?

>> No.4634235

>>4634229
anon means that Hitchens assumes that *IF* an entity exists, it created the universe specifically for us.

>> No.4634238

>>4634229

Sorry, Hitchen is assuming that God, if there is one, created the universe exclusively for humanity.

What I mean to say is that he's attacking the human-centric God and neglecting to consider a God that doesn't care only about humanity.

>> No.4634246

O, and I am entirely ignorant to the atheistic community, but why does Richard Dawkins refuse to debate certain members of the religious community?

This just gives them more cannon fodder...

>hurrr he knows he's wrong so he won't fight our guy

>> No.4634249

>>4634246

I've seen him debate some ignorant people. I don't blame him for drawing the line somewhere, even if it could give the religious community some form of ammunition.

>> No.4634268

religious debates never amount to anything. everything has already been said based on what we know so far.

>> No.4634300

>>4634268

I've come to this conclusion as well.

/thread.

>> No.4634310

>>4634082
God that debate was awful. Hitchens got his ass handed to him so hard it was awkward. Kraig's arguments may not hold up under scrutiny but holy shit can he debate.

>> No.4634315

>>4634310
He's has a law degree.

But agreed, Hitchens kind of didn't try or gave up or something.