jacob97 wrote: Here's my question:The fossil record clearly indicates humans have been on the earth 150,000 + years. How can this relate to Adam and Eve? Putting evolutionary theory aside, if there were ~2000 years between Adam and Abraham and ~2000 years between Abraham and Jesus, how might we account for people on the earth 100,000 years ago?I don't suppose this is possible to reconcile with a literal interpretation of Genesis. It seems fairly obvious that the options are:1. Argue against the validity of the idea that humans have been on Earth this long (the Young Earth Creationist position),2. Argue that Genesis need not be, or should not be, taken this literally (the position Old Earth literal creationists and theistic evolutionists), or3. Reject the Genesis account as truthful (the position of very liberal and non-Christian/non-Jewish/non-Muslim theologians).In my opinion, option two is the most reasonable. I see no reason why the Bible should be read more literally than our own writings (which contain many figures of speech, and are the products of a much more literal culture than Genesis). People often forget that the only reason we get to this figure of a few thousand years is by extrapolating from the ages of the people mentioned in the Bible.However, there is no reason to assume that the ages of everyone in the Bible is literally accurate, or that the generations mentioned is exhaustive. This is above and beyond any suggestion that the actual creation account itself was not meant literally.
revo74 wrote: I believe I have discovered a knock-down argument against the KCA. I have never heard this used before, although I have to believe someone has mentioned it before.In order for us to realize that a conclusion is true, a philosophical arguments premises must be true. This applies to both deductive and inductive arguments.Craig says that the Universe had a finite beginning in the past and that space, time and matter came into existence ex nihilo. As a result the transcending cause of the Universe must be spaceless (hinting omnipresent), timeless (hinting eternal) and immaterial (hinting a spirit or unembodied mind). He then usually stats that this cause must be extremely powerful to give rise to the Universe (hinting omnipotence).Well, here is the problem. Yes, it is true that the cause transcends the space, time and matter of our Universe, but that doesn't mean that this cause transcends these same properties that may exist in another realm of existence. Craig is making an "assumption" here. For all we know there could be an eternal realm with these same properties or some of them from which our Universe derives from.In order for us to recognize a premise is true a certain degree of certainty about it must be established. Craig's assumption doesn't qualify and therefore the argument is rendered invalid.
Giford wrote: Calling Craig's argument a "false dichotomy" is just wrong I think. He doesn't claim that "either you believe in God or you cannot believe in objective moral values" but rather that "Without God existing, there are no grounds for morallity to be objective". Your wording is more accurate to Craig than mine, but I think my point stands. There are other options for objective morality than a divine lawgiver. So for Craig to insist that only two options are possible (God or subjective morality) is a false dichotomy.
Calling Craig's argument a "false dichotomy" is just wrong I think. He doesn't claim that "either you believe in God or you cannot believe in objective moral values" but rather that "Without God existing, there are no grounds for morallity to be objective".
“If some method of acquiring beliefs leads to lots of different, and conflicting, beliefs, then that method obviously cannot be relied on.” 36: 14-23
Millican seems to have missed his own point, in that such 'religious education', the world over, already contains different and conflicting beliefs. Millican does not here even offer an hypothesis for the origin of those differences. It's as if he's saying "any kind of influence by parents on their own children, whether the religious or the non-religious kinds of influences, is to be rejected as false since it gives rise to the religious kind.' Theism is not a method, nor does theism presuppose a particular content in terms of how to interpret any kind of logical, physical, or psychological evidence.
above wrote: LOL.What nonsense are you preaching? This is not even a coherent argument let alone a knock-down one.
<span style="font-size: medium; font-family: georgia, palatino;">I can honestly say that of all the debates I've seen with William Lane Craig, this one had to be one of the best. Peter Millican is a worthy and scholarly opponent and an outstanding philosopher. In fact, I've never seen any atheist debater give more viable answers to Dr. Craig's arguments, like the Cosmological argument, the Teleological argument, and the Moral argument. What I found even more astonishing was when Dr. Craig stated that he believed in extra-terrestrial life. As a Christian, I had always had a difficult time with that question, but after being shocked with Dr. Craig's explanation of that, I no longer fear that question! Congratulations to both debaters for a lively and friendly discussion! </span>
Peter Millican said several times that there is "absolutely" no evidence that minds can exist independently of bodies.