If God is omnibenevolent and the ultimate source of justice

[squealpiggy]

Like in a court case where no one really knows if the defendant is guilty, but if there is no evidence its only reasonable to find him innocent.
Thats very different from saying u can prove they didnt commit the crime.

Legal cases are a good analogy actually. What happens when the defendent is acquitted at trial? He isn't found "innocent" he's found "not guilty". There's a subtle difference. We cannot "prove" that somebody didn't commit the crime, all we can ascertain is whether or not there is sufficient evidence to say that they did do the crime.

The difference is that in court you need to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" whereas in science your conclusions are based on a preponderance of evidence.

[cupocity303]

Just a thought, the big Bang is just our term for the initial expansion of the universe. We still dont know what came before, or what caused the singularity to explode out.
The big Bang IS the universe before it evolved, not the cause of the universe. (is that right?)

Whereas God, in Craigs argument, is the cause. And he is saying, if god caused the universe, thats all we need to know. What caused God is a different matter. (they say God is eternal and had no beginning, therefore there was no cause, unlike the universe which had a beginning)

Yes all that is true.

However this is about Craig and his contradictions. Apparently people are shoving him down everybody's throats because he appears to be a effective debater. But you remove all the educated language clutter, and you can see right through his argument.

[+JC|Arky+]

Legal cases are a good analogy actually. What happens when the defendent is acquitted at trial? He isn't found "innocent" he's found "not guilty". There's a subtle difference. We cannot "prove" that somebody didn't commit the crime, all we can ascertain is whether or not there is sufficient evidence to say that they did do the crime.

The difference is that in court you need to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" whereas in science your conclusions are based on a preponderance of evidence.

So why can't ANY scientist PROVE God doesnt exist? I can prove that T-Rex does not exist anymore. You can prove that certain things dont exist can't you? Yet with all these "intellectual minds" out there, NO ONE can prove God doesnt exist. Yet you name call and drag through the mud anyone who goes against your belief in nothing.

[cupocity303]

Yes all that is true.

However this is about Craig and his contradictions. Apparently people are shoving him down everybody's throats because he appears to be a effective debater. But you remove all the educated language clutter, and you can see right through his argument.

Speaking of which, you were one of them as I just noticed in my Visitors page.

You're the guy that initially claimed that Hitchens got destroyed by Craig, although you did water down those remarks in your second comment.

[squealpiggy]

So why can't ANY scientist PROVE God doesnt exist?

Because you can't prove a negative. And proof is not something dealt with in science. Unless mathematics counts.

I can prove that T-Rex does not exist anymore.

No you can't. What you can do is state that there is no evidence for the continued existence of T-Rex and therefore no reason to think that they are still around. But you can't prove it doesn't exist. Maybe they're invisible. Maybe they exist now outside space and time. Maybe what you call T-Rex exists in a form so bizarre and amazing it's impossible for people to perceive them.

OK so those arguments for the possible existence of T-Rex are pretty stupid. But I've heard those precise same arguments for the lack of evidence for the existence of god.

You can prove that certain things dont exist can't you?

You can't prove that unicorns don't exist. You can't prove that goblins don't exist. You cannot prove the nonexistence of Thor, Zues, Nyarlathotep, Russel's Teapot or the Flying Spaghetti Monster either, but that doesn't mean you should believe in all of these things just for the sake of it.

Yet with all these "intellectual minds" out there, NO ONE can prove God doesnt exist. Yet you name call and drag through the mud anyone who goes against your belief in nothing.

You have is bass ackwards. I don't "believe in nothing". I just don't believe in things without having any real reason to believe in them. So, for example, I don't believe in Yahweh the magic wishing fairy because Yahweh the magic wishing fairy doesn't seem to leave any evidence of existing.

[cupocity303]

So why can't ANY scientist PROVE God doesnt exist? I can prove that T-Rex does not exist anymore. You can prove that certain things dont exist can't you? Yet with all these "intellectual minds" out there, NO ONE can prove God doesnt exist. Yet you name call and drag through the mud anyone who goes against your belief in nothing.

Because there is no actual scientific effort out there to prove whether GOD does or does NOT exist, you nitwit.

There might be individuals with a background in Science however, that are ready to make that big leap and jump to conclusions. But that like the Religious, is someone with an agenda who already had his mind made up and is looking for Confirmation Bias.

There is no actual neutral effort to prove or disproof whether a deity exists.

[TheAuthority]

Just a thought, the big Bang is just our term for the initial expansion of the universe. We still dont know what came before, or what caused the singularity to explode out.
The big Bang IS the universe before it evolved, not the cause of the universe. (is that right?)

Whereas God, in Craigs argument, is the cause. And he is saying, if god caused the universe, thats all we need to know. What caused God is a different matter. (they say God is eternal and had no beginning, therefore there was no cause, unlike the universe which had a beginning)

I see what you are saying dude. However, I still think my point stands.

I based my point on the following (taken from 4:35 onwards)

Dr Craig Said:

"In order to recognise that intelligent design is the best explanation of the complex order in the universe you don't have to have an explanation of the explanation you may not know what the explanation is of the intelligent designer that produced the cosmos but that doesn't in any way count against the credibility of the hypothesis that the complex order in the universe is best explained by there being an intelligent designer."

Here he is refering to the complex order of the universe being best explained by an intelligent designer.

I said (italics added for clarity):

The big bang theory explains the existence of the universe (in it's current state). Dr Craig accepts this.

I would suggest we can recognise this explanation as the best based on the evidence.

If we apply his logic, can we conclude we don't need to have an explanation for the big bang (i.e. the best explanation for the current state of the universe and hence the inherant complexity)?

By Craig's logic we don't need an explanation for what caused the big bang (i.e. a God), because the complexity of the universe can be explained by a rapid expansion / gravity / cooling etc .


.................................................. .................................................. ...
Hence, we don't need an explanation for the explanation.

TBH, I typed my original post without putting much thought into it. I may well have misinterpreted???

[+JC|Arky+]

If we apply his logic, can we conclude we don't need to have an explanation for the big bang (i.e. the best explanation for the current state of the universe and hence the inherant complexity)?

By Craig's logic we don't need an explanation for what caused the big bang (i.e. a God), [I][B]because the complexity of the universe can be explained by a rapid expansion / gravity / cooling etc

What your doing here is what Craig says will happen if you keep trying to explain your explanation. Your proving his point arent you? Occam's Razor ftw.

[TheAuthority]

What your doing here is what Craig says will happen if you keep trying to explain your explanation. Your proving his point arent you? Occam's Razor ftw.

I'm not sure I understand your point. Could you explain what you mean exactly?

[The Noose]

Speaking of which, you were one of them as I just noticed in my Visitors page.

You're the guy that initially claimed that Hitchens got destroyed by Craig, although you did water down those remarks in your second comment.

Yes, yes, that was me.
And ur the one who red k'd me without responding in the thread.

I explained my post. Let it be.