Circular reasoning aside when it comes to biblical truth or intuitive understanding, this is the one argument where Craig almost had me convinced after seeing his 1.5hour lecture...so, so, so glad stumbled onto this vid as well.
Well TBS, you should avoid following Craig into his illogical "snakepit".
His argument is a nonstarter since it relies on temporal presuppositions (which Quentin Smith is also pointing out in the article).
Even if Craig could manage to define causation in atemporal terms, he would still have to explain what it means to atemporarily "begin to exist" or what it means to have "atemporal" intentional states that are causally effective.
You'll probably never read this comment, but whether Craig admits it or not, you've beaten him.
The fact that he blatantly avoids and distorts your argument, shows that he clearly has no response and is instead trying to make you seem like an uneducated idiot - which is clearly not the case.
You mentioned that Craig has not linked your argument or made it accessible in any way from his response to it. This just shows cowardice, as he obviously doesn't want people to see his own idiocy.
@nasher931 This channel has been inactive for the better part of 5 months... including uploader comments, so it'd be reasonable to assume that it's either abandoned or not going to be checked any time soon. William Lane Craig (who has a channel right here on youtube: drcraigvideos) IS a coward, that's why he did not attempt any communication on any of the videos here from his channel, because it would open him to attack. On the contrary he sits in the shadows reporting atheist videos.
Some folks simply enjoy argument for the sake of argument, to the point that if and when their point is ultimately proven and the opposition is persuaded to agree, they immediately seek out a new argument for the sake of argument. The debate between Christian and Atheist will continue as long as either party draws breath. I say let the ignorant be ignorant and the enlightened be enlightened. I understand your love for the debate but be aware, there is no winner here and never will be.
its ironic that you got a better education than craig when he paid tens of thousands for his. any real learning stops when you become an apologetic in that you have learned to not learn, only to cherry pick info to support your own presuppositions.
Creatio Ex Materia is the obvious answer but Dr. Craig would have to admit that one on the elements in the Creatio Ex Materia argument is unnecessary - namely his imaginary friend.
TBS , it's amazing that you are so patient with this guy lane craig. Every time someone debunks his arguments , he goes crazy. TBS you should not change your 5 points in any way because those 5 points were sending lane craigs god right into the trash, and he knows that. Now he plays dead chicken games with you , he is just faking that he doesn't understand. That's the way he wiggles out of the strong arguments of his opponents . You should write a book about this guy , he deserves a big slap
@alecsharratt He is actually disingenuous, since, the argument is NOT about what he actually thinks. It is simply about winning, defending his belief.
Just watched "The God Debate II: Harris vs. Craig"--I recommend it. I've watched several theists argue against atheists. What's painfully obvious to me is that they spend half their time defining what they aren't arguing. As the debate goes on, that realm get's smaller and smaller. They twist language, pulling in pseudo-scientific terms into their point that their conclusions don't justify. One is calm and logical. The other is doing a tap dance.
here's where i think this argument would eventually break down. IF we found an instance of creatio ex nihilo that we couldn't find a cause for, atheists would say 'this is clearly a-causal' but theists would say 'this has a cause, and that cause is clearly god'. as for the rest of this whole saga, my opinion of craig has definitely decreased, you provide a clear argument and he seems to keep misinterpreting it, despite apparently having seen your video himself.
@khajiit92 for example, particle andti-particle pairs coming into existence in quantum mechanics. i know theists who would say god is constantly doing this (from the limited discussions and understanding i/ the person i was discussing with had about QM) for example. however i haven't studied QM enough to know what our current understanding of this is which is why i just put 'IF' in me earlier comment, instead of using the QM example explicitly.
"IF we found an instance of creatio ex nihilo that we couldn't find a cause for"
We can't even in principle find a cause. Imagine a magician pulling a rabbit out of his. If the rabbit literally appeared ex-nihilo, immediately after the magician shouts abra cadabra, we would still only be able to show correlation, not causation.
@DickJohnson3434 ah that's true, which just makes me think the whole question is one that we'll never be able to conclusively answer for ourselves. i don't like that there seem to be fundamentally unanswerable questions, but it seems it's true :(
It's a shame that Dr. Craig doesn't tread anyone without a (Dr.) or a academic title before their names with respect. He should be open to debating any critique as long as it is substantive, which TS's clearly is. I lost respect for Dawkins when he ducked a debate with Craig, only much much later contriving a new excuse not to debate him (the genocide-advocating apologist issue mentioned in the top comment). But he's avoiding someone who's logical acumen is refined. Again, what a shame.
ie. not just interactions between nerves and synapses in the brain. So yes, to a theist, human beings at least clearly begin to exist wholly apart from the rearrangement of pre-existing material.
'Sam Harris- Game, Set, Match' addresses this point quite succintly I think.
Here's why theists would not agree with the First Premise, I think.
From a purely scientific view, yes, nothing, including people, that we see in our everyday lives ever 'begins' existing - like TBS says, it's all just transformations of existing material.
Theists however, would say our 'souls' or 'minds' have a definite beginning, ie. when the sperm enters the egg, x number of weeks or months in the womb, etc., and this consciousness is of a different realm from that of the purely material,
its like if you have a bowl of pasta, you stir it up, then you call it a different thing and say it "began to exist". thats absurd. everything is simply rearranged material. we dont know of anything that actually "begins to exist". so kalam fails. its that simple. its absurd.
all the wlc fans, look. its not hard at all. look at a bowl of water swirling around, every new little ripple in the water didnt "begin to exist" its just the water changing. the universe is the universe, everything is part of the universe. the universe is one thing and the stuff in it is always moving. you dont point out at one part of the water and say that it began to exist, its still the water, its not a separate thing. the labels star, table, these "things", its for pragmatism.
If you know anyone who's been falsely DMCA'd by William Lane Craig collaborator John Leonard, otherwise known as drcraigvideos, please contact @thunderf00t.
Anybody who says WLC is "stupid" or "afraid" of their argument can't be taken seriously by reasonable people. You can be off the charts intelligent, but if that's your contention well...it's possible to be smart and totally unreasonable at the same time and that would be proof.
P.S. You can make your case without being so unnatural and arrogant. You appear to be acting and it seems insincere. Don't go all diatribe on me, just constructive criticism. Relax a bit and people will still take you seriously.
Maybe that's why Craig didn't respond to your liking, because it's a first cause argument that has been thoroughly debated. God is the metaphysical cause of the universe. You can't confine it to natural law like you seem to need. You either have infinite regression of first causes OR an unnatural first-first cause. Perhaps you disagree but that is an explanation regardless.
@Jblod240 and yet he can only speak from within the confines of the universe because he says "everything which begins to exist" and the universe is all we can possibly know to exist. and tbs' objection is that things dont begin to exist ex nihilo, only ex materia from what we know. further, i think he also contends that things dont "begin to exist" in the universe, which i agree with. so craigs argument fails on multiple levels. lastly, first cause argument is special pleading.
TBS - You don't do yourself any favours either, when you scorn anyone who dares to make a valid point by telling them to pay better attention (either that or you get one of your minions to do it for you). Their interpretation is obviously flawed by default, because they disagree with you; because they are "deluded Christians", right? You have built up a personality cult which allows you to spew your Bullshit without reprisal. I bet if you had an epiphany, your followers suddenly would, too!
@brevicaudate yet i bet you if you had paid attention, you would see why the objection wasnt valid. we know the universe exists, we dont know god exists, craigs argument attempts to make claims about the universe, not god. the claim about the universe having a cause in craigs argument, is based on things "beginning to exist" which simply isnt true (see my below comment) so the guy who tbs responded too wasnt making a valid objection, so to save time, tbs told him to rewatch and focus more.
Why why why do theists try to use the Big Bang and thermodynamics? The BBT states the universe expanded!!! Nothing to do with where matter came from. Scientists don't know yet where the singularity came from. Then they sling that into evolution some how and that into humans springing to life from a rock!! I can't bear the stupidity!
If you watch any of Craig's debate, he tends to quote mine almost every single point made by the other debaters and turn that whole thing into something else.
Man, you're intelligent & handsome but you won't stand a chance in defeating him in a debate until you get some kind of "professional arrogance" & "status" as in Dr William Lane Craig's debating persona. Good luck with that but really, I think you're smart enough to perceive the futility or vanity of this whole saga.
Craig, like all apologists, IS NOT CONCERNED with the truth. That's why atheists have the better argument, and always will. Atheists care about what is true, theists care about what will allow them to maintain their faith irregardless of what is true. Craig himself has stated this quite clearly, and that is why the man fails. For all of his "I am a philosopher" crap, he is a theist before he is anything, and as such, his arguments can be dismissed as easily as any other case of "God dun it!"
@TheTexanCanadian No , Atheists don't care for the truth , if they did they would be muslims by now ! Islam is the truth , logically and reasonably !
When you say that universe is not created , thats unreasonable and illogical nonsense ! Everything is created , but universe is not ! Do you have any proof that universe is not created ? we follow the logical way of everything around us and apply to universe , cos thats how we work ! You go from absurd to try and reason
@TheTexanCanadian When something is declared as true , is tested by the logic ! "You never said universe is not created" , so its created then ? which one is it ? I am aserting the logical aproach to it , until you prove its not created !
If a car is created and a building is created then I follow the same logical aproach to the universe until is proven wrong , this is the way things are done reasonably ! I have more reasonable to believe that is created than not created
@TheTexanCanadian My god is created by man , really ? Do you know the definnition of my God ? The most powerful, eternal , not born or die , unique ? By your logic , how can an eternal god be created by human ? Tell us ?
It more reasonable to believe that universe was created then not created , creation has bases , non creation has no bases , its absurd !
"By your logic , how can an eternal god be created by human ? Tell us ?"
The concept of an eternal god was created. And since no god can be demonstrated to exist outside the human mind (yours for example) then there is no reason to consider that god anything but a concept.
"non creation has no bases , its absurd ! "
I am not asserting non creation, you however are asserting creation by a specific deity who has never been demonstrated, with absolutely no valid reason to do so.
@TheTexanCanadian Ou , we don't know , yeah right ! If chances of created universe are high , Then the only reasonable God is the one of Islam , Most powerful , eternal, not born or die , unique ! Are you willing to gamble your hereafter ? The burden of proof is not on me cos is not me who will be punished , I have saved my self , keep waiting for some touchy and feely God , cos thats what you are expecting God to be ! If God can be touched and felt ,would he be god ? think
@TheTexanCanadian Ou , we don't know , yeah right ! If chances of created universe are high , Then the only reasonable God is the one of Islam , Most powerful , eternal, not born or die , unique ! Are you willing to gamble your hereafter ? The burden of proof is not on me cos is not me who will be punished , I have saved my self , keep waiting for some touchy and feely God , cos thats what you are expecting God to be ! If God can be touched and felt ,would he be god ? think
@FryderykFChopin Its true cos there is investigation which a logical person does , I was in your shoes but you werent on mine ! If you start reasoning you would know Islam is the truth ! Too lazy to study , or you don't want the truth cos it asks you to change yourself and you don't like to do that ! You prefer to lie to yourself for some time until death comes ! Majority of people know Islam is the truth but find exuses cos they cannot handle to change their actions and desires
@TheTexanCanadian You've hit the nail on the head. Craig basically has two stragegies: one is to refuse to accuratly state the position of his oponent to make it look foolish and the second is just to spit out as many arguments as he can out without explanation so in a timed debate the other side doesn't have time to debunk everything he says. To me it seems genuinly deciteful.
@TheTexanCanadian Wait, don't you find it naive that that could only apply to Christians? Don't you think atheists could care only about that which would allow them to maintain their faith (or lack thereof)? Of course they could, so that's how puerile this reasoning is.
So because someone is a theist he can be A PRIORI dismissed as worthless? Well, why shouldn't that apply to atheists as well?
It all comes down to what is true and what is not. Atheism is at its heart a search for truth above all else. That never needs apology, i.e. an apologist sort of function. Theism is the exact opposite, and thus needs much more tapdancing, which is why you see people with such shaky arguments based on faith instead of what is true. Enter... W.L. Craig.
@TheTexanCanadian Plus, because someone is an apologist of something, he does not care about the truth? That must apply to atheists who are, after all, APOLOGISTS of atheism.
You're right of course in pointing out that proponents of atheism are also apologists, but in that context, anyone who explains something (to include teachers and scientists) are also apologists. It is perfectly reasonable to assign the term "apologist" to someone who has to "apologize" for the flaws in what they are trying to sell.
@TheTexanCanadian I'm not personally an atheist, but I do believe some atheists are in quest for truth (I just happen to believe they are wrong). But that doesn't mean all of them are. Likewise, you cannot say all theists are trying to reaffirm their beliefs without consideration of evidence (but I do believe some theists are wrong in their beliefs, actually).
I'm certainly not trying to say that all atheists are one thing or are another thing. Atheism in and of itself however does not need apologists. How that atheism is experienced and presented by individuals is another matter. Some atheists say that they know for a fact that there are no gods. I would say they do need to be apologists to explain that, but atheism itself requires no explanation or justification.
@TheTexanCanadian On the contrary, I believe belief in God requires no justification, because we cannot watch God as an exterior object as atheists do (as though one could point somewhere and say "he's not there"), for we're in the cosmos and God CONTAINS the cosmos. And theism is certainly not dependant on faith, that's a confusion between the objective existence of God and the dogmas of a certain religion, which are then in turn solely dependant upon faith.
You are assigning actions, qualities and a general capacity of existence to a god but 1) haven't specified which god you call God and 2) do not give any justification for why such a god would exist.
The objective existence of "God" cannot be demonstrated, can only be accepted through faith. If you mean a deistic god which does not interact with the natural world, that's one thing, but any interaction with the natural is a real problem for any theistic god.
@cashernandes1 There are how many claims of god, most in conflict with other claims of god with nothing that supports any claim of god. Why doesn't the claim of god need justification? What objective basis of existence?
@MyContext Because when you say "gods", you mean created gods. Palpable entities that can be measured and observed as *exterior* objects. God is not that. God is not an exterior object that can be analised, because we are IN God. We can never look at God as a "flying teapot" for one fraction of a second. God contains the universe and goes beyond it, and that is what is called eternity. How do I know that? The sole fact that reality exists and we are in ens realissimum.
@cashernandes1 So, would you say that the ULINK (See Profile) is true? Since, it could be claimed, however, there is nothing that supports the claim just like all of the claims of god that I have heard thus far. So, if you are saying that we are within it, but have no way to know it, what would make your claim ANY different from any other unverifiable claim that could be claimed to be true?
@TheTexanCanadian If you wanna discuss this further, we could talk privitely, because I don't think these short Youtube discussions lead anyone anywhere.
On the contrary, the subject is very clear cut. One benefit of these short boxes of text is that it requires you to crystallize and simplify what you are trying to say into the "point" of what you are arguing. I'm having no trouble at all doing so.
@TheTexanCanadian On the contrary, many of them are. You simply laballed, much like Richard Dawkins himself in his "God Delusion", theists as tapdancers and that's it, you haven't given a reason for this. And this is simply not true and could very well apply to atheism (and to Richard Dawkins personally, who tapdanced all the way through his debate with John Lennox, for instance).
I really don't care for Dawkins' arguments. I think a much better role model is either Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett. As such, I only agree with about half of what he says, and the same went for Christopher Hitchens.
The reason theist apologists are tapdancers in every instance that I've seen, is that I've never seen a single theist that could successfully argue that theism is based on something other than faith, or even properly justify faith itself.
The reason why Dr. Craig has dismissed your arguments is because he's already addressed your issue with the 1st Law of Thermodynamics several times and so have many other philosophers.
Do a Search here on Youtube:
"Kalam Cosmological Argument, First Law of Thermodynamics, and Equivocation William Lane Craig"
Now quit bothering people about your stupid argument.
Ah, so Craig and other "philosophers" have been able to prove that the first law of thermodynamics is applicable at or before the current state of the universe.
Your argument is circular, man. In your first premise, you declare at the outset that there is NOTHING in existence that is capable of creatio ex nihilo (i.e., there is no god). But that's also your CONCLUSION. You base this idea on the 1st law of Thermodynamics but that law only applies to a universe that already EXISTS. If what you're saying is true, Big Bang Cosmology would have never gotten off the ground because the Big Bang theory is all about matter coming into existence.
@Autumn6 My argument is not based on Thermodynamics, nor is the conclusion assumed in the first premise. Please pay better attention, or don't comment.
@TheoreticalBullshit Does it need a genius to know that God exist , its very simple and easy for people who think ! Everything in this universe is connected logically , if you say that a car or a building is created and this seems logical , then why do you go on absurdity and say that universe is not ? everything is conected logically , why are you trying to break that logical chain ?
@TheoreticalBullshit This has nothing to do with this video or this comment. I needed an avenue to ask you a question about your conversation with theantihero420 if I may? I'm dieing to know how you're handling his "if you hate the fictional god you hate the real god" trap. I went to see what I could read on the site but nothing is there. (comments not allowed, ratings are shut off). It's strange.
@TheoreticalBullshit Giving Craig's arrogance & ignorance the benefit of the doubt; Could it be the case that Craig's perception of what defines "Existence" is different from the definition of "Existence" which is foundational to your argument? (btw, I'm not defending Craig) Most likely, Craig's definition of God's "Existence" is "spiritual", there for, non-existent in the physical sense. Where as you're coming from the understanding that all things which exist 'only' do so in "Physical" form??
"the Big Bang theory is all about matter coming into existence."
Perhaps you could clarify this statement with a citation? Because it is wrong. BBT does not purport "matter coming into existence." BBT purports an "expansion" of an pre - "existing" singularity. Nothing more.
@Autumn6 "because the Big Bang theory is all about matter coming into existence." No, it's about the expansion of the universe. The matter/energy was there already.
TB, I admire your restraint in responding to such a condescending strawman dismissal. Criag is an ass who has built a career on saying the exact same thing for twenty years. It may be a matter of professional survival in his part to ignore the vast number of leaks in his Kalam boat.
I hate that we must spend time debating people like Craig... the fact that he is regarded as a serious apologist is absurd. In every debate which I've seen him in - the rebuttals were at best... a bastardization of the source material presented; followed by either a direct or indirect insult to his opponents cognitive abilities.
He is nothing more than a man with an extensive vocabulary and a complete misunderstanding of logical thought. To put it bluntly... "his arguments ain't worth shit"
Scott... I feel bad that you have to deal with these types of apologists. Personally, I've lost my passion for the debate; mostly because my logical inquiries and statements always falls upon deaf ears and willfully ignorant minds.
@FeignofCordor Adhom isnt just an insult, thats called an insult, to qualify as an adhom attack you have to be falsely claiming that your insult proves your case.
For instance; If a fat kid cannot fit into a airplane seat and you say "he cant fit, hes too fat" - It may be insulting but its also true
If a fat kid can afford to buy an airplane seat and you say "he cant, hes too fat" that is an adhom
If a he can afford and fit into it and u say "He's fat" thats still not an adhom
WLC common tactic is to say how inferior his opponents are and then brings about bluff and bluster to cloud the issue, then changes what the person says to suit his argument and then provides a knock down argument for the newly brought forward strawman..... I really feel he is disingenuous and slimy !!!
The talk about "nothing" is funny since we already have knowledge that "nothing" has energy in it, it weighs something (E=mC^2). Thus there's no such thing as "nothing" in a sense we as humans are able to understand. And as universe expands, more "nothing" is created. It oozes into "existence" from quantum fluctuations of empty space. And with all that I give you a great lecture:
I maintain that the only way to explain Craig's behavior is that non-Christians are not his intereat, and that he never intends to persuade unbelievers.
I think you all give too much credit to Craig here. The impression I get is of a well-educated fool; a man who has learned to repeat certain terms almost parrot-fashion but without real understanding.
That educated fool you talk of has bested the best the Atheist world could bring to a debate. I find it interesting that many,many Atheists can do little more than hurl Ad hominem`s at him. Its quite pathetic
@FeignofCordor What I don't find interesting is that you do not know the facts of science or the fallacies Craig promotes. Your faith once again shows an abdication of thought.
@FeignofCordor What? Why would I rebut Craig's position here when TBS has done so in the video? My comment wasn't intended as an ad hominem, because I wasn't trying to use it as part of an argument. It was intended as an insult.
I could listen to you talk all day. Seriously. Even if I didn't agree with something you said, the way you say it makes it sound so fucking interesting.
Please marry me. We would make beautiful children. Hopefully they would get your vast worldly knowledge and intelligence.
The Bible doesn't actually teach creation ex-nihilo.
Genesis states that space, time, and energy already existed in the form of the 'Tehom' (usually translated as 'the deep') before 'God' decided to manufacture the Heavens and the Earth out of it. The Hebrew word usually translated as 'created' is more accurately translated as 'fashioned' or 'manufactured'. So, not even the Bible claims that 'God' can 'manufacture' something out of nothing.
How does Craig explain how immaterial eternal spaceless timeless beings bringing into existence a material world specifically without things such as time? I've never heard an answer to this question for their explanation as to how god created the universe in their eyes.
Craig is intellectually dishonest. Even if he studied rudimentary logic he would know that validity is not truth. You can have a valid argument and it can still be completely untrue. It is the structure of language and the validity in the premises and conclusions.
What Craig is, dishonestly, doing is trying to imply that because his argument may be logically structured and valid it therefore follows that it must also be true.
If he is aware of this, that makes Craig a complete LIAR!
I believe the mistake ur making, theoreticalbullshit, is u think Craig is trying to convince YOU of his argument. No, ur nothing more than a soundboard to him. He is aware that his argument will not convince intelligent individuals but it will most certainly snare the less intelligent. U give him his platform to call you names and then claim “inescapable truths”. So the layman sitting on the fence will think. ‘That sounds intelligent and it’s logical. So it must be true’.
Craig does well to create arguments from what little material he has. I have only today looked the exchanges between TBS and Craig. Mental gymnastic for plebes like myself.
It has lead me to draw a comparison between the religious and people who just don't buy it anymore. The raw material we have to create an understanding of the absurdity of religion is mountainous. Craig argues for a creator but put a religious context to his arguments and he struggles to create something from nothing.
Hehe, nice one WLC. The last quote essentially boils down to:
God exists, therefore our definition of causality is wrong.
That's a strange thing to say given that these are the exact same definitions WLC claims to prove the existence of God. That WLC's head hasn't yet imploded into debilitating insanity, simply amazes me.
@eyeammi I'm sorry "Dr" Craig, but there's a good reason as to why the universal hand gesture for insanity is to point at one's head with the index finger while motioning in a closed loop.
I understand why Craig might be a big host at Creationist events, but does that really make him worth the effort of even considering debating him? Not that many Creationists are, mind you, but this guy has somehow managed to build an aura of respect around himself that is, frankly, entirely undeserved. A shitty philosopher with no knowledge of science, whose credentials have had him stuck at Talbot School of Theology since 1996. This man is really no better than your average Kent Hovind.
@FeignofCordor Of course he's a Creationist. The fact that he's an Old-Earth Creationist doesn't make him any better than your average Kent Hovind. Secondly, you're assuming two things. One, that there's actually anything left to debate. There isn't. Two, that anyone who holds an opinion is automatically worth debating. Again, not the case. Craig is absolutely not worth debating. What does that make scientists? People who would rather work than indulge others' delusions.
You say that there is nothing left to debate?...Really? So you know for a fact how the Universe came into existence or what existed before the beginning do you? Or are you so arrogant as to believe that your opinion is the only worthy opinion and all other views however reasonable are simply false? Thats funny I believe Dr.Craig has debated many Scientists there was the debate at Oxford only a month back which chaired against him a Biologist. who clearly disagrees with you.
@FeignofCordor I didn't choose the word "debate" randomly. There's plenty to research and within that research endeavour there will be plenty of discussion between those involved, but Craig? He is neither involved in any field relevant to discovering anything meaningful about the universe, nor does he have anything meaningful to say about it. The only subject about which he has anything to talk about is the possibility - certainty to him - of god's existence, one rejected long ago.
@FeignofCordor I have no doubt that there are many merciful scientists more inclined to provide Craig with the illusion that his discipline is still worth anything in the 21st century, but I find it rather futile. Like it or not, what we already know is enough to conclusively reject any supernatural hogwash about the origin of anything. After all, what testable theories has Craig ever provided? Big Bang? Not him. String theory? Nope. "Goddidit!" was never, is not and never will be a theory.
You said " Like it or not what we already know is enough to conclusively reject any supernatural hogwash" We Christians don`t believe in any supernatural hogwash we believe in a powerful creator God. and so you claim to have enough information to conclusively reject our belief, Then go on ahead supply me with this knock down evidence that disproves Gods existence and if its conclusive I will become a atheist
@FeignofCordor "We Christians don`t believe in any supernatural hogwash we believe in a powerful creator God." <- Rephrasing it won't change the substance of it. Are you saying your deity is not a supernatural entity but a natural one? That actually makes it considerably easier to disprove :D So, which one is it?
I would rather he replied to my question. However you say "Approaches Zero" so even though i`m guessing your a Atheist you have atleast in saying that conceded that God may exist. I say that the probability is much higher but that doesn`t matter. Its good to hear a atheist admit God may exist
@FeignofCordor his insult is uncalled for, but it's not an Atheists job to refute God, it's a believer's job to PROVE God. We only have to refute what proof you bring.
When credible proof for outweighs proof against a real Atheist would agree God was real (because at that point it isn't Faith, it's Logic)
No when entering a debate with a Atheist about the subject "Does God Exist?" we who believe he does have to give good sound reasons for why we believe in his existence, Then its for the Atheist to either discredit these reasons or give better reasons as to why God doesn`t exist.
I have many good sound reasons for my belief in God.
@FeignofCordor Your reasons being childhood indoctrination, intellectual laziness, lack of education and self induced hormone release in the brain associated with spirituality. You sir, are a fool to believe in that for which there is no proof.
Circular reasoning aside when it comes to biblical truth or intuitive understanding, this is the one argument where Craig almost had me convinced after seeing his 1.5hour lecture...so, so, so glad stumbled onto this vid as well.
MarsStarcruiser 4 hours ago
Well TBS, you should avoid following Craig into his illogical "snakepit".
His argument is a nonstarter since it relies on temporal presuppositions (which Quentin Smith is also pointing out in the article).
Even if Craig could manage to define causation in atemporal terms, he would still have to explain what it means to atemporarily "begin to exist" or what it means to have "atemporal" intentional states that are causally effective.
All of these concepts rely on a temporal frame.
Xul 1 day ago
Seriously?!
DMilbury 2 days ago
I am deeply and meaningfully in love with you for this. :)
allidock11 2 days ago
You'll probably never read this comment, but whether Craig admits it or not, you've beaten him.
The fact that he blatantly avoids and distorts your argument, shows that he clearly has no response and is instead trying to make you seem like an uneducated idiot - which is clearly not the case.
You mentioned that Craig has not linked your argument or made it accessible in any way from his response to it. This just shows cowardice, as he obviously doesn't want people to see his own idiocy.
nasher931 2 days ago
@nasher931 This channel has been inactive for the better part of 5 months... including uploader comments, so it'd be reasonable to assume that it's either abandoned or not going to be checked any time soon. William Lane Craig (who has a channel right here on youtube: drcraigvideos) IS a coward, that's why he did not attempt any communication on any of the videos here from his channel, because it would open him to attack. On the contrary he sits in the shadows reporting atheist videos.
fram4153 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Your arrogance precedes you.
RosesEternal 3 days ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Some folks simply enjoy argument for the sake of argument, to the point that if and when their point is ultimately proven and the opposition is persuaded to agree, they immediately seek out a new argument for the sake of argument. The debate between Christian and Atheist will continue as long as either party draws breath. I say let the ignorant be ignorant and the enlightened be enlightened. I understand your love for the debate but be aware, there is no winner here and never will be.
webadage 3 days ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Who is William Lane Craig and who cares? :)
EvangelistEvan 1 week ago
its ironic that you got a better education than craig when he paid tens of thousands for his. any real learning stops when you become an apologetic in that you have learned to not learn, only to cherry pick info to support your own presuppositions.
motruk4 1 week ago
Creatio Ex Materia is the obvious answer but Dr. Craig would have to admit that one on the elements in the Creatio Ex Materia argument is unnecessary - namely his imaginary friend.
MisterBill74 1 week ago
TBS , it's amazing that you are so patient with this guy lane craig. Every time someone debunks his arguments , he goes crazy. TBS you should not change your 5 points in any way because those 5 points were sending lane craigs god right into the trash, and he knows that. Now he plays dead chicken games with you , he is just faking that he doesn't understand. That's the way he wiggles out of the strong arguments of his opponents . You should write a book about this guy , he deserves a big slap
thinkingstardust 2 weeks ago
Absolute legendary video dude, Craig is a slippery fella.
alecsharratt 2 weeks ago
@alecsharratt He is actually disingenuous, since, the argument is NOT about what he actually thinks. It is simply about winning, defending his belief.
MyContext 1 week ago
Just watched "The God Debate II: Harris vs. Craig"--I recommend it. I've watched several theists argue against atheists. What's painfully obvious to me is that they spend half their time defining what they aren't arguing. As the debate goes on, that realm get's smaller and smaller. They twist language, pulling in pseudo-scientific terms into their point that their conclusions don't justify. One is calm and logical. The other is doing a tap dance.
sheasf 2 weeks ago
here's where i think this argument would eventually break down. IF we found an instance of creatio ex nihilo that we couldn't find a cause for, atheists would say 'this is clearly a-causal' but theists would say 'this has a cause, and that cause is clearly god'. as for the rest of this whole saga, my opinion of craig has definitely decreased, you provide a clear argument and he seems to keep misinterpreting it, despite apparently having seen your video himself.
khajiit92 3 weeks ago
@khajiit92 for example, particle andti-particle pairs coming into existence in quantum mechanics. i know theists who would say god is constantly doing this (from the limited discussions and understanding i/ the person i was discussing with had about QM) for example. however i haven't studied QM enough to know what our current understanding of this is which is why i just put 'IF' in me earlier comment, instead of using the QM example explicitly.
khajiit92 3 weeks ago
@khajiit92
"IF we found an instance of creatio ex nihilo that we couldn't find a cause for"
We can't even in principle find a cause. Imagine a magician pulling a rabbit out of his. If the rabbit literally appeared ex-nihilo, immediately after the magician shouts abra cadabra, we would still only be able to show correlation, not causation.
DickJohnson3434 2 weeks ago
@DickJohnson3434 ah that's true, which just makes me think the whole question is one that we'll never be able to conclusively answer for ourselves. i don't like that there seem to be fundamentally unanswerable questions, but it seems it's true :(
khajiit92 6 days ago
It's a shame that Dr. Craig doesn't tread anyone without a (Dr.) or a academic title before their names with respect. He should be open to debating any critique as long as it is substantive, which TS's clearly is. I lost respect for Dawkins when he ducked a debate with Craig, only much much later contriving a new excuse not to debate him (the genocide-advocating apologist issue mentioned in the top comment). But he's avoiding someone who's logical acumen is refined. Again, what a shame.
dionusos2 3 weeks ago
@dionusos2 eh, typed this too fast. I meant "treat," not "tread."
dionusos2 3 weeks ago
ie. not just interactions between nerves and synapses in the brain. So yes, to a theist, human beings at least clearly begin to exist wholly apart from the rearrangement of pre-existing material.
'Sam Harris- Game, Set, Match' addresses this point quite succintly I think.
clrdr7 3 weeks ago
Here's why theists would not agree with the First Premise, I think.
From a purely scientific view, yes, nothing, including people, that we see in our everyday lives ever 'begins' existing - like TBS says, it's all just transformations of existing material.
Theists however, would say our 'souls' or 'minds' have a definite beginning, ie. when the sperm enters the egg, x number of weeks or months in the womb, etc., and this consciousness is of a different realm from that of the purely material,
clrdr7 3 weeks ago
its like if you have a bowl of pasta, you stir it up, then you call it a different thing and say it "began to exist". thats absurd. everything is simply rearranged material. we dont know of anything that actually "begins to exist". so kalam fails. its that simple. its absurd.
JustTrollinAlong 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
JustTrollinAlong 3 weeks ago
all the wlc fans, look. its not hard at all. look at a bowl of water swirling around, every new little ripple in the water didnt "begin to exist" its just the water changing. the universe is the universe, everything is part of the universe. the universe is one thing and the stuff in it is always moving. you dont point out at one part of the water and say that it began to exist, its still the water, its not a separate thing. the labels star, table, these "things", its for pragmatism.
JustTrollinAlong 3 weeks ago
@TheoreticalBullshit You're quoting Saint Thomas, not Aquinas. "Aquinas" is the genitive form (in latin) of "Aquinum", which is a place.
alvarojosemarquez 3 weeks ago in playlist The William Lane Craig Saga
Comment removed
alvarojosemarquez 3 weeks ago in playlist The William Lane Craig Saga
This has been flagged as spam show
If you know anyone who's been falsely DMCA'd by William Lane Craig collaborator John Leonard, otherwise known as drcraigvideos, please contact @thunderf00t.
YOURINQUIRER 3 weeks ago in playlist William Lane Craig
Anybody who says WLC is "stupid" or "afraid" of their argument can't be taken seriously by reasonable people. You can be off the charts intelligent, but if that's your contention well...it's possible to be smart and totally unreasonable at the same time and that would be proof.
Jblod240 4 weeks ago
P.S. You can make your case without being so unnatural and arrogant. You appear to be acting and it seems insincere. Don't go all diatribe on me, just constructive criticism. Relax a bit and people will still take you seriously.
Jblod240 4 weeks ago
Maybe that's why Craig didn't respond to your liking, because it's a first cause argument that has been thoroughly debated. God is the metaphysical cause of the universe. You can't confine it to natural law like you seem to need. You either have infinite regression of first causes OR an unnatural first-first cause. Perhaps you disagree but that is an explanation regardless.
Jblod240 4 weeks ago
@Jblod240 and yet he can only speak from within the confines of the universe because he says "everything which begins to exist" and the universe is all we can possibly know to exist. and tbs' objection is that things dont begin to exist ex nihilo, only ex materia from what we know. further, i think he also contends that things dont "begin to exist" in the universe, which i agree with. so craigs argument fails on multiple levels. lastly, first cause argument is special pleading.
JustTrollinAlong 3 weeks ago
Fanciful argument that had been answered thoroughly
Jblod240 4 weeks ago
TBS - You don't do yourself any favours either, when you scorn anyone who dares to make a valid point by telling them to pay better attention (either that or you get one of your minions to do it for you). Their interpretation is obviously flawed by default, because they disagree with you; because they are "deluded Christians", right? You have built up a personality cult which allows you to spew your Bullshit without reprisal. I bet if you had an epiphany, your followers suddenly would, too!
brevicaudate 4 weeks ago
@brevicaudate yet i bet you if you had paid attention, you would see why the objection wasnt valid. we know the universe exists, we dont know god exists, craigs argument attempts to make claims about the universe, not god. the claim about the universe having a cause in craigs argument, is based on things "beginning to exist" which simply isnt true (see my below comment) so the guy who tbs responded too wasnt making a valid objection, so to save time, tbs told him to rewatch and focus more.
JustTrollinAlong 3 weeks ago
This is so frustrating for me. >_>
thecheesedude1 4 weeks ago
Why why why do theists try to use the Big Bang and thermodynamics? The BBT states the universe expanded!!! Nothing to do with where matter came from. Scientists don't know yet where the singularity came from. Then they sling that into evolution some how and that into humans springing to life from a rock!! I can't bear the stupidity!
paramattic70 1 month ago
@paramattic70
"springing"
"from a rock"
What are you talking about?
1878EFC2008 1 month ago
William Lane Craig is the master of fallacies. It amazes me how so many people don't pick up on them. You sound like Tom Cruise btw =P
flackz16 1 month ago
Comment removed
DawkinsDebunked 1 month ago
Comment removed
DawkinsDebunked 1 month ago
Maybe what he was trying to say was that God made the universe out of magical supernatural stuff. Like spirit energy and ectoplasm. Take that. pff
CorndogMaker 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CorndogMaker Maybe he made it outta your cum cocksucker LMFAO
DawkinsDebunked 1 month ago
If you watch any of Craig's debate, he tends to quote mine almost every single point made by the other debaters and turn that whole thing into something else.
KnightXXI 1 month ago
@Autumn6
"OF COURSE we don't believe that something can pop into existence uncaused"
Except that this is exactly what we propose happens in quantum fluctuations.
MrGralgrathor 1 month ago
Man, you're intelligent & handsome but you won't stand a chance in defeating him in a debate until you get some kind of "professional arrogance" & "status" as in Dr William Lane Craig's debating persona. Good luck with that but really, I think you're smart enough to perceive the futility or vanity of this whole saga.
sthnwatch 1 month ago
Craig, like all apologists, IS NOT CONCERNED with the truth. That's why atheists have the better argument, and always will. Atheists care about what is true, theists care about what will allow them to maintain their faith irregardless of what is true. Craig himself has stated this quite clearly, and that is why the man fails. For all of his "I am a philosopher" crap, he is a theist before he is anything, and as such, his arguments can be dismissed as easily as any other case of "God dun it!"
TheTexanCanadian 1 month ago 11
@TheTexanCanadian No , Atheists don't care for the truth , if they did they would be muslims by now ! Islam is the truth , logically and reasonably !
When you say that universe is not created , thats unreasonable and illogical nonsense ! Everything is created , but universe is not ! Do you have any proof that universe is not created ? we follow the logical way of everything around us and apply to universe , cos thats how we work ! You go from absurd to try and reason
MrCobra811 3 weeks ago
@MrCobra811
"Islam is the truth , logically and reasonably!"
Wanting something to be true doesn't actually make it true.
"When you say that universe is not created"
I never said the universe was not created.
"Everything is created , but universe is not!"
And your god is also created, by humans.
Do you have any proof that universe is not created?"
You're asserting it was created, therefore the burden of proof is yours.
TheTexanCanadian 3 weeks ago
@TheTexanCanadian When something is declared as true , is tested by the logic ! "You never said universe is not created" , so its created then ? which one is it ? I am aserting the logical aproach to it , until you prove its not created !
If a car is created and a building is created then I follow the same logical aproach to the universe until is proven wrong , this is the way things are done reasonably ! I have more reasonable to believe that is created than not created
MrCobra811 3 weeks ago
@MrCobra811
"so its created then ? which one is it ?"
We don't know, and can't pretend to know without invalidating our arguments.
"until you prove its not created!"
Wrong, I'm not asserting that it is or is not created, therefore the burden of proof is yours.
"I have more reasonable to believe that is created than not created "
It is entirely likely it was created, but you cannot prove that it was, nor can you prove WHAT or WHO created it. That is why atheists are right.
TheTexanCanadian 3 weeks ago
@TheTexanCanadian My god is created by man , really ? Do you know the definnition of my God ? The most powerful, eternal , not born or die , unique ? By your logic , how can an eternal god be created by human ? Tell us ?
It more reasonable to believe that universe was created then not created , creation has bases , non creation has no bases , its absurd !
MrCobra811 3 weeks ago
@MrCobra811
"By your logic , how can an eternal god be created by human ? Tell us ?"
The concept of an eternal god was created. And since no god can be demonstrated to exist outside the human mind (yours for example) then there is no reason to consider that god anything but a concept.
"non creation has no bases , its absurd ! "
I am not asserting non creation, you however are asserting creation by a specific deity who has never been demonstrated, with absolutely no valid reason to do so.
TheTexanCanadian 3 weeks ago
@TheTexanCanadian Ou , we don't know , yeah right ! If chances of created universe are high , Then the only reasonable God is the one of Islam , Most powerful , eternal, not born or die , unique ! Are you willing to gamble your hereafter ? The burden of proof is not on me cos is not me who will be punished , I have saved my self , keep waiting for some touchy and feely God , cos thats what you are expecting God to be ! If God can be touched and felt ,would he be god ? think
MrCobra811 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheTexanCanadian Ou , we don't know , yeah right ! If chances of created universe are high , Then the only reasonable God is the one of Islam , Most powerful , eternal, not born or die , unique ! Are you willing to gamble your hereafter ? The burden of proof is not on me cos is not me who will be punished , I have saved my self , keep waiting for some touchy and feely God , cos thats what you are expecting God to be ! If God can be touched and felt ,would he be god ? think
MrCobra811 3 weeks ago
@MrCobra811 Classic case of 'I believe in the quran because its true and its true because its in the quran.'
FryderykFChopin 2 weeks ago
@FryderykFChopin Its true cos there is investigation which a logical person does , I was in your shoes but you werent on mine ! If you start reasoning you would know Islam is the truth ! Too lazy to study , or you don't want the truth cos it asks you to change yourself and you don't like to do that ! You prefer to lie to yourself for some time until death comes ! Majority of people know Islam is the truth but find exuses cos they cannot handle to change their actions and desires
MrCobra811 2 weeks ago
@TheTexanCanadian You've hit the nail on the head. Craig basically has two stragegies: one is to refuse to accuratly state the position of his oponent to make it look foolish and the second is just to spit out as many arguments as he can out without explanation so in a timed debate the other side doesn't have time to debunk everything he says. To me it seems genuinly deciteful.
Bakmoon 2 weeks ago
@TheTexanCanadian Wait, don't you find it naive that that could only apply to Christians? Don't you think atheists could care only about that which would allow them to maintain their faith (or lack thereof)? Of course they could, so that's how puerile this reasoning is.
So because someone is a theist he can be A PRIORI dismissed as worthless? Well, why shouldn't that apply to atheists as well?
cashernandes1 1 week ago
@cashernandes1
It all comes down to what is true and what is not. Atheism is at its heart a search for truth above all else. That never needs apology, i.e. an apologist sort of function. Theism is the exact opposite, and thus needs much more tapdancing, which is why you see people with such shaky arguments based on faith instead of what is true. Enter... W.L. Craig.
TheTexanCanadian 1 week ago
@TheTexanCanadian Plus, because someone is an apologist of something, he does not care about the truth? That must apply to atheists who are, after all, APOLOGISTS of atheism.
cashernandes1 1 week ago
@cashernandes1
Cont'd.
You're right of course in pointing out that proponents of atheism are also apologists, but in that context, anyone who explains something (to include teachers and scientists) are also apologists. It is perfectly reasonable to assign the term "apologist" to someone who has to "apologize" for the flaws in what they are trying to sell.
TheTexanCanadian 1 week ago
@TheTexanCanadian
PS: There are no flaws in atheism, so far as I know. The same cannot be said for theism.
TheTexanCanadian 1 week ago
@TheTexanCanadian I'm not personally an atheist, but I do believe some atheists are in quest for truth (I just happen to believe they are wrong). But that doesn't mean all of them are. Likewise, you cannot say all theists are trying to reaffirm their beliefs without consideration of evidence (but I do believe some theists are wrong in their beliefs, actually).
cashernandes1 1 week ago
@cashernandes1
I'm certainly not trying to say that all atheists are one thing or are another thing. Atheism in and of itself however does not need apologists. How that atheism is experienced and presented by individuals is another matter. Some atheists say that they know for a fact that there are no gods. I would say they do need to be apologists to explain that, but atheism itself requires no explanation or justification.
TheTexanCanadian 1 week ago
@TheTexanCanadian On the contrary, I believe belief in God requires no justification, because we cannot watch God as an exterior object as atheists do (as though one could point somewhere and say "he's not there"), for we're in the cosmos and God CONTAINS the cosmos. And theism is certainly not dependant on faith, that's a confusion between the objective existence of God and the dogmas of a certain religion, which are then in turn solely dependant upon faith.
cashernandes1 1 week ago
@cashernandes1
You are assigning actions, qualities and a general capacity of existence to a god but 1) haven't specified which god you call God and 2) do not give any justification for why such a god would exist.
The objective existence of "God" cannot be demonstrated, can only be accepted through faith. If you mean a deistic god which does not interact with the natural world, that's one thing, but any interaction with the natural is a real problem for any theistic god.
TheTexanCanadian 1 week ago
@cashernandes1 There are how many claims of god, most in conflict with other claims of god with nothing that supports any claim of god. Why doesn't the claim of god need justification? What objective basis of existence?
MyContext 1 week ago
@MyContext Because when you say "gods", you mean created gods. Palpable entities that can be measured and observed as *exterior* objects. God is not that. God is not an exterior object that can be analised, because we are IN God. We can never look at God as a "flying teapot" for one fraction of a second. God contains the universe and goes beyond it, and that is what is called eternity. How do I know that? The sole fact that reality exists and we are in ens realissimum.
cashernandes1 1 week ago
@cashernandes1 So, would you say that the ULINK (See Profile) is true? Since, it could be claimed, however, there is nothing that supports the claim just like all of the claims of god that I have heard thus far. So, if you are saying that we are within it, but have no way to know it, what would make your claim ANY different from any other unverifiable claim that could be claimed to be true?
MyContext 1 week ago
@TheTexanCanadian If you wanna discuss this further, we could talk privitely, because I don't think these short Youtube discussions lead anyone anywhere.
cashernandes1 1 week ago
@cashernandes1
Cont'd.
On the contrary, the subject is very clear cut. One benefit of these short boxes of text is that it requires you to crystallize and simplify what you are trying to say into the "point" of what you are arguing. I'm having no trouble at all doing so.
TheTexanCanadian 1 week ago
@TheTexanCanadian On the contrary, many of them are. You simply laballed, much like Richard Dawkins himself in his "God Delusion", theists as tapdancers and that's it, you haven't given a reason for this. And this is simply not true and could very well apply to atheism (and to Richard Dawkins personally, who tapdanced all the way through his debate with John Lennox, for instance).
cashernandes1 1 week ago
@cashernandes1
Cont'd.
I really don't care for Dawkins' arguments. I think a much better role model is either Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett. As such, I only agree with about half of what he says, and the same went for Christopher Hitchens.
The reason theist apologists are tapdancers in every instance that I've seen, is that I've never seen a single theist that could successfully argue that theism is based on something other than faith, or even properly justify faith itself.
TheTexanCanadian 1 week ago
I would like to know if Craig even had at least some sense of statistical mechanics...
AkasakaS2000 1 month ago
I find it ironic how I have to close religious ads on a secular video.
nopulpapple 1 month ago
The reason why Dr. Craig has dismissed your arguments is because he's already addressed your issue with the 1st Law of Thermodynamics several times and so have many other philosophers.
Do a Search here on Youtube:
"Kalam Cosmological Argument, First Law of Thermodynamics, and Equivocation William Lane Craig"
Now quit bothering people about your stupid argument.
Autumn6 1 month ago
@Autumn6
Ah, so Craig and other "philosophers" have been able to prove that the first law of thermodynamics is applicable at or before the current state of the universe.
/sarcasm
TheTexanCanadian 1 month ago
Your argument is circular, man. In your first premise, you declare at the outset that there is NOTHING in existence that is capable of creatio ex nihilo (i.e., there is no god). But that's also your CONCLUSION. You base this idea on the 1st law of Thermodynamics but that law only applies to a universe that already EXISTS. If what you're saying is true, Big Bang Cosmology would have never gotten off the ground because the Big Bang theory is all about matter coming into existence.
Autumn6 1 month ago
@Autumn6 My argument is not based on Thermodynamics, nor is the conclusion assumed in the first premise. Please pay better attention, or don't comment.
TheoreticalBullshit 1 month ago 20
@TheoreticalBullshit good talk
natalija1ify 3 weeks ago
@TheoreticalBullshit Does it need a genius to know that God exist , its very simple and easy for people who think ! Everything in this universe is connected logically , if you say that a car or a building is created and this seems logical , then why do you go on absurdity and say that universe is not ? everything is conected logically , why are you trying to break that logical chain ?
MrCobra811 3 weeks ago
@TheoreticalBullshit This has nothing to do with this video or this comment. I needed an avenue to ask you a question about your conversation with theantihero420 if I may? I'm dieing to know how you're handling his "if you hate the fictional god you hate the real god" trap. I went to see what I could read on the site but nothing is there. (comments not allowed, ratings are shut off). It's strange.
EatMAndSml 1 week ago
@TheoreticalBullshit Giving Craig's arrogance & ignorance the benefit of the doubt; Could it be the case that Craig's perception of what defines "Existence" is different from the definition of "Existence" which is foundational to your argument? (btw, I'm not defending Craig) Most likely, Craig's definition of God's "Existence" is "spiritual", there for, non-existent in the physical sense. Where as you're coming from the understanding that all things which exist 'only' do so in "Physical" form??
VaudevilleRant 1 week ago
@Autumn6
Dear Confused,
"the Big Bang theory is all about matter coming into existence."
Perhaps you could clarify this statement with a citation? Because it is wrong. BBT does not purport "matter coming into existence." BBT purports an "expansion" of an pre - "existing" singularity. Nothing more.
nolobede 1 month ago
@Autumn6 "because the Big Bang theory is all about matter coming into existence." No, it's about the expansion of the universe. The matter/energy was there already.
AakeTraak 4 weeks ago
Also, despite being a hetrosexual male, are you single?
TheCelticChimp 1 month ago
TB, I admire your restraint in responding to such a condescending strawman dismissal. Criag is an ass who has built a career on saying the exact same thing for twenty years. It may be a matter of professional survival in his part to ignore the vast number of leaks in his Kalam boat.
TheCelticChimp 1 month ago
@TheoreticalBullshit well.. I watched the entire video, but I still have one question...
Are you single?
Floortjahh 1 month ago
I hate that we must spend time debating people like Craig... the fact that he is regarded as a serious apologist is absurd. In every debate which I've seen him in - the rebuttals were at best... a bastardization of the source material presented; followed by either a direct or indirect insult to his opponents cognitive abilities.
He is nothing more than a man with an extensive vocabulary and a complete misunderstanding of logical thought. To put it bluntly... "his arguments ain't worth shit"
koolanator 1 month ago
Scott... I feel bad that you have to deal with these types of apologists. Personally, I've lost my passion for the debate; mostly because my logical inquiries and statements always falls upon deaf ears and willfully ignorant minds.
koolanator 1 month ago
Craigs Response to Smith is realy funny. Its like: "If 1+1 is not 3, we have to redefine 3! It even shows, that the definitions are wrong."
guillatra 1 month ago
@FeignofCordor Adhom isnt just an insult, thats called an insult, to qualify as an adhom attack you have to be falsely claiming that your insult proves your case.
For instance; If a fat kid cannot fit into a airplane seat and you say "he cant fit, hes too fat" - It may be insulting but its also true
If a fat kid can afford to buy an airplane seat and you say "he cant, hes too fat" that is an adhom
If a he can afford and fit into it and u say "He's fat" thats still not an adhom
shandcunt 1 month ago
@xStrelok Fuck man, trolling much?
shandcunt 1 month ago
Comment removed
xStrelok 1 month ago
Comment removed
xStrelok 1 month ago
Comment removed
xStrelok 1 month ago
Comment removed
xStrelok 1 month ago
Comment removed
xStrelok 1 month ago
Comment removed
xStrelok 1 month ago
Comment removed
xStrelok 1 month ago
Comment removed
xStrelok 1 month ago
Comment removed
xStrelok 1 month ago
Comment removed
xStrelok 1 month ago
Comment removed
xStrelok 1 month ago
WLC common tactic is to say how inferior his opponents are and then brings about bluff and bluster to cloud the issue, then changes what the person says to suit his argument and then provides a knock down argument for the newly brought forward strawman..... I really feel he is disingenuous and slimy !!!
Grimmy67 1 month ago in playlist The William Lane Craig Saga
Dawkin's should agree to a debate, and then walk off stage shake your hand and switch places with you. ; )
pandorachild 1 month ago in playlist The William Lane Craig Saga
you are so cute!
MisfitMarie 1 month ago
The talk about "nothing" is funny since we already have knowledge that "nothing" has energy in it, it weighs something (E=mC^2). Thus there's no such thing as "nothing" in a sense we as humans are able to understand. And as universe expands, more "nothing" is created. It oozes into "existence" from quantum fluctuations of empty space. And with all that I give you a great lecture:
An universe from nothing by Lawrence Krauss.
/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
Mtaalas 1 month ago
@Mtaalas Craig talks about the vacuum and explains he is not talking about that. Vacuum Fluctuation Models
watch?v=_xAP06ykvZM
BizzoMustard 1 month ago
Rephrased: nonChristians are props Craig uses to reassure his real audience: doubting believers.
MESkeptic 1 month ago 2
I maintain that the only way to explain Craig's behavior is that non-Christians are not his intereat, and that he never intends to persuade unbelievers.
MESkeptic 1 month ago
where did you go :(
pickle738 1 month ago
I think you all give too much credit to Craig here. The impression I get is of a well-educated fool; a man who has learned to repeat certain terms almost parrot-fashion but without real understanding.
MrCommentingisfun 1 month ago
@MrCommentingisfun
That educated fool you talk of has bested the best the Atheist world could bring to a debate. I find it interesting that many,many Atheists can do little more than hurl Ad hominem`s at him. Its quite pathetic
FeignofCordor 1 month ago
@FeignofCordor What I don't find interesting is that you do not know the facts of science or the fallacies Craig promotes. Your faith once again shows an abdication of thought.
greenarcher180 1 month ago
@FeignofCordor What? Why would I rebut Craig's position here when TBS has done so in the video? My comment wasn't intended as an ad hominem, because I wasn't trying to use it as part of an argument. It was intended as an insult.
MrCommentingisfun 1 month ago
liked your channel dude... long videos, perfect to play minecraft while watching =p
cadonuno 1 month ago
summery of the video: WLC is a either a complete idiot, but he is too intelligent for that, so he is purposefully or unintentionally a dishonest
MGsven 1 month ago
@MGsven I hope he is just stupid, cuz being dishonest is much worse...
cadonuno 1 month ago
@cadonuno true, theres a cure for ignorance, education, but theres no cure for being a liar
but like zakir naik, they are to educated to be plain stupid, thus it must be that they are telling a lie
MGsven 1 month ago
Why oh why can't there be more intelligent sexy men like you out in this world??
cararacs 2 months ago
@cararacs Join the Atheist networks. ;-)
stephenawolfe 2 months ago
dude.. u need to dumb this vid down a bit. holy sht. my brain almost shut off completely
Imreason 2 months ago
@Imreason Read a few articles on Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for a month or so and you'll probably understand every word this guy's saying
TwistedLemniscate 2 months ago
I could listen to you talk all day. Seriously. Even if I didn't agree with something you said, the way you say it makes it sound so fucking interesting.
Please marry me. We would make beautiful children. Hopefully they would get your vast worldly knowledge and intelligence.
Oh, and who can forget your beauty?
smurfinit48 2 months ago
I knew I'd like this guy when he took on Craig.
I knew I'd subscribe to this guy when he tackled ideas just as large as Craig's without talking like a pedantic fuck.
I knew I loved this guy when he made the baseball analogy at 16:20.
Dethenger 2 months ago 3
The bible is a book.
Mee551able 2 months ago
I'm really hungry.
ChronicCaptivation 2 months ago
The Bible doesn't actually teach creation ex-nihilo.
Genesis states that space, time, and energy already existed in the form of the 'Tehom' (usually translated as 'the deep') before 'God' decided to manufacture the Heavens and the Earth out of it. The Hebrew word usually translated as 'created' is more accurately translated as 'fashioned' or 'manufactured'. So, not even the Bible claims that 'God' can 'manufacture' something out of nothing.
Which of course, makes the whole KCA moot.
dingodavid 2 months ago
Comment removed
dingodavid 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
How does Craig explain how immaterial eternal spaceless timeless beings bringing into existence a material world specifically without things such as time? I've never heard an answer to this question for their explanation as to how god created the universe in their eyes.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 2 months ago
This man just just ANNIHILATED the "greatest christian apologist of our time". Absolutely, fucking annihilated him.
rumraket38 2 months ago
What a treat!
Really, that destroys Craig's entire, carefully created reasonable faith.
yvranx 2 months ago
Cut out your own bullshit and debate WLC man 2 man...
danny3571 2 months ago
P 1/2
Craig is intellectually dishonest. Even if he studied rudimentary logic he would know that validity is not truth. You can have a valid argument and it can still be completely untrue. It is the structure of language and the validity in the premises and conclusions.
What Craig is, dishonestly, doing is trying to imply that because his argument may be logically structured and valid it therefore follows that it must also be true.
If he is aware of this, that makes Craig a complete LIAR!
tabula123456 2 months ago 3
P2/2
I believe the mistake ur making, theoreticalbullshit, is u think Craig is trying to convince YOU of his argument. No, ur nothing more than a soundboard to him. He is aware that his argument will not convince intelligent individuals but it will most certainly snare the less intelligent. U give him his platform to call you names and then claim “inescapable truths”. So the layman sitting on the fence will think. ‘That sounds intelligent and it’s logical. So it must be true’.
He is a conman.
tabula123456 2 months ago 11
@tabula123456 I dont know dude, I hope craif is just completely stupid...
being dishonest has no cure... stupidity has a cure
cadonuno 1 month ago
Like a boss.
ilmarihirvonen 2 months ago in playlist Liked videos
Ah yes, Dr. William Lane Craig.
Still putting the Ass in assertion since 1979
TryTheRedPill 3 months ago 20
I like you, TBS. Why haven't I subscribed before now?
Where did you go to school, and what are your credentials? Just wondering.
BJ219 3 months ago in playlist More videos from TheoreticalBullshit
Craig does well to create arguments from what little material he has. I have only today looked the exchanges between TBS and Craig. Mental gymnastic for plebes like myself.
It has lead me to draw a comparison between the religious and people who just don't buy it anymore. The raw material we have to create an understanding of the absurdity of religion is mountainous. Craig argues for a creator but put a religious context to his arguments and he struggles to create something from nothing.
Leehamism 3 months ago
Hehe, nice one WLC. The last quote essentially boils down to:
God exists, therefore our definition of causality is wrong.
That's a strange thing to say given that these are the exact same definitions WLC claims to prove the existence of God. That WLC's head hasn't yet imploded into debilitating insanity, simply amazes me.
eyeammi 3 months ago 3
@eyeammi I'm sorry "Dr" Craig, but there's a good reason as to why the universal hand gesture for insanity is to point at one's head with the index finger while motioning in a closed loop.
eyeammi 3 months ago
Obviously no Ad Homs used by you
FeignofCordor 3 months ago
you look different in every video
adultpads 3 months ago
I understand why Craig might be a big host at Creationist events, but does that really make him worth the effort of even considering debating him? Not that many Creationists are, mind you, but this guy has somehow managed to build an aura of respect around himself that is, frankly, entirely undeserved. A shitty philosopher with no knowledge of science, whose credentials have had him stuck at Talbot School of Theology since 1996. This man is really no better than your average Kent Hovind.
Kalevala87 3 months ago
@Kalevala87
First of all Craig isn`t a creationist and second if your side isn`t willing to debate the opposition then really what does that make you guys?
FeignofCordor 3 months ago
@FeignofCordor Of course he's a Creationist. The fact that he's an Old-Earth Creationist doesn't make him any better than your average Kent Hovind. Secondly, you're assuming two things. One, that there's actually anything left to debate. There isn't. Two, that anyone who holds an opinion is automatically worth debating. Again, not the case. Craig is absolutely not worth debating. What does that make scientists? People who would rather work than indulge others' delusions.
Kalevala87 3 months ago
@Kalevala87
You say that there is nothing left to debate?...Really? So you know for a fact how the Universe came into existence or what existed before the beginning do you? Or are you so arrogant as to believe that your opinion is the only worthy opinion and all other views however reasonable are simply false? Thats funny I believe Dr.Craig has debated many Scientists there was the debate at Oxford only a month back which chaired against him a Biologist. who clearly disagrees with you.
FeignofCordor 3 months ago
@FeignofCordor I didn't choose the word "debate" randomly. There's plenty to research and within that research endeavour there will be plenty of discussion between those involved, but Craig? He is neither involved in any field relevant to discovering anything meaningful about the universe, nor does he have anything meaningful to say about it. The only subject about which he has anything to talk about is the possibility - certainty to him - of god's existence, one rejected long ago.
Kalevala87 3 months ago
@FeignofCordor I have no doubt that there are many merciful scientists more inclined to provide Craig with the illusion that his discipline is still worth anything in the 21st century, but I find it rather futile. Like it or not, what we already know is enough to conclusively reject any supernatural hogwash about the origin of anything. After all, what testable theories has Craig ever provided? Big Bang? Not him. String theory? Nope. "Goddidit!" was never, is not and never will be a theory.
Kalevala87 3 months ago
@Kalevala87
You said " Like it or not what we already know is enough to conclusively reject any supernatural hogwash" We Christians don`t believe in any supernatural hogwash we believe in a powerful creator God. and so you claim to have enough information to conclusively reject our belief, Then go on ahead supply me with this knock down evidence that disproves Gods existence and if its conclusive I will become a atheist
FeignofCordor 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FeignofCordor "We Christians don`t believe in any supernatural hogwash we believe in a powerful creator God." <- Rephrasing it won't change the substance of it. Are you saying your deity is not a supernatural entity but a natural one? That actually makes it considerably easier to disprove :D So, which one is it?
Kalevala87 3 months ago
@FeignofCordor
you do believe in supernatural hogwash. God is necessarily a supernatural cause.
InvincibleNumanist 3 months ago
@InvincibleNumanist
Tell me why my Belief in God is Hogwash?
FeignofCordor 2 months ago
@FeignofCordor
because its supernatural.
InvincibleNumanist 2 months ago
@InvincibleNumanist
Why is my belief in a supernatural Creator God Hogwash?. Are you saying you know God doesn`t exist?
FeignofCordor 2 months ago
@FeignofCordor No, he is saying that a supernatural Creator God probability to exist approaches zero.
atheistram 2 months ago
@atheistram
I would rather he replied to my question. However you say "Approaches Zero" so even though i`m guessing your a Atheist you have atleast in saying that conceded that God may exist. I say that the probability is much higher but that doesn`t matter. Its good to hear a atheist admit God may exist
FeignofCordor 1 month ago
@FeignofCordor his insult is uncalled for, but it's not an Atheists job to refute God, it's a believer's job to PROVE God. We only have to refute what proof you bring.
When credible proof for outweighs proof against a real Atheist would agree God was real (because at that point it isn't Faith, it's Logic)
rhymeswithrunt 1 month ago
@rhymeswithrunt
No when entering a debate with a Atheist about the subject "Does God Exist?" we who believe he does have to give good sound reasons for why we believe in his existence, Then its for the Atheist to either discredit these reasons or give better reasons as to why God doesn`t exist.
I have many good sound reasons for my belief in God.
FeignofCordor 1 month ago
@FeignofCordor Your reasons being childhood indoctrination, intellectual laziness, lack of education and self induced hormone release in the brain associated with spirituality. You sir, are a fool to believe in that for which there is no proof.
greenarcher180 1 month ago
You might be interested to know that Noah has responded to your last article (which includes many arguments in this video) on the 12tuesday website.
ianm