The Common Sense Atheist on the Logical Christian Philosopher

'In this post I want to celebrate what Craig and I (currently) agree about. I do this for two reasons:

1. So you can correct me if you think I’m wrong.

2. So atheists can stop wasting time by disagreeing with Craig even when he’s right, and focus on where he’s wrong.'

Luke Muehlhauser on William Lane Craig

It's a bare snippet of what Muehlhauser has to say so I do suggest clicking and giving it a read, however alongside the points made, it's the spirit in which the post was written than I am so happy to share. Modern debate of any kind has only become more and more exhausting because people seem to have no interest whatsoever in actually listening to what the other sides have to say.

Sure, when you go into any debate or any argument, you enter into it carrying your own personal beliefs and convictions which will inevitably colour your response to whatever you're presented with, but too often debates descend into agenda bashing, name calling and outright childish denial of any possibility that those with whom you disagree may actually have, if not a point, but backing for what they're trying to say.

Hence it is more than refreshing when someone, as Muehlhauser has done above, is so willing to focus on where he and Craig stand on common ground so that they can finally stop wasting time on mindless disagreement and actually try to genuinely hash out the roots of their differences. It's not just better debate, it's an actual exercise in real respect, something sorely lacking in so many argument these days.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - I respect the respectful, wherever they may lie on the spectrum of belief and opinion. Cheers, Muehlhauser, from a Christian who respects you and our differences.

On the Church and Galileo - it's time the same old myths were put to rest.

• Further Reading:

  An Atheist's Take on Galileo and The Church - Tim O'Neill via Quora

  
  

  '@Mike

  Another routinely perpetuated falsehood.

  In fact, the matter was settled in 1741 when Benedict XIV granted Imprimatur to the ‘Complete Works of Galileo.’

  Geocentrism was not only a church-held. The accepted view among ALL scientists was that of Aristotelian geocentrism - not Copernican heliocentrism.

  Galileo privately belittled his scientific peers nevertheless refraining from publishing confirmation of his theory (Copernicus' theory actually), not fearing censure from the Church - but public ridicule from his scientific peers.

  He admitted he could not prove heliocentrism using the scientific standards of his day i.e he could not disprove the associated theory of parallax movement of the stars in relation to heliocentrism - critical for acceptance.

  Pope UrbanVIII cautioned him not to promote geocentrism as absolute scientific truth but to present arguments for and against. He refused putting it forward as absolute - with no conclusive evidence. He then launched into an attack on scripture to help his cause – which he knew nothing about and which was a church responsibility.

  Cardinal Bellarmine’s 1615 letter to Galilleo stated the Church’s position:

  a) It was perfectly acceptable to maintain Copernicanism as a *working* hypothesis;
  b) If real proof existed, he should still proceed with great circumspection.

  Pius VII in 1822, declared Copernicanism as a fact – notwithstanding that the Ptolemian-Aristotelian objection remained undetermined until 1838 when Friedrich Bessel finally succeeded in showing the parallax of Star 61 Cygni.

  Pope Paul VI in 1979, directed the Pontifical Academy of Sciences to settle the ongoing lies and misrepresentations about the Church once and for all with an Academy report on the matter.

  One concession – the CC is never in a hurry. Their report was finalised in 1992 by Benedict XVI (Cardinal) precisely in order to put to rest ongoing erroneous claims like yours.

  Commenter

  Java

   

  Location

  Brisbane

   

  Date and time

  October 16, 2014, 2:31PM'

  
  

C.S. Lewis on Reasoning to Atheism

I love this. Logic abound.

I would be genuinely interested in a well thought out response. It’s not often I can’t immediately imagine what it would be and here, the logic is simple enough that I wonder how much further you could nitpick, outside of arguing the nature of the ‘God’ in question.

Following from the above, I think it stands very well to reason that there had to be a first cause with actual intent, implying the presence of something greater than us outside of natural physical development.

I believe it to be God.

What would one who is certain of the absence of a god (as implied by atheism as opposed to agnosticism) believe it to be?