"Everything unknown is taken to be magnificent". Where's that quote from ? *googles* Ah, Tacitus...

Anyway, love the video. I wonder what our resident Craig fans have to add to that.

It all seemed a pretty fair statement overall, including the first part, Mr Fishpaste. Whatever logic flaws there may be to someone of a particularly pedantic disposition, and I don't really see anything significantly flawed, it most definitely does not in any way justify the epithet "moronic". To apply that description is... well... 'moronic'. 

Care to enlighten us, O pasty fish, what you see as the main flaws in the initial argument? So we can try and reach some understanding, rather than just trade insults? You know, give us some evidence for your otherwise naked assertion?

Or did it perhaps strike a nerve, at a weakness of your position??? Hmmm?

Sorry, your angry defence of the legitimacy of many Christian concepts, your disgust that we think Theology is not even worth our time to take seriously, keeps me putting into the mindset that I am addressing a Theist.

The start of that video is really making the same point as you seem to be in the first part of your response, that it is nonsensical.

God is in fact usually characterized as outside or beyond the Universe, beyond space and time, as the Creator of space-time and the Universe, as even Theists recognize that the creator cannot be part of his creation. The second part of your post is simply not true, and inherently absurd, even to most Theists.

I understand your reasoning here, and I wouldn't expect anything else given all of the theistic stupidity you guys have to deal with here. It kind of forces you into anti-theism.

I also do not consider any (maybe perhaps, the golden rule? Not really an innately christian concept though) christian concepts legitimate. I simply often see the terms illogical or non-factual often misused when discussing christian theology. A lot of people who are attempting to analyze religion from a philosophical perspective and see if it holds water make several mistakes because of their own biases. As socrates stresses, humility is important.

Precisely, it is nonsensical to talk about things outside the universe, which is why we don't.

Except that it is true to most theists, given that god is omnipresent he must by definition encompass everything in the universe. At the same time by definition he must be present in every area of space-time, meaning he was there when the universe was made, and will be there when it ceases to exist. This view does not cause their to be a region external to the multiverse, it simply characterizes the multiverse as a component of god.

This is a panentheistic view, and most theists actually are panenthiests, they just never hear of the term. Pan-theism is the opposite view, that the universe in it's totality is god. In either scenario god consists of the universe.

Butterbattle, my definition of observation is to perceive with one or more of the five senses. Note that this is different from scientific observation from which empirical data can be drawn. That said, many theists would consider their own unverifiable personal gnosis as observations of god, or they would consider near death experiences observations of god, or simply the "Creation" as observation of god. Really anything goes as observation of god assuming he consists of the entirety of the universe, but often when he is anthropomorphised in visions or stories it's the most compelling.

Indeed.

We would expect to know if a paersonal god exists. Since no one knows, can we assume that one doesn't exist?

You don't see a problem with an all-loving God having a place of eternal punishment? Is he roasting people for eternity because he loves them so much?

If you're one of those who says "People choose to go to hell - God doesn't send them there" - your Bible stands against your position.

"We would expect to know if a paersonal god exists. Since no one knows, can we assume that one doesn't exist?"

No, I was referring to Plantinga's argument concerning the intrinsic warrant theistic belief, if true, enjoys, and pointing out this rather important disanalogy with the wooden spoon (and just about everything else). The main point of the argument is to show the necessary connection between the de jure and the de facto question of god's existence, viz. you cannot say anything about the de jure question without first addressing the de facto question. And, quite obviously, the video is addressing the de jure question.

"You don't see a problem with an all-loving God having a place of eternal punishment?"

I said it's not logically impossible -- and it's not. The video falsely presented it as a logical impossibility, but no one takes the logical POE seriously today.

"If you're one of those who says "People choose to go to hell - God doesn't send them there" - your Bible stands against your position."

I wouldn't mind reading your defense of this position.

There is absolutely no logical justification for the assumption that you would expect to 'know' anything whatever about the nature and attributes of an entity of power and knowledge infinitely beyond human comprehension.

Talking about a 'personal' god of a particular nature is pure question-begging - IOW if it had those attributes then you would be correct in assuming it did, but you have no way to know that with any certainty whatever.

Your 'intrinsic warrant' is totally groundless, it is pure speculation.

"There is absolutely no logical justification for the assumption that you would expect to 'know' anything whatever about the nature and attributes of an entity of power and knowledge infinitely beyond human comprehension."

I see (at least) two problems with this:

(1) "an entity of power and knowledge infinitely beyond human comprehension"

It simply doesn't follow from the fact that some aspect of X cannot be completely understood by 'human comprehension' that we cannot know 'anything whatever' about it. It seems to me that your point can only be maintained if you presuppose this obviously false dichotomy.

(2) "There is absolutely no logical justification for the assumption that you would expect to 'know' anything whatever"

On the contrary, the very point of Plantinga's argument is that *if* a personal god exists, we would have every reason to suppose that 'we would expect to know' something about him (sticking with the masculine form here for the sake of simplicity). And the point is decidedly not question begging, but is rather a logical inference from the very nature of what it means to call a god 'personal.' A personal god is, by definition, one that seeks a relationship with human beings, and it would be absurd to suppose that such a god, if he existed, would not have provided us with a means of coming to know him. Hence the intrinsic warrant of theistic belief, *if a personal god exists*.

"You cannot know anything about such a being with any certainty whatever. It would be infinitely capable of misleading/deceiving in ways that you would never be able to detect."

This is not at all the case on an externalist conception of knowledge. Indeed, it is only an externalist conception of knowledge that can resolve any of the great skeptical scenarios, e.g. concerning BIVs, a five minute world, etc.

I would add that certainty is a psychological state that isn't relevant to this discussion. I can be certain that P while ~P obtains. You seem to be using the term here to indicate 'proof.' However, if the fact that P cannot be proven counts against it, then you've just discarded the whole scientific enterprise, which knows nothing of proof in this sense.

"Precisely, it is all contingent on a pure assumption. There is absolutely no way to 'prove' that a Creator being would necessarily have any of the standard attributes assumed to go with such an entity."

This is absolutely false. Aquinas argued over literally hundreds of pages of rigorous argumentation for precisely the standard attributes we ascribe to a personal god, and he did so without any appeal to revelation. Indeed, once you accept (and understand) the distinction between act and potency, and combine it with a robust conception of causality, you have all you need to move logically to the necessary existence of a personal god.

This takes us far afield, however. Note that you've conceded my point: while it's certainly the case that we'd have no reason to expect to know that, say, a wooden spoon is in 'the box,' we would expect to know it if a personal god is in 'the box,' since given the very nature of the case our belief would enjoy an intrinsic warrant we could not ascribe to a wooden spoon (etc.). You seem to be confusing the claim that a personal god is in fact in the box with the claim that if such a god were in the box, we'd have every reason to expect to know it. I've only been arguing for the latter, *but the latter is all I need to refute the video's thesis*. I don't need the former.

[qoute:]

You cannot know anything about such a being with any certainty whatever. It would be infinitely capable of misleading/deceiving in ways that you would never be able to detect. There is no way to test any assumption or assertion about such an entity. There is no way to avoid the total uncertainty we would have when faced with such an entity. Assuming it fitted some preconceived definition of a 'personal God' is just that, pure assumption, you have no way to determine that your assumption was correct. It is pure wishful thinking. [/qoute]

tr1nity writes:

Of course your first position is incorrect as it has no foundation. Using your own logic your description of this deity's nature MUST exist for the entire premise to exist which by part 1 "cannot be known". The statement is circular making it meaningless.

The second part is also air as you wrote "There is no way to test any assumption" must be an actual testable assumption of the nature of this deity for it to have meaning, which if it existed would make it meaningless.

"There is no way to avoid the total uncertainty"

The testabilty of the "no way to avoid" portion of this part would be required for that statement to have meaning which, once again would mean, if it was found to be testable would be "a way" at the very least to know SOMETHING if not much about this deity making some way however small of avoiding some level of uncertainty making the entire statement meaningless...again.

"It is pure wishful thinking."

I would agree that your statements were but that would assume I could test that actual "thinking" and properly categorize its type to offer the assertion that it was actually "wishful" but I will give that perhaps we have enough social agreement to the premise that your statements were in fact thought however small they were.

Of course these were just prods I'm sure, you wanted my response.

Sorry missed this one... even a negligible god knowledge quantity would still make atheism irrelevant wouldn't you agree?

No, only a level of certainty significantly more than for the various 'godless' scenarios. 

There are an infinite number of scenarios that would lie at a comparable level of likelihood as the various 'God' ones. We would need some indication as to the most likely, and so far the naturalistic view-point has virtually all the wins on the board.

"You can't KNOW, by definition, unless you observe it yourself."

This is obviously false, but let's go with it for a moment, for the sake of argument: Will you then concede the enormous faith you have -- by your definition -- in, say, almost all aspects and areas of the scientific enterprise?

On the contrary, we're just using different definitions of the term. My definition, for the purposes of this discussion, is thus:

be cognizant or aware of a fact or a specific piece of information

The definition you're using, and correct me if I'm wrong, is thus:

be aware of the truth of something; have a belief or faith in something; regard as true beyond any doubt

With the significant difference in bold.

You may be surprised at how significant my knowledge of science is. However, for those few aspects I have not personally verified, I'll admit I don't know, by my definition, that they are true. For those, your definition is what I would subscribe to.