Dr. Craig vs. Klemens Kappel: "Does God Exist?"
« Reply #15 on: September 15, 2012, 05:54:15 pm »
Disciple_of_Jesus wrote:
Answer: We know enough to know Jesus is the story of the son of Jupiter as the first self professed Christian historian claims, and that would be Justine Martyr…..

Given that all of Jesus' early followers were Orthodox religious Jews, it is very unlikely that they would use pagan myths to construct a fictional character called Jesus.

Answer: I am afraid you are incorrect here…no accredited Historian makes this claim, neither does any Archeologist. We are told differently in Church and by brethren, but they have lied to us….

Now, you are just being unrealistic. I can name you one well-respected archaeologist who is not even a Christian, yet he accepts that fact that Jesus really existed: Shimon Gibson.

Archaeology actually confirms certain historical aspects of the gospels, such as the fact that funerals were performed differently in the province of Galilee than the province of Judea. Are you saying that there are absolutely no historical facts in the gospels? You really think people like Pontius Pilate never existed? You think that the town of Nazareth never existed? You think that the Jewish annual religious ceremony at Jerusalem never happened? Honestly, if the gospels were myth, why is there so much history in them?

I think that you have read too much Internet Infidel people like Richard Carrier, Robert M. Price, and others. They are not very good scholars. Check out Bart D. Ehrman's new book, Did Jesus Exist? Ehrman is not a Christian; He's an atheist.

Quote:

Answer: We know enough to know Jesus is the story of the son of Jupiter as the first self professed Christian historian claims, and that would be Justine Martyr…..

Given that all of Jesus' early followers were Orthodox religious Jews, it is very unlikely that they would use pagan myths to construct a fictional character called Jesus.

Answer: There is no evidence of Jesus ever having followers or else what you claim would make perfect sense.

Quote:

Answer: I am afraid you are incorrect here…no accredited Historian makes this claim, neither does any Archeologist. We are told differently in Church and by brethren, but they have lied to us….  

Now, you are just being unrealistic. I can name you one well-respected archaeologist who is not even a Christian, yet he accepts that fact that Jesus really existed: Shimon Gibson.

Answer: So if I simple claim he does not make this claim you would then post what as a source of your knowledge. I mean, if I am being so ridiculous here it would seem to me that the natural response would be providing a direct quote and citation would it not?

Archaeology actually confirms certain historical aspects of the gospels, such as the fact that funerals were performed differently in the province of Galilee than the province of Judea. Are you saying that there are absolutely no historical facts in the gospels?

Answer: Well there were days and nights, and rivers, and some regions were mentioned when they actually existed, but I rather say these kinds of traits are the exceptions.

You really think people like Pontius Pilate never existed? You think that the town of Nazareth never existed? You think that the Jewish annual religious ceremony at Jerusalem never happened? Honestly, if the gospels were myth, why is there so much history in them?

Answer: Superman mentions Obama and New York and more…is superman real?

I think that you have read too much Internet Infidel people like Richard Carrier, Robert M. Price, and others. They are not very good scholars. Check out Bart D. Ehrman's new book, Did Jesus Exist? Ehrman is not a Christian; He's an atheist.  

Answer: Sorry, but his (Bart D. Ehrman's) (University doesn’t seem to instruct from
   the bible…..and I find nothing that claims the bible is a collection of historical documents. In other words it doesn’t seem to substantiate your claim, perhaps I missed something, could you quote him and cite the location?


1

brent arnesen

  • **
  • 953 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Dr. Craig vs. Klemens Kappel: "Does God Exist?"
« Reply #16 on: January 11, 2013, 10:00:15 pm »
Answer: Then all one would have to do is subtract 33 years and you would know Jesus birthday…but you cannot make this claim can you…you use the bible and say Mark says this, the anonymous Mark does NOT give the date for Jesus birth. But far be it for me to argue with you on this…can you please show me where Mark tell us when Jesus was born.

<span style="font-size: medium; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">It doesn't matter when Jesus was born. What matters is his personal claims and his divinity. For all we know, he could have been born in July, not December. Who cares. That doesn't effect Christian doctrine at all.</span>

It would have mattered greatly to the people living during the time. They would have scoured the world for information on a real person.  Mary was, allegedly, living for years after Jesus's death. They could have gone to her.

2

Asherah-deceased

  • ***
  • 2486 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Dr. Craig vs. Klemens Kappel: "Does God Exist?"
« Reply #17 on: January 23, 2013, 06:04:24 pm »
Answer: Then all one would have to do is subtract 33 years and you would know Jesus birthday…but you cannot make this claim can you…you use the bible and say Mark says this, the anonymous Mark does NOT give the date for Jesus birth. But far be it for me to argue with you on this…can you please show me where Mark tell us when Jesus was born.

<span style="font-size: medium; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">It doesn't matter when Jesus was born. What matters is his personal claims and his divinity. For all we know, he could have been born in July, not December. Who cares. That doesn't effect Christian doctrine at all.</span>

It would have mattered greatly to the people living during the time. They would have scoured the world for information on a real person.  Mary was, allegedly, living for years after Jesus's death. They could have gone to her.
The  could have, but did they?  If they did,  why do you suppose Luke and Matthew pegged his birth in different years?

3

brent arnesen

  • **
  • 953 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Dr. Craig vs. Klemens Kappel: "Does God Exist?"
« Reply #18 on: January 24, 2013, 09:08:15 am »
Answer: Then all one would have to do is subtract 33 years and you would know Jesus birthday…but you cannot make this claim can you…you use the bible and say Mark says this, the anonymous Mark does NOT give the date for Jesus birth. But far be it for me to argue with you on this…can you please show me where Mark tell us when Jesus was born.

<span style="font-size: medium; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">It doesn't matter when Jesus was born. What matters is his personal claims and his divinity. For all we know, he could have been born in July, not December. Who cares. That doesn't effect Christian doctrine at all.</span>

It would have mattered greatly to the people living during the time. They would have scoured the world for information on a real person.  Mary was, allegedly, living for years after Jesus's death. They could have gone to her.
The  could have, but did they?  If they did,  why do you suppose Luke and Matthew pegged his birth in different years?

I think we are in agreement.  Indeed, why are there so many discrepancies about Jesus and so little information about him as a man, or his family, etc?

The quick answer is that he didn't exist, or didn't exist as described in the Bible, but was a victim of legendary development.

4

brent arnesen

  • **
  • 953 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Dr. Craig vs. Klemens Kappel: "Does God Exist?"
« Reply #19 on: January 24, 2013, 10:21:26 am »
I just saw the debate and was quite impressed by Kappel.  I thought he, more than most (except Tabash & Kagan perhaps) cracked the facade of Craig's arguments.

Craig's arguments all require a host of priors that are simply not settled by any stretch of the imagination.

It's becoming rather apparent that Craig's "good explanations" are only good to him and others who think likewise, but not good to anyone who doesn't believe a God exists.

After all, he says the explanation of Christianity makes perfect sense if there is a God.

He seems to ignore that without that prior assumption it makes no sense.

His response, as always, is "well I feel I have good ideas for God".

He may feel that way, but that isn't an argument. His arguments require us to ignore the full weight of modern philosophy that either rejects or questions all of his arguments.


Let's start with his assertion that the question of God is the most important question we can ask - if Christianity is true.

Well, if it's not true, it's not.  Or, if there is a plant, if ingested, that can extend our life and make us Gods then the discovery of such a plant is the most important thing we can do.

We can create all kinds of imagined important things.  This is not an argument, it's an emotional appeal.

The irony with Craig is that as he debates more and more people, there is a larger and larger record of his inability to meet the demands of his claims. I respect that he continues to do it, but I'm a little more than concerned that he seems to not learn from his interaction with philosophers and scientists that his arguments are so heavily dependent on priors that simply aren't automatic.

Just because he feels some things are settled, despite the philsoophical community not agreeing with him, is a stark reminder his position is - as he always ends his debates - an emotional appeal to believers to keep believing and not a philosophical argument meant to weed out truths from the chafe.

5

grosso

  • ****
  • 9436 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Dr. Craig vs. Klemens Kappel: "Does God Exist?"
« Reply #20 on: January 24, 2013, 03:56:46 pm »
I find it strange that people claim that, Brent.

But when it comes to proving that his prior beliefs are unwarranted, they all fail. They fail to prove his "priors" are false. Fail to even prove them unlikely.

That shows his arguments are quite strong.

6

col_lok

  • Guest
Re: Dr. Craig vs. Klemens Kappel: "Does God Exist?"
« Reply #21 on: January 25, 2013, 05:17:29 pm »
I find it strange that people claim that, Brent.

But when it comes to proving that his prior beliefs are unwarranted, they all fail. They fail to prove his "priors" are false. Fail to even prove them unlikely.

That shows his arguments are quite strong.

So true!

I also find it annoying how people keep bringing up the age of the arguments ('those arguments are thousands of years old, before we had modern science'), but I know they keep doing that because of their modernist assumptions.

...His arguments require us to ignore the full weight of modern philosophy that either rejects or questions all of his arguments....despite the philsoophical community not agreeing with him

The full weight of the modern philosophy of religion grants a good deal of support to all of his arguments. Why are you disregarding philosophy of religion that is not modern? Modern does not mean better, 'how can you believe this stuff, it is 2013' is not a valid objection, temporal progression does not equate to greater understanding, or anything like that. Obesity levels are an example: in 2013 we have very high levels of obesity, in 1913 these levels were much lower.

By the philosophical community are you talking about Alvin Plantinga, Paul Copan, Gary Habermas, Peter J. Williams, Peter S. Williams, Chad Meister etc... If so, then I don't so how the philosophical community is not agreeing with him.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2013, 05:27:58 pm by col_lok »

7

Fallan

  • **
  • 5 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Dr. Craig vs. Klemens Kappel: "Does God Exist?"
« Reply #22 on: February 28, 2013, 10:25:47 am »
<font class="Apple-style-span" face="Georgia"><font class="Apple-style-span" size="4">In this debate, Craig and Kappel seemed to be in two completely different boats in water with fog. But it comes to no surprise that Kappel, like all of Craig's other opponents, simply failed to refute his arguments which he presented in the opening speech. All Kappel kept on doing was stating that we can know that God does not exist without giving any good reasons why. Overall, Dr. Craig gave the better performance in the debate at a very secular country.</font> <img border="0" align="absmiddle" src="http://rfforum.websitetoolbox.com/images/boards/smilies/wave.gif"> </font>

 I havent seen this debate but seen many others by Dr Craig...Ive noticed that there seems to be an agreement by his opponents that the best defense is not to engage in debate of the topic but to become personal by attacking Craigs intelligence. This is a very good indication of their desperation in trying to stem the tide of belief in a created Universe and why they dont debate the issues which they continually keep losing.Now you have the atheist Professor Vilenkin chastising those who look for a way out of the Universe having a beginning because they have to give the answer HOW!

8

Curt J. O'Brian

  • ***
  • 2412 Posts
  • Christian apologist
    • View Profile
Re: Dr. Craig vs. Klemens Kappel: "Does God Exist?"
« Reply #23 on: March 02, 2013, 12:47:56 pm »
I think we are in agreement.  Indeed, why are there so many discrepancies about Jesus and so little information about him as a man, or his family, etc?

The quick answer is that he didn't exist, or didn't exist as described in the Bible, but was a victim of legendary development.

Quick answers are, in general, the least trustworthy of all. Deep analysis is required on important subjects such as this.

I just saw the debate and was quite impressed by Kappel.  I thought he, more than most (except Tabash & Kagan perhaps) cracked the facade of Craig's arguments.

Craig's arguments all require a host of priors that are simply not settled by any stretch of the imagination.

It's becoming rather apparent that Craig's "good explanations" are only good to him and others who think likewise, but not good to anyone who doesn't believe a God exists.

After all, he says the explanation of Christianity makes perfect sense if there is a God.

He seems to ignore that without that prior assumption it makes no sense.

His response, as always, is "well I feel I have good ideas for God".

He may feel that way, but that isn't an argument. His arguments require us to ignore the full weight of modern philosophy that either rejects or questions all of his arguments.

Atheists disagree with Christian claims? I think if we're all being honest, we can all agree that changing a person's opinion is really difficult in general. Thus, I should think it's obvious that Craig's explanations fall short for non-Christians. That doesn't necessarily suggest that Craig's arguments are bad. In fact, what you're suggesting is that they lack the ability to convince. An argument can be unconvincing, yet still be a strong argument (and vice versa).

Notice that Craig repeatedly mentions in private discussions or lectures that he feels that the moral argument is the most convincing, and that the ontological argument isn't terribly convincing because people are "apt to consider it trickery"? The ontological argument is actually fairly strong and simple, most rejections to it have been dealt with for a long time. Whereas the moral argument is still very much up for debate even to this day, subjective morality is possibly true (though less likely) and many people believe in other forms of objective morality. An argument's ability to convince is not the same as how good it is, it's a package.

Quote
Let's start with his assertion that the question of God is the most important question we can ask - if Christianity is true.

We can create all kinds of imagined important things.  This is not an argument, it's an emotional appeal

Well, if it's not true, it's not.  Or, if there is a plant, if ingested, that can extend our life and make us Gods then the discovery of such a plant is the most important thing we can do.[/quote]

This is a good analogy for demonstrating your point, but your point doesn't take the full situation into account.

1. Over 30% of the planet does not believe in your plant.
2. You have no evidence for your plant whatsoever, whereas there is--though debatable--good evidence for a god.
3. This isn't an argument for the existence of God, or even an argument to begin with. He's saying that the topic of God is important, not that the topic of God is important, and therefore He exists.

Quote
The irony with Craig is that as he debates more and more people, there is a larger and larger record of his inability to meet the demands of his claims. I respect that he continues to do it, but I'm a little more than concerned that he seems to not learn from his interaction with philosophers and scientists that his arguments are so heavily dependent on priors that simply aren't automatic.

What demands? Most of the time I hear atheists say how Craig's claims fail, but they never give any good examples when they make that claim. Take for example your previous point, you essentially attacks a straw man. You destroyed an argument that wasn't an argument...

Quote
Just because he feels some things are settled, despite the philsoophical community not agreeing with him, is a stark reminder his position is - as he always ends his debates - an emotional appeal to believers to keep believing and not a philosophical argument meant to weed out truths from the chafe.

The philosophical community doesn't agree with what priors, exactly? Most philosophers would agree that the topic of God is extremely important. If there is a deity out there that created the universe, that knowledge is highly important. If there's any evidence for your plant, then that topic is also highly important.

I know since you're an atheist you like to claim that there's no evidence for God whatsoever, but it's irresponsible and unreasonable. There is a lot of it, some good and some not-so-good. Even incorrect positions often have good supporting evidence, so it's quite unreasonable for people to act like there can't be any for theism because they think theism is false.
"Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, and myself founded empires; but upon what foundation did we rest the creations of our genius? Upon force! But Jesus Christ founded His upon love; and at this hour millions of men would die for Him.”
–Napoleon Bonaparte I

9

Timmy1988

  • **
  • 13 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Dr. Craig vs. Klemens Kappel: "Does God Exist?"
« Reply #24 on: April 22, 2013, 04:59:59 pm »
mr craig is a great man and I would enjoy meeting him in person, does he frequent these forums?
If One Word of the Bible is wrong it is all wrong.
Nothing has ever been proven wrong.
We have evidence of some of it being right, therefore, it is all right.
Therefore, by default, atheism is wrong.


10

grosso

  • ****
  • 9436 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Dr. Craig vs. Klemens Kappel: "Does God Exist?"
« Reply #25 on: May 02, 2013, 01:59:40 am »
I doubt he visits these forums. But I'm sure you can send him an email thanking him.

11

Roger Wasson

  • **
  • 52 Posts
    • View Profile
    • Ultimate Object: Auditing The God Debate
Re: Dr. Craig vs. Klemens Kappel: "Does God Exist?"
« Reply #26 on: May 27, 2013, 09:55:51 am »
<strong>Blake1960 wrote:</strong> That was tough to watch.  One can't help but feel sorry for Dr. Kappel.
Faith, an irrational belief in something that presents no evidence and this equates god? I've heard a lot of posturing done claiming evidence of and for god....it always ends the same way....someone always leaves claiming the feel sorry for the nonbeliever and never any evidence. Why do you think this is?ish

Always? Why do you think that universal claim is true? What's the criteria? Is reason a crypto-theistic MindGod that supervises the evaluation of universals? How could you ever know, since reason itself is a set of universals?

http://www.ultimateobject.com/
http://www.ultimateobject.com/

12

TheJackel

  • **
  • 198 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Dr. Craig vs. Klemens Kappel: "Does God Exist?"
« Reply #27 on: June 10, 2013, 08:59:08 pm »
<font class="Apple-style-span" face="Georgia"><font class="Apple-style-span" size="4">In this debate, Craig and Kappel seemed to be in two completely different boats in water with fog. But it comes to no surprise that Kappel, like all of Craig's other opponents, simply failed to refute his arguments which he presented in the opening speech. All Kappel kept on doing was stating that we can know that God does not exist without giving any good reasons why. Overall, Dr. Craig gave the better performance in the debate at a very secular country.</font> <img border="0" align="absmiddle" src="http://rfforum.websitetoolbox.com/images/boards/smilies/wave.gif"> </font>

Actually it's rather easy to disprove the concept of GOD, or render it technically moot..  I can do it by citing Pantheism and asking 3 simple questions, or posting the paradox of the power of opinion.  I am actually amazed that nobody can see what's wrong with William's own arguments. 

Now quoting someone else:
Quote

1. Over 30% of the planet does not believe in your plant.
2. You have no evidence for your plant whatsoever, whereas there is--though debatable--good evidence for a god.
3. This isn't an argument for the existence of God, or even an argument to begin with. He's saying that the topic of God is important, not that the topic of God is important, and therefore He exists.

Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy argument and isn't evidence... Difference here is that he can empirically demonstrate the existence of his plant to which includes allowing you to see it, touch it, and actually observe its actual existence. It doesn't require "faith".  But we can't say the same when it comes to someone providing evidence of GOD.. Hence, they rest their argument on pointing to existence and things of existence and making the claim GOD done it without providing any actual evidence.. They make positive claims in which they can't substantiate what-so-ever.  Thus the evidence you provide is only evidence of what you are observing, or the universe itself. At no point are you able to provide direct empirical evidence like the kid with the plant can regarding the existence of his plant.  And an importance level of some topic doesn't mean the object of that topic magically exists either.  That falls under the fallacy if you just believe, it somehow magically means it's "true".. That level of dishonesty is very typical...


13

TheJackel

  • **
  • 198 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Dr. Craig vs. Klemens Kappel: "Does God Exist?"
« Reply #28 on: June 10, 2013, 09:51:00 pm »
Quote
<span style="font-size: medium; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Given that all of Jesus' early followers were Orthodox religious Jews, it is very unlikely that they would use pagan myths to construct a fictional character called Jesus.</span>

Wrong, Judaism is Pagan in origin. In fact, the prophecy of Immanuel is a prophecy concerning the Canaanite god EL as a son of EL.. Immanuel means "El is with us" and is referred to as the land of Cannan. Even the Psalms are most likely the hyms of EL in which would be consistent with the Amorite deity EL Shaddai, the god of Abraham, a deity associated to the Cannanite GOD EL. You would know this GOD as Amurru :
Quote
    Shaddai is a derivation of a [ur=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiticl]Semitic[/url] stem that appears in the Akkadian shadû ("mountain") and shaddā`û or shaddû`a ("mountain-dweller"), one of the names of Amurru.

    Amurru/Martu was probably a western Semitic god originally. He is sometimes described as a 'shepherd' or as a storm god, and as a son of the sky-god Anu. He is sometimes called bêlu šadī or bêl šadê, 'lord of the mountain'; dúr-hur-sag-gá sikil-a-ke, 'He who dwells on the pure mountain'; and kur-za-gan ti-[la], 'who inhabits the shining mountain'. In Cappadocian Zinčirli inscriptions he is called ì-li a-bi-a, 'the god of my father'.[1] Accordingly, it has been suggested by L. R. Bailey (1968) and Jean Ouelette (1969), that this Bêl Šadê might be the same as the Biblical ’Ēl Šaddāi who is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the "Priestly source" of narrative, according to the documentary hypothesis. Amurru also has storm-god features. Like Adad, Amurru bears the epithet ramān 'thunderer', and he is even called bāriqu 'hurler of the thunderbolt' and Adad ša a-bu-be 'Adad of the deluge'. Yet his iconography is distinct from that of Adad, and he sometimes appears alongside Adad with a baton of power or throwstick, while Adad bears a conventional thunderbolt.

    Amurru's wife is sometimes the goddess Ašratum (see Asherah) who in northwest Semitic tradition and Hittite tradition appears as wife of the god Ēl which suggests that Amurru may indeed have been a variation of that god. If Amurru was identical with Ēl, it would explain why so few Amorite names are compounded with the name Amurru, but so many are compounded with Il; that is, with Ēl.

    Sources:

    * The Targum from the Beginnings: "Tablet 1." Retrieved on September 12, 2010
    * Bailey, L. R. (1968). "Israelite ’Ēl šadday and Amorite Bêl šadê", Journal of Biblical Literature 87, 434–38.
    * Cross, Frank Moore (1973). Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, pp. 10, 57–58. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-09176-0.
    * Jordon, Michael. Encyclopedia of Gods, Kyle Cathie Limited, 2002
    * Ouellette, Jean (1969). "More on ’Ēl Šadday and Bêl Šadê", Journal of Biblical Literature 88, 470f.
    * ETSCL: Narratives featuring deities: Other deities, including "The Marriage of Martu" in Unicode and ASCII.
    * Iconography of Amurru (PDF-article)
    * Amurru in Encyclopedia

This is a pretty good idea where El Shaddai comes from, and it's relationship with the "God of the Mountains", and "God Almighty". Not only is this Ammorite deity associated with common "GOD of my Father" in the bible,  Also attested explicitly to the GOD of Abraham, and the city of Shaddai.. We know it's Pagan in origin, and we know Yahweh was equated with the Canaanite GOD EL to which includes being associated with El's wife Asherah..  This god was a mountain GOD, and most likely a Volcano GOD.. You can read a more in depth overview of this here to which is heavily backed by academic sources.  It's a 3 part series to which goes over a ton of information on the subject:

1. Yahweh: The Worshiping Of A Volcano Fire God Of War?

2. Mountain GOD Worship: Yahweh, God of the Mountains.

3. Yahweh: The Rock of Israel

It's also important to note that Exodus was first written in the time of the Therah Eruption to which triggered the collapse of the Bronze age, and the eviction of the Hysksos from Egypt. An eruptions that would account for the narrative of Exodus, Psalms, Daniel, Deuteronomy, and even Revelations.  An eruption that caused a volcanic winter, disease, the burial of much of Egypt in volcanic rock and ash ect.. An event that would have been visible to the entire region of Levant, and that includes as far as the Nile Delta and Israel. It's the single most notable event to which seem to have the largest impact on the evolution of religion. This to which likely lead to monotheism of a Mountain volcano GOD. 






14

whycatholic

  • *
  • 1 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Dr. Craig vs. Klemens Kappel: "Does God Exist?"
« Reply #29 on: June 25, 2013, 11:41:40 pm »
Sad to watch I couldn't even make it through the whole thing.

Craig should have been a better Christian , called it at night after about an hour and taken Kappel to dinner.