William Lane Craig vs Ronald De Sousa 3/16 (York University)

[drumrnva]

I never tire of hearing WLC pronounce "Gerd Ludeman".

[followerofjesus1984]

where is this guys first arguement,

all i hear is a irrational and illogical answer..... at leat he could do is give a brief point of objection but all he does is ramble on about things which have no relivance at all,

[bahramf]

@followerofjesus1984 You only think that b/c you're a dumb Christian. Notice how you don't explain how what he says in not relevant, but just say it is. You're the one rambling you moron.

[followerofjesus1984]

@bahramf

another guy with no reply all u can do is insult people .....

[bahramf]

@followerofjesus1984 Reply to what? You don't present arguments.

[HerrVonManstein]

Craig is a HYPOCRITE! he constantly uses "the consesus among scholars/scientists" as his trump card, and yet when it comes to the overwhelming consensus among biologists that evolution was driven by random mutations and natural selection (i.e. no need for his god) he hypocritically states that biologists believe that not based on the evidence(!) but because of philosophical disposition! what an ignorant dishonest man .. see "William Lane Craig's Sorry Apologetics" video

[DazedSpy2]

@HerrVonManstein Your a moron.

[AgeOfReasonXXI]

@DazedSpy2 when you can't dispute Craig utter dishonesty, that's all you have to say, right?

[DazedSpy2]

@AgeOfReasonXXI No, there just isnt dishonesty, and craig has already explained and clairifed his views in previous debates and articles that he is not attempting to use authority as a point of argument. He merely points to it, he defends it on its own grounds if people make reasoned arguments against it, though. For example he defends the authenticity of the New testament in every debate, saying theres a consensus. But he acutally point by point debates NT scholars who disagree with the

[DazedSpy2]

@AgeOfReasonXXI consensus. So no, theres no dishonesty, its just the ease of convenience.

[AgeOfReasonXXI]

@DazedSpy2 sorry, but Craig does use the "consensus among NT scholars" as his trump card all the time by saying essentially ' the overwhelming majority of NT scholars disagree with you' - that's always his last line of defense for his 3 "facts". and, contrary to Craig's assertion, there's no consensus among NT scholars. of course, Evangelical "scholars" agree with Craig, they believe those "facts" a priory (after all, most of then, like Craig, are innerantists, and hense dismissed outright)

[AgeOfReasonXXI]

@DazedSpy2 Craig is eager to align himself with the scientific consensus but only when that suits him-- in cosmology, NT scholarship (where there's actually no consensus whatsoever that the Gospels fit the genre "ancient biography"-- and Craig surely know that).

But when it comes to evolutionary biology, Craig knows he's in the tiny monority of IDers, and he quotes physicists(!) B & T in support.

So much with his claim that he is "right in line with mainstream science"! Yes, he's dishonest.

[lukeism2]

@HerrVonManstein i think Th1sWasATriumph is going to do his appeal to authority video

[dinkolino2]

anyone that starts their argument for nonexistence of God by claiming how God is a bully should not be taken seriously as he obviously lacks mental capacity for the debate, or is in best case intelectually dishonest

[arktheball]

ZOMGOSH!!! this guy sounds EXACTLY like stewie griffin XD

[Christianjr4]

Hahahaha lol, that's so true. I can't believe I never caught on to that before.

[lukeism2]

@arktheball hahaha brilliant

[52blades]

Why on earth is it that almost all the top Atheist today have British accents and crowd winning, comical personalities.

[efeey]

@52blades lol because they have very little to offer apart from appeal to ridicule

[bahramf]

@efeey Appeal to ridicule isn't a logical fallacy moron.

[linuxisbetter0]

@52blades

Seriously...I don't know why us Atheists have a lot of charisma! lol

[CartesianCatholic]

@52blades They have a sad devotion to Bertrand Russell

[UrinationNation]

He sure uses the word fact loosely.

[52blades]

He said these are things that the majority of historians agree are facts and he is quite correct in the statements he made.

[UrinationNation]

No historian would say something is a fact, and especially when something happened 2000 years ago. I suggest watching Craig debate with Ehrman who is an actual historian. Historians might have a consensus on what most likely happened but they won't say it's a fact. Only people that believe in god use the word fact when they should really use the word faith, if Craig has pictures of Jesus before and after death and the open tomb and perhaps one of him rising into the air then maybe

[52blades]

Historians do make factual claims. Everyone does. For example they agree that the holocaust did in fact exist, they agree that Alexander the Great was a real historical figure, they take it as fact that Stalin did in fact rise to power. In order for us to permit rational thinking you have to take certain things as fact and your facts have to be based on rational evidence.

What I think you are really saying is that 'it is true that you can't know truth' and that statement is self refuting.

[UrinationNation]

Did O.J. kill his wife? It happened only a few years ago, you should know the answer to this, and when you've picked the answer can you claim it as fact, based on what exactly? Evidence filtered through the media, hearsay, and just a bunch of guessing by people who wanted him to be one or the other. Again this is recent, but I don't know if he killed his wife,  I think he did but I wouldn't send him to the electric chair for what I think. Truth and Fact are not the same - Dr. Jones.

[trenton1980]

yes, OJ did kill his wife and we all know that

ha

[badboyfrvr]

They are historical facts. They are not 100% certain facts, but the most probable scenarios according to the majority of historians.

[DuctTapeMyFace]

Non belief in God does not come with a commitment to evangelize, as does Christianity, say. Some may wish to prostelitize to others over non belief, as I do myself if I feel there is a point to it, or at least if the other party is interested in discussion. At no time do I feel I must constantly defend the various and involved reasons for my atheism just because people who are inclined to such behaviour think I ought.

[Vanmeter815]

"And you do not have to prove something does NOT exist; it's the person making the positive claim who must back up their position."

But you do not think that a God who created the universe if he exists might be exempt from that rule? God is in a whole different league than fairies or unicorns concerning the burden of proof. Also from a social standpoint, everyone including atheists need to support their position with evidence. Atheists cannot expect to gain favor by any other means.

[DuctTapeMyFace]

Who wants to gain favour?!

[Vanmeter815]

Well what I meant is, atheists cannot expect to win people to the perceived correctness of their view if they do not support their view and fight for it. If you believe that atheism is true and you have a good reason for spreading that truth to others then you need to support atheism.

[JoshCarley]

I agree with you! Atheists have to back up their belief too.

[Vanmeter815]

Glad you agree.

If I was an atheist I wouldn't spread my atheism. I would just sit back and enjoy a carefree life and say screw it all, but hey that's just me. Some feel inclined to back up and fight for their atheism and I can at least respect that they would be willing to fight for something.

[badboyfrvr]

Yes, the ones who have beliefs on deities. The ones who call themselves atheists and just lack a belief in a deity don't need to back up any claims.

[JoshCarley]

By your definition then, you must accept that all animals, sidewalks, trees, and other inanimate objects are also atheists. Lacking belief is a non-statement because you have been exposed to the concept of God and have made a decision to accept or reject. Therefore, you either believe there is a God, or you do not, or you are agnostic. You cannot remain in a state of "lack of belief." Lastly, atheists are making a claim: God does not exist.

[badboyfrvr]

Not all atheists make that claim. During my period as an Atheist I didn't make that claim.

My definition of atheist is 'someone who lacks a belief in a deity.' Inanimate objects and animals aren't 'ones'.

Those who call themselves atheists have not necessarily rejected the idea of some god.

'you either believe there is a God, or you do not or you are agnostic'. Not exactly. There's a fourth one: or you believe he doesn't exist.

The ones who lack a belief in God just don't believe in him.

[JoshCarley]

To lack a belief says more about a person's psychological state than about their views on reality. I think this is just intellectual dishonesty and unwillingness to engage in the argument.

[badboyfrvr]

I see it more as open-mindedness. These atheists who claim to just lack a belief in gods leave open the possibility that gods exist, regardless of the perceived lack of evidence for them.

[MauricXe]

Precisely badboyfrvr. There is a difference between saying "I don't believe in something" and "Something does not exist."

The first one says "I don't know" and requires no evidence because it is the neutral position. The second makes an assertion that needs proof.

[LetReasonPrevail1]

@MauricXe I disagree completely. There are innumerable things that I can't prove don't absolutely exist, but it's entirely logical, sane & reasonable for me to say that I don't believe they exist (instead of simply saying "I don't know").

Unicorns, monsters under my bed, invisible pink elephants, aliens that disappear whenever I'm about to look at them, etc.

The burden is on you my friend. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Got any?

[MauricXe]

@LetReasonPrevail1 What burden is on me? And I think you may have misunderstood my previous statement. But I'll let you respond first.

[LetReasonPrevail1]

@MauricXe I must have misunderstood your comment. I thought you were commenting from the point of view that god's existence was assumed, and that the burden of proof would lie with someone who claimed god didn't in fact exist.

Seems to have been my bad.

Cheers

[hansquad]

Yeah, if you want to put it that way, atheists also make claims that there is no unicorn, Zeus, aphrodite, etc.

[BionicDance]

He says that if you're sincerely seeking god, god will reveal himself to you...but that's just an argument for self-hypnosis, and taking one's imagination as fact.

It's the skeptic who demands proof of claims and who sees personal experience as suspect that will discover the truth in the end.

And you do not have to prove something does NOT exist; it's the person making the positive claim who must back up their position.

[Kain5th]

ok that may be one refuteable point, but how about the others he makes?

[KeithTruth]

Listen to him. He says it is not a real argument. He merely advocated a certain openess to external influince. Not internal (imagination) because when he did that his life was transformed. For you to judge it and say it is imagination is an absolute claim in and of itself. Not very logical.