DOES GOD EXIST? William Lane Craig vs Antony Flew (HQ) 11/11

[urcorrect]

This is a poor question to debate because we haven't a good definition or evidence for 'god' (so the affirmative fails by default), and to disprove something that is undefined or that transcends our reality is impossible (so the opposition fails by default). Arguments to support either position must be fallacious. I'm glad Flew basically understood and declared as much, however I wish he had more thoroughly refuted Craig's kalamist, moral, and fine tune premises (idk why he gets away with them).

[gymcrackery]

I dont a crap about "presentation" I DID listen to what Flew said and it was absolutely lacking. I cant even count how many times he claims something is "impossible" and then gives no real reason why. "Its IMPOSSIBLE" to know this or assume that or anything!  He's not trying to PROVE God exists, he's trying to prove its the most logically founded assumption.

[TruthSeekingOne]

You can't deny Antony Flew as a very smart man, but I take the opinion that William Lane Craig won this debate hands down.

[HMSRedbeard]

The fact that we all must face the reality of death and whatever is on the other side makes these debates more than mere entertainment. I have a personal interest in knowing the truth as opposed to believing a convenient lie. I want to avoid at all cost the "uh-oh, I was wrong" on the other side! What was THE BEST answer presented in this debate to the question? I do not want to face death with Dr. Flew's unfounded assertions and suppositions. WLC wins the debate, but I fear for Dr.Flew.

[Stairc]

@HMSRedbeard If you like, I can explain the enormous fallacies in each and every one of Craig's points in this debate. Frankly, I'm amazed at how weak Flew was here. Craig is a convincing speaker but his arguments are almost laughably flawed on several levels. Any chain of reasoning falls apart when a single link of that chain is demonstrably flawed, but Craig's arguments sometimes have every SINGLE link in that chain flawed - like Kalaam cosmology. All three points are flawed.

[quranresponse]

@Stairc Quran:

(Surah-2-the cow-vs-186)

And when my servants ask you concerning me, then surely I am very near; I answer the prayer of suppliant when he calls on me, so they should answer my call and believe in me that they may walk in the right way.

[Stairc]

@quranresponse Right. Just keep posting parts of your book. I'm sure that mindless repetition and chanting of the same desert scribblings by people who didn't know what the stars were is the true path to learning about the universe. It's also the path to gaining self respect and the respect of others.

Sad thing is, in your community you probably think it is.

[VerseInfinitum]

@allan3121"Well I am far from sure this is correct." For your information, It is correct! We've personified every inspiration from astrology to theology. The Cause you're referring to was originally beyond humanity's understanding during ancient times of the Sky God. We've interpreted a prime mover or divine potential that evolved over time throughout various cultures worldwide. As we continue to observe and experiment, we will achieve a greater understanding of our origins more than ever.

[6thwing]

@VerseInfinitum For what basis do you call this "Sky God"? What rational person here would even acknowledge a sky god? And under what logical/personal reasons and explanations? None. You sir, base your argument on straw men.

God is not a Sky god. He is completely transcendent of Matter, Space, Energy, Time, and Natural Laws (all that the Universe is) because he is the cause of them. Atheists have yet to refute this point, other than repeat "There is no God!". It'd be funny if it wasn't so sad.

[VerseInfinitum]

@6thwing My argument based upon straw men? I originally learned about the Sky God from a New York Times bestseller book called "A History of God" by Karen Armstrong. Maybe if you read Chapter One then you'll learn and understand the basis of the Sky God. Father Wilhelm Schmidt wrote a book called "The Origin of the Idea of God, originally published in 1912 that suggested a primitive form of monotheism. Such a solitary deity was sometimes referred to as the Sky God!

[strigoi4321]

@derek24hudon,

You're a huge nerd.

[VerseInfinitum]

The toughest three words any human being including scholars to say is "I don't know" for which would make some appear dumb, irrelevant or even insignificant to the subject. Our lack of knowledge about the origins of the universe doesn't justify humanity's tendency to speculate and eventually create a cause and then personify it. With all the great scriptures of the world, none of them literally describe galactic formation or the Cosmic Web or the evolution of life on Earth science discovered.

[derek24hudson]

WLC has a video 'Dealing with Doubt'. How can there be any doubt if the idea of 'god' can be proven, as claimed. Methinks it's still FAITH, and all faiths are equal irrational.

[derek24hudson]

If one has to resort to so-called 'logical' arguments to show the existence of 'god' then one has already demonsrated the inadequacies of the case.

I would dearly LOVE to debate WLC, or to see him debate Matt Dillahunty, as he is one of the poorest defends of the theist position. (I hope he's not the BEST on offer!)

I have seen him referred to as a 'christian philosopher'. Is this possible? Surely the aim of philosophy is to ebquire about what can be known, and how' not to start with a view.

[Purushadasa]

It seems as though "dawkins" is familiar with this famous debate -- the reason he's afraid to debate Dr. Craig is that he thinks he'll lose faith in his atheistic belief system, as Flew did after exposure to Dr. Craig's air-tight logical and scientific facts.

atheist total fail

[ScreeminMeeme]

Hands down..WLC won the debate. TF refuted NONE of Craig's points. While Craig came prepared, organized, armed to the teeth to answer any argument, Flew made no reasoned argument against the existence of God. He was out witted, appeared to be flustered, incoherent and non-responsive to Craig's statements. While I always appreciate Craig's well-thought out and ordered approach to any debate, I thought my time listening to Dr. Flew flounder about was wasted.

[RadarKat73080]

WLC opened with the "basic rules of logic" and in his closing argument threw logic under the bus!

[Th1sWasATriumph]

Basic rules of logic/you can know God exists by experiencing him

Holy balls, etc. Awful.

[anguspure]

For God's sake Tony! I know you're better than this.

[kuyaedd]

how can atheist denied something exist

[masterplano]

Antony Flew is a believer now...

[dugw15]

Kinda...

He's a some kind of a theist. Because of the recent progress in our knowledge of complex and microscopic biological systems, he has changed to a belief in some kind of a theistic god, but he is certainly not a Christian... if that's what you meant by a "believer".

[rlybusy]

He is a deist. His deism does not, in any sense or stretch of the imagination, give support to theism of any kind. He has specifically stated he will not become a Christian.

[Birdieupon]

@rlybusy

"He has specifically stated he will not become a Christian."

Though he has also stated that Christianity is the most likely contender if theism is true.

And for all his life up to this point he's been saying he wouldn't believe in a God at all. We can never tell what happens next.

[allan3141]

@rlybusy deism is a type of theism, so I fail to understand this aspect of your first point and the distinction you appear to wish to make. Deism and Christianity are categories within theism. Please could you elaborate on your distinction? What is essential to theism to your mind?

[rlybusy]

@allan3141 In the broadest use of the term devoid of all specific consideration deism is a type of theism that's correct. But theism as properly defined requires a very strict ideological framework - one that functional deism typically rejects entirely. Merely saying "Well a deist believes in a God so they are theists," is a play on use of broad definitions, while ignoring details that help distinguish the two. Theists need miracles whereas deists reject a God who intervenes in human affairs.

[quranresponse]

@rlybusy Quran:

(Surah-4-the women-vs-17)

Repentance with Allah is only for those who do evil in ignorance, then turn (to Allah) soon, so these it is to whom Allah turns (mercifully), and Allah is ever knowing, wise.

18-and repentance is not for those who go on doing evil deeds, until when death comes to one of them, he says: surely now I repent; nor (for) those who die while they are unbelievers. These are they for whom we have prepared a painful chastisement.

[slartibartfats]

so?

[tomjagger0111]

not a patch on the original... the presence of an audience seems to turn philosophers into politicians : /

Flew was weak... but Craig was too, lets be honest..

[mussman717word]

No, Craig wasn't weak, he was just wasting time here, because he'd already won the debate.

[gunmogu]

Christianjr4 !!!

You did wonderful job.

Thank you very much.

[Dhalsim06]

If this was a boxing match, Craig won by knockout

[luisdstripper]

I've watched many videos of WLC's debates with Athiests and he always uses the same five points, you'll think that athiests would gotten smart by now and found a way to refute them. For every objection to his points he always has ,what seems to be, a logical answer. He is by far one of the best debaters I've seen.

[JusJuiceIt]

@luisdstripper

Exxxactly.. i couldn't agree more with your comment, you would think that atheist would, but they haven't, and you no why, because they simply can't... and i don't no if you heard but Dawkins has refused to debate Dr. Craig, and his excuse is "I don't debate Christian Philosophers" ... lol its like, are you serious.. i think in other words, he meant to say,"i dont wanna get raped like the rest of Dr. Craigs victims" lol

[Stairc]

@luisdstripper If you like, I can forward you to several videos where atheists DO refute these points in totality, or I can do it myself if you like. All of Craig's arguments hinge on vast fallacies that sound convincing but when picked apart are easy to dismantle.

[hanktoni]

haha wow this guy did a terrible job

[daronstayo]

you people don't listen to words, you just look and observe and care about hand movements and way of speaking, LISTEN TO THE WORDS.

[Christianjr4]

Great point!! I understand your feelings here and I agree with them. All too often, people get caught up on the rhetoric of the speaker, but not the arguments. But it's the arguments that really matter at the end of the day. Unfortunately, this is a problem for both Atheists and Theists, indeed everyone.

[ctmarxen]

@daronstayo Craig just absolutely destroys flew here

[struer22]

it is obvious craig won the debate. flew did very poorly.

[everthingallthetime]

Wow, one of the most one-sided debates I've ever seen.

[AshTreeMaiden]

85??? Oi, I wish they had gotten a younger guy to debate then. Even rooting for Craig, this was painful to watch.

[ErikDRamirezJr]

122,

Please forgive me for not answering your question sooner. I did not answer your question or respond to others, for tactical and defensive reasons.

I do hope that you, like the others, read the notice I left on my channel. Nevertheless, although I know that my answer will be to your dislikening, I truly confess that I am from the "theistic walk of life," as you would have me put it.

If that is all, good walk. If any more, please feel free to act.

-Erik D. Ramirez Jr.

[Aphex217Twin]

Antony was rambling on at one part of this debate like he was losing his mind, was funny. I know he's 85 years old. It's crazy how much people babble on in debates like this, and for such a long time and only a few points come out.

[togjuice]

"Antony was rambling on at one part of this debate like he was losing his mind, was funny". Hardly surprising, seeing as Antony Flew is suffering from dimentia and thus in a state of cognitive decline. Sad but true.

[ErikDRamirezJr]

I'm surprised that this was all Antony Flew had to say in defense of his position. It is safe to say that all of Antony's major arguments were refuted, without the fear of someone accusing me of being biased. It seemed that Dr. William Lane Craig was on another level as an apologist and debater. Overall, I had fun watching this debate in particular. Though, I must say, that it was certainly one-sided.

-Erik D. Ramirez Jr.

[Th1sWasATriumph]

If you'd be interested, I did a fairly comprehensive (and reasonably respectful) refutation of Craig's five points, if you'd be interested in seeing it? Each of his five "logical" arguments exhibit gaping flaws, though I'm sure other people have explored them before me.

Craig is on another level from people like Stein, Hovind and Comfort . . . but he certainly wasn't immune, in this debate at least, from logical fallacies, contradictions and misrepresentation.

[ErikDRamirezJr]

Th1sWasATriumph,

With all due respect, no thanks. There are just too many articles against Dr. William Lane Craig's arguments as you gave away in your comment, another one wouldn't be necessary. What strikes me as fascinating though, is the fact that most of Craig's critics really can't compete with him in debate format. I'm also not biased, when a theist losses a debate I wouldn't be afraid to say it, but this is certainly not the case with WLC's debates.

-Erik D. Ramirez Jr.

[Th1sWasATriumph]

Don't you think it's quite important that he opens with an appeal to logic and then quickly falls into illogical arguments, undermining himself to a large extent?

WLC is an excellent speaker, but that doesn't mean what he says is right. It also doesn't mean that written refutations are unnecessary. An argument is an argument, whether in person or not. I would say with some confidence that I destroyed his "proofs". Is such refutation unfitting purely because I wrote it down?

[ErikDRamirezJr]

ThsWasATriumph

I actually do think that it is impotant, but what I don't think, is that he fell into illogical arguments.

I am very sure you are confident that you dismantled his arguments, just as I know that Antony would probably say the same, what I find unnecessary though, is showing your written argument to me. I am not WLC, so how would I be successful in defending a postion well, when it's not even mine?

[meangreen4321]

@Th1sWasATriumph

Sure, send me a message and I'd be glad to read it.

[Th1sWasATriumph]

If you check my playlists you'll find one dedicated to tearing down WLC's opening statement; my arguments were lifted closely from the original thing I'd written.