R&P Reading Group - Book 1: Time and Eternity

[Meatros]

Alright, first, my apologies for dragging my feet on this. This reading group idea was first brought up here and the first book on the list is William Lane Craig's "Time and Eternity".

Dr. Craig is known for his use of the Kalam Cosmological Argument in his debates and is widely known in philosophy for being one of the leading figures advocating for the A theory of time. This book is not focused on the KCA, instead it is focused on Craig's view of time.

It is necessary to understand his perception of time since prior to committing to or against the KCA, one needs to understand the temporal metaphysics that under-gird the KCA.

This thread is meant to discuss the book as the participants read it. I would ask that there be no ad-homs and that we stay focused on discussing the book. The 'assignment' for this week will be to get a copy and start reading.

[lasher]

In.

[Adrogeus]

IN

[BFast55]

Motherfukker how hasn't the idea of a reading group in the R/P come up until now?

In.

[SheHadMANHands]

Interested.

I'd recommend being very methodical to get more people interested and motivated. You should set intervals for completing and discussing each book. Say 2 weeks per book, depending on length, etc (for busy folk, etc). Maybe list upcoming books for vote, with independent thread w poll?

[SheHadMANHands]

Maybe something like:

Current Book:
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX - Completion Date: 07/25 (Running discussion in thread)

Next Book (Up for vote):
Option 1 [Link to Poll]
Option 2 [Link to Poll]
Option 3 [Link to Poll]

Could also have rotating list of individuals who provide 3/5 options for upcoming book, ranging across few topics. This way everyone can present books of their general interests to be polled and selected for a reading interval.

Just brainstorming.......!

[lucious]

zoot! the library doesnt have a copy?

i can haz pdf please?


i recommend book two be the conscious mind. this should be essential for both atheists and theists.

[IAmBatman]

Interested.

I'd recommend being very methodical to get more people interested and motivated. You should set intervals for completing and discussing each book. Say 2 weeks per book, depending on length, etc (for busy folk, etc). Maybe list upcoming books for vote, with independent thread w poll?

Agreed.

Although I doubt I will be able to participate until the beginning of August it is definitely something I will get in on when the book appeals to me.

[lasher]

lucious, you should probably delete that comment, thread will get closed.

But feel free to PM me regarding the book.

[lucious]

lucious, you should probably delete that comment, thread will get closed.

But feel free to PM me regarding the book.

k if you think its the best idea. delete this comment too, erase all evidence.

I've found completely legal pdfs of entire books online before, not thru p2p tho.

[lasher]

Anyone itt can PM me regarding book. I'd advise against mentioning torrents and such about it. Mods gonna mod.

[lasher]

I second the conscious mind for book 2.

Too many people saying good things about it.

[Rune]

there's not a thing online, my googlefu returned nothing except for a bunch of audio files of a course WLC taught on the subject(http://archive.org/details/WilliamLa...dEternityClass), I got about 2 mins in before cringing began.

that said, can't find a damn thing at the public library, might be something through the University but I'll have to steal my gf's ID to check that... I'm not sure I'm willing to drop 9.99 when I could put it towards a book I'd be more likely to read more than once. (yes, I am that cheap lulz)

[lucious]

nevermind i was able to order it with the unis BONUS system, it needs to be flown in from the other side of the country tho. might be a week or so before i can read it.

[SheHadMANHands]

there's not a thing online, my googlefu returned nothing except for a bunch of audio files of a course WLC taught on the subject(http://archive.org/details/WilliamLa...dEternityClass), I got about 2 mins in before cringing began.

that said, can't find a damn thing at the public library, might be something through the University but I'll have to steal my gf's ID to check that... I'm not sure I'm willing to drop 9.99 when I could put it towards a book I'd be more likely to read more than once. (yes, I am that cheap lulz)

Anyone itt can PM me regarding book. I'd advise against mentioning torrents and such about it. Mods gonna mod.

^^^ . Many people like a physical book in their hands of course.

[Meatros]

^^^ . Many people like a physical book in their hands of course.

Physical...book...

... They still make those?

;-p

[MrRIP]

Was just wondering what happened to the reading group

[Jpenn89]

Im in. I'll look it up when I get home. I also have suggestions for the next book. I think 2 weeks to read, a week to discuss and vote... Then onto the next book works.

[209vaughn]

But but but he's a creationist with fallacies!!!


In all srs, I am book marking this thread to follow as an observor. Just have other priorities right now and I'm reading back and forth between Signature in the Cell and the ground breaking classic, St. Paul the Traveler and Roman Citizen by Sir William Ramsay.

[lucious]

But but but he's a creationist with fallacies!!!


In all srs, I am book marking this thread to follow as an observor. Just have other priorities right now and I'm reading back and forth between Signature in the Cell and the ground breaking classic, St. Paul the Traveler and Roman Citizen by Sir William Ramsay.

isnt wlc a theistic evolutionist?

[lasher]

isnt wlc a theistic evolutionist?

yes

with some nuance ...

"Q2) As an anthropological dualist who thinks that human beings are body/soul composites, I think that a hominid animal, however advanced, which lacks a human soul is not a human being. So it really doesn’t matter whether or not there was a sharp dividing line biologically between pre-human hominids and human beings. In any case, anthropologists to my knowledge have not been able to come to any sort of consensus on the tree of human ancestry, so that all the hominids you mention may simply be dead ends on the tree of primate evolution which never led to man. Were Neanderthals truly human? God knows! I don’t need to know exactly when humans emerged in the evolutionary process in order to maintain that in God’s providence a first human being did arrive on the scene. So while your question poses an intriguing puzzle, I don’t see that a theist needs to be able to answer it in order for theism to be rational to hold. Indeed, the existence of so improbable a biological organism as man is perhaps itself evidence that the evolutionary process, if it led to human beings, is under the supervision of a provident Designer."

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/evolu...#ixzz209pcJrgk

[209vaughn]

isnt wlc a theistic evolutionist?

He's pretty agnostic (his words) on the exact details regarding creation... I think he sees some truth in both theistic evolution and day age creation like the RTB creation model put forth by the Christian think tank Reasons to Believe which is led by Dr. Hugh Ross.

IMO Dr. Hugh Ross is the best damn Christian thinker out there right now... He freaking tore apart Louis Wulpert (spelling?) in a debate last month like i've never see an atheist get torn up this bad... And I'm saying that with bias aside as much as I can.

There are a lot of Christian thinkers out there who get more hype than Ross, but he's definitley my favorite.

[Meatros]

Okay, I'm thinking that SHMH's idea is a good one, but let's hold off a bit and see how this works out. I'm thinking this week everyone gets the book and then let's say by 7/31, we all have it read. We can discuss it throughout the weeks.

That said, maybe on 7/25 (ish) we vote on the next book, to start (with a new thread) on 8/1. I think a book a month is a reasonable pace, since we all probably have other commitments going on (I'm in a 'ancient christian text' reading group, for instance).

I like the suggestion below, which as I said, instead of completion, we have the vote that week and then by Friday (or Sat, whatever) we have the next book decided on.

Maybe something like:

Current Book:
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX - Completion Date: 07/25 (Running discussion in thread)

Next Book (Up for vote):
Option 1 [Link to Poll]
Option 2 [Link to Poll]
Option 3 [Link to Poll]

Could also have rotating list of individuals who provide 3/5 options for upcoming book, ranging across few topics. This way everyone can present books of their general interests to be polled and selected for a reading interval.

Just brainstorming.......!

[Meatros]

with some nuance ...

I feel like, when discussing Craig, this statement has to be preface *EVERY* position he has... :-)

Does Craig accept Jesus?

Yes, with some nuance...

Does Craig believe the Gospels are historical?

Yes, with some nuance...

Does Craig believe in bathing?

Yes, with some nuance...


:-D

Of course, that criticism could be leveled towards any philosopher, so it's not really just Craig.

[209vaughn]

yes

with some nuance ...

"Q2) As an anthropological dualist who thinks that human beings are body/soul composites, I think that a hominid animal, however advanced, which lacks a human soul is not a human being. So it really doesn’t matter whether or not there was a sharp dividing line biologically between pre-human hominids and human beings. In any case, anthropologists to my knowledge have not been able to come to any sort of consensus on the tree of human ancestry, so that all the hominids you mention may simply be dead ends on the tree of primate evolution which never led to man. Were Neanderthals truly human? God knows! I don’t need to know exactly when humans emerged in the evolutionary process in order to maintain that in God’s providence a first human being did arrive on the scene. So while your question poses an intriguing puzzle, I don’t see that a theist needs to be able to answer it in order for theism to be rational to hold. Indeed, the existence of so improbable a biological organism as man is perhaps itself evidence that the evolutionary process, if it led to human beings, is under the supervision of a provident Designer."

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/evolu...#ixzz209pcJrgk

I would disagree, he plainley say's that he's agnostic on the issue and finds truths in both day age creation models and some sort of theistic evolution. I think he would disagree with a lot of what BioLogos would affirm, so in that sense he's not really a traditional theistic evolutionist.

He's hard to pin down, much like myself. He affirms a lot of theistic evolution creation, ID and day age creation ideas... I guess he sees truth in all of those and takes a open minded skeptical approach to the subject.

He has put out opinions on ways you CAN be a theistic evolutionist, arguing that evolution is still telological in nature and not at all random... But he's not solidly in the theistic creation camp - in the sense a Dr. Francis Collins is.

[Meatros]

IMO Dr. Hugh Ross is the best damn Christian thinker out there right now... He freaking tore apart Louis Wulpert (spelling?) in a debate last month like i've never see an atheist get torn up this bad... And I'm saying that with bias aside as much as I can.

Was that on Unbelievable? If so, I listened to a majority of it. I've heard Wolpert on other things (other debates) and I just don't think he's all that good. I agree that Ross got the best of him (and obviously so), I'm not sure I'd say that he got torn apart the worst though (Barker got handled v Manata and Manata took on another atheist, his name escapes me, which was even worse).

[lasher]

I would disagree, he plainley say's that he's agnostic on the issue and finds truths in both day age creation models and some sort of theistic evolution. I think he would disagree with a lot of what BioLogos would affirm, so in that sense he's not really a traditional theistic evolutionist.

He's hard to pin down, much like myself. He affirms a lot of theistic evolution creation, ID and day age creation ideas... I guess he sees truth in all of those and takes a open minded skeptical approach to the subject.

He has put out opinions on ways you CAN be a theistic evolutionist, arguing that evolution is still telological in nature and not at all random... But he's not solidly in the theistic creation camp - in the sense a Dr. Francis Collins is.

Hmmm, I could have sworn he made some recent statements in a youtube video that led me to believe he had moved into the theistic evolution camp. But of course, I can't find it now.

[209vaughn]

Was that on Unbelievable? If so, I listened to a majority of it. I've heard Wolpert on other things (other debates) and I just don't think he's all that good. I agree that Ross got the best of him (and obviously so), I'm not sure I'd say that he got torn apart the worst though (Barker got handled v Manata and Manata took on another atheist, his name escapes me, which was even worse).

Ya it was on Unbelievable? by Justin Brieley... It was maybe that Wolpert was just past his years on these sorts of matters, but that debate left me personally grinning ear to ear. I was already a big support of Dr. Ross, listening to RTB podcasts, reading on the website, donating some money... Never listened to him in debate format and I was just truely happy that he did so well.

[209vaughn]

Hmmm, I could have sworn he made some recent statements in a youtube video that led me to believe he had moved into the theistic evolution camp. But of course, I can't find it now.

He affirms ways in which you can hold theistic evolution. But he himself says that he's more agnostic and sees truth in ID, theistic evolution, day age creation.

[lasher]

bump.