Datasets:
nirajandhakal
/
Mahabharata-HHGTTG-Text

Dataset card Data Studio Files
xet
Community
1
text
stringlengths
0
3.65k
Dr. Craig: Not 80 years.
Dr. Atkins: But I can’t remember who buried my mother.
Moderator: Maybe there was no reason to memorialize that burial.
Dr. Craig: I think it’s important to understand that the New Testament critics who look at the New Testament are not as you say these biased believers desperate to believe in this. German New Testament criticism, which I have done my doctoral work in, is enormously skeptical and enormously influenced by the same anti-miraculous presuppositions that you evinced. And yet the majority of critics today have found themselves driven to accept the facts of the empty tomb, the appearance of Jesus, and the . . .
Dr. Atkins: There were 87,000 appearances of Elvis last year, weren’t there? Princess Diana is going to be the next person to be seen.
Dr. Craig: Now wait, but are you admitting though, now, that they did have these experiences of appearances, but that they were hallucinations?
Dr. Atkins: I can believe . . . there are two possibilities. One is that they were hallucinations, that they really so missed their leader that they were desperate to see him and they just invented this. The other is that it’s just a straightforward lie.
Moderator: Do you know of twelve people who are prepared to commit their lives to the apparition of Elvis even to the point of suffering hideous deaths? [38]
Dr. Atkins: I think that I (and I note your impartiality in this debate), I think that if I took twelve simple fishermen wandering around the banks of Lake Galilee, I think that they would look for something that they could devote their lives to.
Moderator: Simple like Paul? He wasn’t one of the twelve, but . . . Okay, let me pick on you, Dr. Craig.
Dr. Atkins: That's better. About time too, with a real question.
Moderator: Why, if everything you say is correct, doesn’t the implicit logic of what you say totally command the academic community? Why is there so much skepticism if what you say is, to use his words, so “manifestly correct”?
Dr. Craig: I never said it was manifestly correct. I think you can argue about any of these points, but I think that on balance the premises are more plausible than their negations. Take the first argument that I gave. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist, therefore the universe has a cause. It seems to be me that only a presuppositional antipathy toward theism would cause someone to reject those premises.
Moderator: This strikes you as extremely clear. Why doesn’t it strike other people as extremely clear?
Dr. Craig: Well, as I said, I think some folks have an antipathy toward theism. Like Dr. Atkins.It is so evident that he’s got his mind made up when he said what are the possibilities for explaining these resurrection appearances? The possibilities were lying or hallucinating. There wasn’t even a possibility that they were telling the truth, that God really had done this. In other words, it’s ruled out in advance.
Dr. Atkins: Well, I think it’s so unlikely that anything like that could happen that you have to look at the simpler explanations first. Go for the simpler explanations. Only if the simpler explanation fails and is explicitly shown to fail go to the more complicated one.
Dr. Craig: I agree, I agree entirely with that.
Dr. Atkins: And the breakdown of the laws of nature by the intrusion of the finger of God is not a simple way of proceeding.
Dr. Craig: You’re misusing the criterion of simplicity. That’s not what simplicity means. It means don’t multiply causes beyond necessity. And in this case the hypothesis that these men were lying or were hallucinating is simply implausible given their willingness to die for their beliefs which shows sincerity, and given the un-Jewish nature of the belief which they came to hold which couldn’t have been the product of their own imaginations.
Dr. Atkins: People go for a living death by throwing themselves into nunneries and into to monasteries.
Dr. Craig: But they believe that it’s true.
Dr. Atkins: They believe that it’s true but they’re wasting their lives because of it.
Dr. Craig: But the point is that they really sincerely believe it, they’re not lying, and that was the point that was being made here before.
Dr. Atkins: So these twelve fishermen also believed it.
Dr. Craig: Okay, so you’re going to admit they weren’t lying.
Dr. Atkins: I can accept that if it is true then it is possible that they were not lying. But these were simple-minded people, and they were surrounded by miraculous events said to be going on. Maybe they just wanted to join in for the notoriety of being involved in amazing events. People who were bored. There wasn’t much to do in Palestine at that time.
Dr. Craig: So they invented the resurrection of Jesus and endangered their lives because they were bored?
Dr. Atkins: A committee invented it 70 or 80 years after the event.
Dr. Craig: Well that’s impossible because we have information from Paul’s letters that date within five years after the crucifixion of this belief in 1 Corinthians 15:3, so it’s impossible to talk about 70 years later. This belief flourished within a few years.
Dr. Atkins: But you don’t deny that the Gospels were tampered with?
Dr. Craig: I do deny that, of course. We have the Gospels. I took Greek so that I could read them in the original text. And the original text is reconstructed to within 99%...
Dr. Atkins: What was the word you used?
Dr. Craig: The original text.
Dr. Atkins: They were reconstructed?
Dr. Craig: Yes, textual criticism.
Dr. Atkins: They’re not reliable.
Dr. Craig: Are you suggesting that the text of the New Testament that we have today does not faithfully represent the Greek text as it was originally written?
Dr. Atkins: I’m claiming that the Gospels are not a correct representation of what happened 70 or 80 years before they were written.
Dr. Craig: 70 or 80 years before they were written would be . . .
Dr. Atkins: When was the first Gospel written? [39]
Dr. Craig: Generally it would be said around AD70. I think earlier.
Dr. Atkins: Indeed, that’s what I mean, 70 or 80 years.
Dr. Craig: Okay, but that would be after the birth of Christ. Jesus died in AD 30.
Moderator: We only have five minutes, which is all the time we can give to the New Testament. Let’s find out about this poison business. I thought that was extremely interesting.
Dr. Atkins: I don’t remember writing that.
Dr. Craig: I have it in my briefcase.
Moderator: Did Dr. Craig misrepresent you, when he said that in your treatment of poison you don’t distinguish the administration of poison from simply the event of the end of life?
Dr. Atkins: I honestly don’t remember writing this, but if you say I wrote it…
Dr. Craig: Yes, I have it in my briefcase.
Dr. Atkins: Maybe I was hallucinating at the time when I wrote it.
Dr. Craig: Well, I think the point was that whether a person dies because someone’s administered poison to him or because the body just forms its own poison because it’s ill and dies, that you said there’s no moral distinction. But that’s clearly transgressing the bounds of science. Science could prove that there . . .
Dr. Atkins: That’s nonsense!
Dr. Craig: But those are your words!
Dr. Atkins: Well, so you say, but I think they’re nonsense now.
Dr. Craig: Oh well, alright. I do, too.
Dr. Atkins: If this is what I wrote, then I think it’s nonsense. They’re obviously taken out of context.
Moderator: Have we concluded that one? Well, then let’s [inaudible] . . . and get on the question of whether . . . Defend this proposition Dr. Craig. You said that in order to believe in moral absolutes, you have to believe in God. Why is that true?
Dr. Craig: Well, we agree on this point, that if there is no God, then there are no objective moral values because moral values are just the sociobiological spinoff of cultural and biological evolution. But my argument is . . .
Moderator: Well, Kant of course, Immanuel Kant, argued that there is an autonomy of ethics, that a ratio summation can actually parse… . . .
Dr. Craig: Yes, though that’s not an issue that divides us here tonight, I think we should stick to . . .
Dr. Atkins:No, it’s really the origin of ethics and in my view it’s . . .
Dr. Craig: No, it’s not the origin though, Dr. Atkins, it’s their objectivity that’s in question. I could admit that this is how our beliefs originate, but then that’s the genetic fallacy againI. If you say because our beliefs originate in this way that therefore the beliefs are false, that’s simply a fallacious form of argumentation. I would say there’s no more reason to deny that there is an objective realm of moral values than the objective realm of physical objects. And any argument you could give me to be skeptical about the objectivity of moral values I could give a parallel argument why we should be skeptical about our sensory intuitions and doubt that there is an external world.
Dr. Atkins: But it comes back down to whether you will accept a simpler explanation, or whether you insist upon there being a more complex explanation. That’s all it comes down to.
Dr. Craig: You’re misusing the criterion.
Moderator: Management says we have to quit, sorry.
Dr. Atkins: It comes down to that at every stage of your argument.
Moderator: So we’ve figured out the rational reasons why Romeo fell for Juliet?
Dr. Atkins: Yes, I think you can begin to understand why one person might fall in love with another.
Moderator: Thank you very much. Now we’re going to hear some closing comments before the questions from the floor beginning with Dr. Craig for seven minutes and then Dr. Atkins for seven minutes.
Dr. Craig: In my closing statement I would like to draw together the threads of this debate and summarize the arguments that have been presented. The question facing us tonight was What was the evidence for and against the existence of God? And I think it’s been very evident in tonight’s debate that Dr. Atkins by his own admission has been unable to shoulder his share of the burden of proof in providing any argument, any evidence, against the existence of God. He’s only been able to argue that the God postulate is unnecessary or that my arguments do not prove God, but remember, as Professor Nielsen stated, the failure of an argument to prove a conclusion doesn’t show that that conclusion is false. So even if all my arguments fail, at best we’re left with agnosticism, and we’ve not heard any evidence tonight that God does not exist.
Now what about the arguments I gave that God does exist? Well, I think that these arguments still stand.
First, the argument from the origin of the universe. We saw that Dr. Atkins agrees that whatever begins to exist has a cause.
Secondly, the universe began to exist, he agrees. He doesn’t agree that the universe has a cause, however, because he doesn’t think that the universe exists. He thinks there is nothing, and I pointed out why this is fallacious. First of all, it is fallacious because even though you have a balance of positive and negative energy, that doesn’t mean that there is therefore no energy. [40] If you have a jar of electrons with negative charge, and a jar of positrons with positive charge and they exactly cancel out, does that therefore mean there is no energy? Well, obviously not; there is still something. Secondly, I quoted Christopher Isham to point out that even if there is no material cause of the origin of the universe, you still need to have a productive cause to bring the positive and negative energy into being, and he doesn’t deny the point. Thirdly I argued that if Dr. Atkins really is saying that nothing exists, then this is self-evidently absurd because I at least exist and that’s undeniable. If he backs off and says however, “No, there is something now,” then the argument comes into play that if there is something, that whatever begins to exist therefore has a cause. There must be a transcendent cause of the universe, and I argued that this cause must be timeless, changeless, immaterial, and personal. None of those arguments were ever attacked tonight. So I don’t think that Dr. Atkins has succeeded in proving that my arguments fail to show that God exists. On the contrary, all he’s offered is a self-contradictory alternative – metaphysical mumbo-jumbo about mathematical points coming into existence and bringing space and time into being – an account which simply cannot be true.
Secondly, what about the complex order in the universe? I argued, number one, that the fine tuning of the initial conditions is due to either law, chance, or design. Secondly I argued that it’s not due to law or chance. I pointed out that his reasoning to try to show it could be by chance was simply based upon an incorrect analogy concerning the lottery. He didn’t deny the point. I gave four reasons why the God hypothesis is superior to the many worlds hypothesis. He didn’t offer any refutation of any of those. And finally I argued that there is no Theory of Everything that would show that in addition to natural laws that these initial conditions and quantities are physically necessary. So that the design hypothesis is really the only explanation that seems to be tenable. There is an intelligent designer of the world.
Thirdly I argued that the presence of objective moral values points to God. We agreed that if God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist. But I argued secondly that it’s evident that there are objective moral values. Remember John Healey’s statement about torture. Government-sanctioned murder. What the Nazis did in the holocaust. Ethnic cleansing in Bosnia. The killing fields of Cambodia. It seems to me that it is evident that there is really right and wrong. And if that is true and if you agree with that point with me tonight, then you will agree with me that therefore God exists.
Fourth, as to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, Dr. Atkins simply said that we shouldn’t believe the messenger; we should always disbelieve the messenger rather than believe the miracle. It seems to me that this is simply an incorrect and fallacious argument. The hypothesis that God raised Jesus from the dead is not improbable. What is improbable is that Jesus rose naturally from the dead. And I would agree with him that any hypothesis is more probable than that; conspiracy, illusion, lying; anything is more probable than that the cells of Jesus’ body all spontaneously came back to life again. But that’s not the hypothesis. The hypothesis is that God raised Jesus from the dead, and I don’t think he’s shown that that is improbable. Indeed, given the specific evidence agreed to by the majority of New Testament historians, I think that it is quite probable that in fact Jesus rose from the dead. R. T. France, who was a New Testament scholar at Oxford, makes the following point. He says, “Ancient historians, Greco-Roman historians, have sometimes commented that the degree of skepticism with which New Testament scholars approach their sources is far greater than would be thought justified in any other branch of ancient history.” [41] So that when you look at these New Testament historians, they are extremely skeptical about their sources, and yet they have been compelled to agree to the empty tomb, the resurrection appearances, and the origin of the disciples’ faith, and I know of no plausible naturalistic explanations for those facts.
Finally number five, the immediate experience of God. Dr. Atkins says, Well this is just a self-delusion. Well, I invite him to prove this. Will he appeal to Freudian psychology? This is clearly jaded and out of date. What will he do to prove that it is delusory? Until he can give me some reason to think God doesn’t exist, why should I think my experience of God is delusory?
In fact, I myself wasn’t raised in a church-going home or in a Christian family. [42] But as a teenager I began to ask the big questions in life, about the meaning of my existence, the purpose of life. And in the search for answers I began to read the New Testament. And as I did I was captivated by the person of Jesus of Nazareth. There was an authenticity about this man, a ring of truth about what he said, that gripped and captivated me. And to make a long story short, after about six months of the most intense soul-searching, I just came to the end of my rope and I cried out to God. I experienced a sort of spiritual rebirth in my life, and God became an immediate reality to me. A reality which has never left me as I’ve walked with him day by day over the last 30 years. I want to encourage you as I conclude tonight, that if you’re seeking for God in that same way, you do the same thing I did. Pick up the New Testament, begin to read it and ask yourself, “Could this really be true?” I believe it could change your life just as it changed mine.
Rebuttal - Dr. Atkins
Dr. Atkins: Well, I’m used to hearing travesties of the arguments that I’ve presented and that was I think a pretty fair travesty of what I actually said. Let me take the points in order, and I will accept Dr. Craig’s order just for the sake of convenience.
The origin of the universe. I do not believe that one can extend the concept of causality to an era prior to the existence of time. It is simply primitively naive to talk about causality outside the domain of time. So, I will not accept that the universe had to be caused. It’s entirely different mode of coming into operation which we scientists do not yet know, but which we will find out, and we are on the track of it.
I think the question of complex order; it was also a travesty of my argument about probabilities. If something can happen then it may happen. If something can happen only with very remote possibility then it is possible that if the universe is replicated. And I’m not talking about parallel universes, this is quite a wrong ascription to my argument. I’m talking about the possibilities of many universes actually existing, each of them with a particular mixture of fundamental constants. And it is also wrong to assert that this is outside the domain of physics. If one looks at modern cosmology, modern theories of cosmogenesis, and in particular inflation theory and in particular the possibility of fractal inflation theories, then it is exactly that kind of multiple universe which is being seen as a possibility of occurring at the beginning of everything that we call the current universe. So science is showing that that kind of multiple universe can come into existence, and indeed at this very instant there may be universes coming into existence. It is impossible and improper to deny the power of what science is revealing, even though science may be revealing extraordinary things, on the basis of homespun philosophies and familiarity with what goes on in one’s backyard. Science is exposing a much more subtle basis to the universe than can be dreamt up in the farmyard.
I don’t believe - words have been put into my mouth - that I am destroying the value of meaning of life. I deny that absolutely. I think that if one divests oneself of all the baggage that one has been brought up with and sees the world with the utter clarity that science provides and knowing that one has a brain, that if one is only prepared to use it, can lead to a comprehension of the world. That is an extraordinary achievement, and I can do that without any help from God.
My central point then - my central point - is that it is up to believers to prove, and to prove explicitly, that my bony view of the world (bony in the sense that it’s very simple, starkly simple) is an inadequate theory of all there is. [43]
Before you can move on to the stage where you say, “Ah, it must be God who did it! Ah, it must be God who caused it! Ah, it must be God who gives us morals! Ah it must be God who got Jesus out of the tomb!”, what you have to do is to prove beyond any doubt that the simple view, that all this can happen through the agency of physical law, you have to prove that that is inadequate. I have not heard that tonight. All I have heard is the assertion that God is there doing it. And I think that that is a dereliction of the power of human comprehension, and an abnegation of the human intellect.
I think we ought to give praise not to the Lord, thank goodness, but praise to ourselves that over the centuries, and particularly the last 300 years as we’ve brought scientific observation, mathematical rigor to bear on our analysis of events in the world, that we have got within an inch or two of understanding the great problems that have puzzled people through the ages.
I am proud to be alive at this part of the 20th century where I am on the brink of understanding everything, and I commend you to use your brains because your brains are the most wonderful instruments in the universe. And through your brains you will see that you can do without God. Thank you.
Dr. Atkins:
Moderated Dialogue - Q&A
Moderator: Ladies and gentlemen, we’re now going to have questions from the floor. So let’s have a question for Dr. Craig. Who would like to ask Dr. Craig . . . yes sir?
Question: You mentioned in your opening speech about the importance of miracles in Jesus’ ministry, and apparently you did so to demonstrate his need to give an evidentiary proof of his divinity beyond the laws of nature, otherwise why would he perform miracles? If our entire salvation is dependent upon accepting Jesus, why does God act in such a hidden fashion today? Why not 2,000 years later give us miracles? Part a few oceans, fire and brimstone a few cities, maybe a few flaming chariots. If we needed 2,000 years ago supernatural evidence to believe supernatural things, why is God so stingy today in denying us that same supernatural evidence considering that so much rides upon it?
Dr. Craig: Well I would agree with the French philosopher and mathematician Blaise Pascal when he said that God has given evidence sufficient for those with an open mind and an open heart, but it’s sufficiently vague so as not to compel those whose hearts are closed. [44] Certainly God could write in sky-writing across the sky, “I exist, repent or perish,” something of that sort; or on every atom he could write, “Created by God.” But I don’t think that God’s under any sort of obligation to offer these kinds of coercive evidences. I think that the evidences he has given are sufficient for someone who’s willing to look at them with an open mind and an open heart.
And I would add this other point too. Although I haven’t talked about this very much tonight, I think that the primary way in which we know God exists is not through these evidences, but it is through this immediate experience of God himself, the fifth point that I talked about. For those who are genuinely seeking God, I believe God will make his existence evident to them. So there is a sort of interior way to God in addition to these exterior proofs.
Moderator: Do you want to comment on that, Dr. Atkins?
Dr. Atkins: Yes, but that’s exactly my point, that people are desperate to see the truth of miracles. They stand back and they do not apply the normal laws of logic and evidence. They simply want to believe and therefore they will believe anything.