Can an omniscient being exist with a universe that has free will?

I thought the whole point of God was that he makes no sense but you believe in him anyway for no apparent reason?

That is why it is so hard to reason with religious people.  Their faith demands absolute belief in something even when evidence to the contrary is presented.

Take William Lane Craig, I seem to remember him being quoted as saying that even if he was to go back in a time machine to the day before the first Easter Sunday, right outside Jesus's tomb, and witness first hand that nobody came out of the tomb for the next few days, he would still believe in the resurrection.  I think a great amount of Christians still would.  Many fundamentalists see their ability to reject reason and evidence over their beliefs as a test of the strength of faith in God.

Take William Lane Craig, I seem to remember him being quoted as saying that even if he was to go back in a time machine to the day before the first Easter Sunday, right outside Jesus's tomb, and witness first hand that nobody came out of the tomb for the next few days, he would still believe in the resurrection.

Wut. Why? Do you have a source?

Quote from: Marcus Aurelius on February 20, 2011, 08:36:49 AM

Take William Lane Craig, I seem to remember him being quoted as saying that even if he was to go back in a time machine to the day before the first Easter Sunday, right outside Jesus's tomb, and witness first hand that nobody came out of the tomb for the next few days, he would still believe in the resurrection.

Wut. Why? Do you have a source?

I cannot find it, sorry.  However did find this quote, which pretty much says the same thing:

Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter, not vice versa. [William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, (Revised edition, Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1994), p. 36.]

Ah ha!  Here is where I saw it.  Unfortunately it is not a direct quote.  Take it as you will, it's a page or two down from the link.

http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/contra_craig/contra_craig.htm#Comments%20on%20Craig%27s%20Book:%20Reasonable%20Faith

I wish CR90 would post in this thread.

Wow. As Christian apologists go, I was never hugely impressed with WLC, but he has effectively destroyed his credibility there. I'll bet he's a RE'er as well.

Wow. As Christian apologists go, I was never hugely impressed with WLC, but he has effectively destroyed his credibility there. I'll bet he's a RE'er as well.

Probably. What a loser.

According to the link, WLC has won more debates than he has lost.  But that is mainly because he is a very good at what he does.

According to the link, WLC has won more debates than he has lost.  But that is mainly because he is a very good at what he does.

Winning a debate means that one is good at debating, not correct.

Quote from: Marcus Aurelius on February 20, 2011, 07:53:15 PM

According to the link, WLC has won more debates than he has lost.  But that is mainly because he is a very good at what he does.

Winning a debate means that one is good at debating, not correct.

It's really all about whether or not you convince your audience, and stump your opponent.  His arguments are crap, but if his opponent is not prepared to counter them properly it really does not matter.

Quote from: Tausami on February 20, 2011, 08:33:15 PM

Quote from: Marcus Aurelius on February 20, 2011, 07:53:15 PM

According to the link, WLC has won more debates than he has lost.  But that is mainly because he is a very good at what he does.

Winning a debate means that one is good at debating, not correct.

It's really all about whether or not you convince your audience, and stump your opponent.  His arguments are crap, but if his opponent is not prepared to counter them properly it really does not matter.

religious people have mayor headway in debates, as they don't have to explain anythin while the opponent has to explain everything from the forming of the universe to evolution to abiogenesis. Plus the religious person can just say "but that's what faith is" and because most people going to religious debates are also religious that will be a win in the debate

Ya, it is a fallacious technique to tell someone in a debate have to explain something like abiogenesis in its entirety because if they refuse, they come off as having a weak position, and if they accept and explain it all, they appear long winded.

It is like asking a loaded question.

"Have you stopped supporting necrophilia yet?

No, I haven't. 

Oh, wait, that wasn't...?  Oops.

Ya, it is a fallacious technique to tell someone in a debate have to explain something like abiogenesis in its entirety because if they refuse, they come off as having a weak position, and if they accept and explain it all, they appear long winded.

It is like asking a loaded question.

"Have you stopped supporting necrophilia yet?

my teacher's example when I was learning about fallacies was "have you stopped beating your wife?"

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on February 20, 2011, 11:40:23 PM

Ya, it is a fallacious technique to tell someone in a debate have to explain something like abiogenesis in its entirety because if they refuse, they come off as having a weak position, and if they accept and explain it all, they appear long winded.

It is like asking a loaded question.

"Have you stopped supporting necrophilia yet?

my teacher's example when I was learning about fallacies was "have you stopped beating your wife?"

Riveting.

Quote from: stume on February 21, 2011, 12:46:47 AM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on February 20, 2011, 11:40:23 PM

Ya, it is a fallacious technique to tell someone in a debate have to explain something like abiogenesis in its entirety because if they refuse, they come off as having a weak position, and if they accept and explain it all, they appear long winded.

It is like asking a loaded question.

"Have you stopped supporting necrophilia yet?

my teacher's example when I was learning about fallacies was "have you stopped beating your wife?"

Riveting.

That's the one most people use.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on February 21, 2011, 06:19:30 AM

Quote from: stume on February 21, 2011, 12:46:47 AM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on February 20, 2011, 11:40:23 PM

Ya, it is a fallacious technique to tell someone in a debate have to explain something like abiogenesis in its entirety because if they refuse, they come off as having a weak position, and if they accept and explain it all, they appear long winded.

It is like asking a loaded question.

"Have you stopped supporting necrophilia yet?

my teacher's example when I was learning about fallacies was "have you stopped beating your wife?"

Riveting.

That's the one most people use.

Really? I have yet to hear someone say that in a debate.

Quote from: Weegee Board on February 21, 2011, 09:24:56 AM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on February 21, 2011, 06:19:30 AM

Quote from: stume on February 21, 2011, 12:46:47 AM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on February 20, 2011, 11:40:23 PM

Ya, it is a fallacious technique to tell someone in a debate have to explain something like abiogenesis in its entirety because if they refuse, they come off as having a weak position, and if they accept and explain it all, they appear long winded.

It is like asking a loaded question.

"Have you stopped supporting necrophilia yet?

my teacher's example when I was learning about fallacies was "have you stopped beating your wife?"

Riveting.

That's the one most people use.

Really? I have yet to hear someone say that in a debate.

Can't tell if you're being sarcastic.