Recent content by LachieM

Yeah he does I actually know him personally haha. It's a lot better debating these things over the internet though, I think. Doing so in real life (specifically if you're already friends with the person) just strains connections between people, I think. Haha that's great man. I loved year...

Because it's completely ignoring that a perfectly capable natural explanation already exists. I agree. I'm fairly sure that he says ID is the best explanation with specific reference to biological complexity. Again, I come back to the fact that evolution explains this perfectly without any...

Hey man sorry for the late reply I hadn't realised you had commented my page. Yeah it's definitely been an interesting discussion. Yep I'm at UOW, doing the same degree as pman actually. Enjoying year 12?

I am referring to Craig's critique of Dawkins and evolution, not his central arguments, although he doesn't hesitate to say ID>evolution. YouTube - Who Designed The Designer? a response to Dawkins' The God Delusion by Dr. William Lane Craig 1:35 with the pottery analogy. Almost identical to...

I'm extremely glad that you see what I mean here, although I would argue that the ways the future "can" or "could have" unfolded are just human-concieved hypotheticals, although this may be a different case from God's perspective, which I will expand on below. Okay I think I understand this...

Disregard or willfully misinterpret. I think the second of those is the more common. Whether or not the explanation accurately reflects the Christian God is not something I care to comment on.

Which is exactly why he fits it. The conception of the Christian God can be adapted to explain most of these things, and is, (see: every attempt at the Christian God being used to explain natural phenomena) as long as he stays omniscient, omnipotent and omni-benevolent. I think it's an...

It's ridiculous because it's putting God where he isn't needed. We have a perfectly capable, natural theory for life's physical intricacies, evolution, and proposing ID doesn't help anywhere. It's presumptuous because claiming support of ID in this area is equivalent to saying "I dont like the...

I see what you mean, although I would argue that a special exception to this would have to be made for God, merely because he not only knows reality but also created it, so this cyclical relationship can be sustained. Furthermore, an omniscient God, I would argue, hardly requirhave never used...

I hardly feel the need to attack ID; it's self-evidently presumptuous and ridiculous. Hardly something I would expect from a man who attacks the New Atheist movement for being "unsophisticated" and the product of "non-critical thinking". I haven't seen many of his arguments except for those...

I get the impression from some videos I have seen of him that this man supports intelligent design. Very unimpressive.

Thanks very much for this I am reading through it now. :party: EDIT: Okay I have read through it now. Am I correct in saying that it can be summed up as "God's observation of our free choices is what gives rise to his knowledge of these choices"?

So why would it be wrong to say that reality is derived from his knowledge instead of the other way around? Your argument on how his evidence must be derived from an external source, namely the universe itself, is excluding the fact that he made the universe and thus would know everything about...

The argument that God's knowledge, if derived from reality rather than the other way around, seems quite good to me. I'm not sure on the argument for God's knowledge being derived from reality, but if this is considered a base assumption it works extremely well, I think.

I'm glad we agree here. Most of this is an argument on semantics. I agree with what you mean by what "will" happen though. It's certainly a more suiting word and in hindsight I should have used that to avoid this confusion. I would also agree that the future "can" hypothetically go an...