The little guy is clearly rehashing things he's read in a few books. He seems like he's trying to recall everything he says whereas Dr Craig is somply telling him how it is through his passion for what he believes in. Dr Craig sees this and is basically laughing his butt off the entire time.
I'm a Christian and I love the Michael Coren show. I really think that the true, saved and redeemed Christians really need to stop making fun, slamming and putting down Atheists. This is not the love of Christ, we have to be the bigger people here. I see a lot of people cussing them out and getting angry, and if you do these things with an Athiest then you might want to check your conversion to Christ. I'm not saying coddle them and yes stand your ground, but lets be clean about it.
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
"Wouldn't be so bad if he had something intelligent to contribute to the debate'."
The young lad has all the right to be conceited, since it's actually Craig who contributes nothing of significance. And then I am not even talking about this discussion, but about philosophy in general.
I actually think he did pretty well, but people are too easily swayed by Craig's car-salesman demeanor. If you really follow what is being said the kid makes some very good points that Craig simply dismisses by making very stupid remarks that are supposed to be funny.
@MomoTheBellyDancer The moderator looked aggravated at the kid, he couldn't get him to response properly to Craig's points. He clearly wasn't at the level of WLC.
"The moderator looked aggravated at the kid, he couldn't get him to response properly to Craig's points."
The kid responded with very sound arguments. He just isn't as much of a showman as Craig is and clearly not as used to being on television, which is perhaps why the moderator kept trying to make things "more interesting". It's a shame, since in doing that the moderator actually kept interrupting the good points the kid was making.
@MomoTheBellyDancer No he doesn't. I was willing to give the atheist the benefit of the doubt. Until he began to suggest that Christian only believe 'because they are told to'. That's a poor argument.
"Until he began to suggest that Christian only believe 'because they are told to'."
He's mostly right. People usually follow the religion of their parents, or at least the most prevalent one in the place they live in.
"That's a poor argument. "
Well, whatever. If you don't want to think and let snake-oil salesmen like Craig pander to you with their lies, be my guest. I decide to use my brain and go with the one with the proper arguments, no matter if they're TV-savvy or not.
--Assuming that Christians chose to follow the Christian faith merely because 1. They were told to or 2. or listening to speakers like Dr. Craig. As opposed to examining the evidence. Is making a stupid assumptions and hardly a sign of “using” ones brains.
I listen to Dr. Craig because he’s done his research on the topic. As opposed to the New Atheists who resort to fallacies and strawman arguments.
"follow the Christian faith merely because 1. They were told to"
I doubt anybody would come up with Christian concepts if they had never heard of them.
"I listen to Dr. Craig because he’s done his research on the topic"
Maybe he did 20 years ago, to a degree, but he is absolutely not knowledgeable of current science. He has been repeating his same arguments for decades now and simply handwaves all refutations away.
This atheist is a joke! Bring on an atheist who can actually muster an argument. The moderator had to practically force an argument out of him. William Lane Craig dominated as always.
So if the chimp pulls your balls off, it's just trying to prevent you from breeding? Now can we pull this selfish act into a being with a lot more brainpower, and see if there can be some sort of egocentric behavior behind the "evil" actions of this being? Is not the mantra of religion to be altruistic(e.g. to be "good")?
@conkpit I agree it was a poor build up of sentence. Mike said that the chimp did the deed as a selfish act, I think humans do many deeds as a selfish act. So is this not a proof of evolution? Good and evil are just words we use to explain i.e. actions, and usually we see egocentric acts as evil and altruistic acts as good. So I tried to point out how religion has made what we see as good and evil, thus this is human made concepts. It would be easier to explain in my own language....
@OrionVulcan You stated: "I think humans do many deeds as a selfish act. So is this not a proof of evolution?" But, you also posted: "So I tried to point out how religion has made what we see as good and evil, thus this is human made concepts." Question: Are human-made concepts of good and evil defined by religious standards wrong?
If evolution is true, we also have to accept the selfish motives of religious institutions to best control society by defining what is best for self preservation.
@conkpit To me religion is not necessary to define "good" and "evil". We don't need thousand year old scripture to find out what is the right morals and ethics. To have an idea is better than to have faith, you can change an idea, but try to change faith... Now you can find good morals and ethics in religious texts, but there is also a lot of bad morals and ethics. When some religious people interpret the texts literally, you sometimes get people of good morals doing really bad things.
@OrionVulcan You have hit it right on the head, my dear Watson! You stated:"...but there is also a lot of bad morals and ethics." As a society, we must be intelligent enough to extract from religion--like any other system such as philosophy, government, science, etc.--that which we believe can benefit and build good moral standards and dispose of ideals that would be destructive to our well being. But let us not be naive to believe all religious doctrine is of no value to a society.
@conkpit Hehe. Why do you need religion? If, as you say, we can cherry-pick the good bits and leave out the bad ones, why do we need religion at all? The problem is when you have the religious zealots, who is persistent in not accepting the cherry-picking, but demand submission to the whole religious dogma. This is something I think we can only be sure we're rid off, when religion is scrapped. I have never stated that religion don't have ethics and morals, but the faith part is not needed.
@OrionVulcan Did you not state: "To have an idea is better than to have faith, you can change an idea, but try to change faith...." If you can change an idea, you have no concrete moral system. In other words, morals are arbitrarily based on the changing ideals of a society. Morals--apart from religion--based on an arbitrary system accepted by a society are not necessarily good or evil. There is no such existence as good or evil moral in a non-religious, evolutionary society.
"In other words, morals are arbitrarily based on the changing ideals of a society. "
Indeed. Modern society has very different morals from the bronze-age society that brought forth the Bible. Believers have been constantly changing their beliefs to reflect new ideas about morality, making the Bible fit in with those new notions, NOT the other way around. In short: the Bible is NOT the source of Christian morality. If it were, we'd still stone adulterers to death.
@conkpit You miss the point of that statement. Morals should undergo constant improvement, a developing society are not static. In a changing world we need to evolve, also in terms of morals.And you are right, I do not think in terms of good and evil, I think in terms of right and wrong. Goo and evil are, to me, just religious ways of placing people doing right and wrong things in a spiritual sphere.
@OrionVulcan Your sarcastic "Haha" response to my conclusion only validates your deeper conviction of your belief in God. Did I use the word "your" too much?
@conkpit This is what I'd call trolling. Anyway, since you obviously don't have any more arguments of value, I see no reason to continue this discussion.
@OrionVulcan You responded to all of my postings with a defense for your beliefs, but yet, you now accuse me of trolling. If you knew I was trolling, why would you continue to engage in this dialogue with me. Am I bothering you? If so, I will leave you alone.
@conkpit IMO you started trolling when you said I believed in God and the bible, but never answered how you came to that conclusion. A constructive discussion is always welcome, but when you start to make unfounded assumptions about me, you move outside what I'd call a constructive discussion.
@OrionVulcan How am I trolling if I have an opinion based on an assumption? IMO I am convinced you truly believe there is a God. That is not a trolling statement. I never accused you of trolling because you stated your own beliefs. If you truly do not believe in God, then my assumption is wrong.
To search for the purpose of our existence and to understand the whole nature of an unseen God is more frustrating than denying his own existence.
@conkpit When I stated my own belief, I'd not call that trolling, but you stated you knew my beliefs but never explained how you came to that conclusion. That's what I meant when I said you were trolling. Anyway, I am not out to quarrel with you, and we are moving far of topic. I do not believe there is a god, since there has never been any proof of his existence. I can't really say God does not exist, but I can say there has never been proven he does exist.
Looks to me that Craig is just convinced by the poetry of his notions.. which backs up Coren and gives him "permission" to act in a condescending way to Peyton, who is just being honest.
5:55 - SELF-DEFEATING: If you can't prove a negative, than how can you possibly prove that you can't prove a negative. If you were able to prove that you can't prove a negative, than it would follow that the very proof of this claim would make it self-contradicting because we would have just proven a negative. To claim contradicts itself because it is itself a negative. You can in fact prove negatives: You can prove that the sun is not non-existent. Try checking out the rule of double-negation.
Dr. Craig is a "debate clown", a sophist. You can never engage in in an honest dialogue with him. It's not hard for a specialist debater not interested in the truth to wiggle around and avoid issues in order to "win" the debate. If you have absolutely no interest in the truth like Dr. Craig then you use whatever dishonest trick available in the bag.
@kitzmill Your talking nonsense. All of Craig's arguments are perfectly logical and intellectually sound, which is why he has published his arguments in hundreds of peer-reviewed journals of philosophy, and been praised by leading atheist philosophers like Quentin Smith. You dont have a clue what your talking about.
Atheists always accuse Craig of being a "sophist" because they cant understand why he always thumps atheists in debates. Clue....its coz their arguments are so fucking weak.
@relarerfhjk I don't think so. Talk of "necessary beings" is not honest, how does anyone know about these entities, he's trying to use ordinary logic at the very boundary of existence and beyond. I can't say that he's wrong, because I don't know what he's talking about and neither does he (imho)
@kitzmill "necessary beings" simply describes anything that is perfect and thus depends on nothing else for its existence. There are only two kinds of beings, contingent beings and necessary beings. The very existence of any contingent beings implies the existence of a necessary being to have brought them into existence,(an uncaused First Cause) since non-existence cant produce existence.
@relarerfhjk No, no no, it won't do. These divine attributes like perfect, necessary, omniscient are nonsense. They lead to semantic games. Truth is we have no idea if the mean anything for we have yet to encounter entities with these attributes and investigate them :) So this "necessary" you may think it is defined, but it means nothing, it's sloppy thinking by philosophers, cannot be used in any real argument. Sorry.
@kitzmill Necessity is a real attribute. Rad more about the Principle of Sufficient Reason in the essay by Alexander Pruss ( PhD in Philosophy and Mathematics ) in the book The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology.
The host is pretty unfair on Payton, and a little condescending. It is possible to bring up Aquinas without the point being central to Aquinas' work. It is possible to quote Wittgenstein in a reasonable way without Wittgenstein "being on your side" in a general sense, and correcting "Wittgenstein was Catholic" with "Jewish actually" is unfair considering the complexity of the issue.
Michael Payton is pretty pathetic, I could give Dr. Craig better anti-theistic arguments and I'm Christian. Payton just slit his own throat, is the guy even an atheist...lol
@pillsareyummy Atheism is a belief, you need to go and learn basic philosophy deductive logic.To state something does not exist, without objective proof, is as much a belief as stating that it does exist. If physicists cannot physically see strings, but they use probability to speculate whether or not they exist. If one physicist says the strings exist, and the other says strings dont exist,these are both unproven beliefs.Agnosticism is neutral, whereas atheism rejects the idea God exists.
@relarerfhjk Atheism and theism have to do with 'belief', where as gnosticism and agnosticism have to do with 'knowledge'. For example, I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't believe in your God, or any other God(s), because I see no EVIDENCE for them, and the evidence which is given isn't sufficient to change my mind. However, I'm open to the possibility of an 'intelligence' behind the Cosmos, simply because it's possibility I can't ignore, nor can prove to be incorrect (I can't prove a negative).
@pillsareyummy you can be an agnostic atheist, but you cant intellectually justify strong atheism (the belief that God does not exist). William Lane Craig is brilliant at demonstrating the fallacy of atheists who say that just because they dont think the evidence God exists is strong enough therefore He does NOT exist... the logical equivalent of "because i don't believe the evidence the stock market is going to go up....that must mean the stock market is going to go down"
@relarerfhjk Your point concerning my 'can't prove a negative' comment isn't congruent with the context in which I wrote it (at least from what I remember, since I'm not going to bother looking up my comment). That quote was related to God, and when it comes to God, it's practically impossible to prove a negative (that God doesn't exist). And I can use that fact as a segue to comment on the first post you made to me...
@pillsareyummy But its not impossible to prove God does not exist. You simply have to prove that his existence is logically incompatible with known facts (i.e atheists try to argue that god's existence is incompatible with the existence of evil). The problem is that the atheists arguments all fail, as Craig has demonstrated time and time again.
Also, why would 'known facts' have anything to do with proving the existence of God? If God is Omnipotent, then he isn't bound by the 'facts' (that we observe) which of course have to do with the laws of nature. All an Atheist can do is state that the laws don't require the existence of God. However, that says nothing about God's existence. God could have created a completely self contained universe, which only has the 'appearance' that he doesn't exist. I'm willing to concede that.
The problem with Craig, and others like him, is that they try to infer God's motives and desires, or simply, what God 'thinks'. That's where I loose interest. Nobody knows anything about God, even if the claim to. Anyway, I'm done...
@conkpit No, 'God didn't tell me his truth', if he did, I would believe in him. Anyone can make claims about anything, God being one of them. What matters is whether or not they have any evidence to back their claims. Of course, non do, so I'm an Atheist. Also, which 'God' are you referring to? There are, shall we say, quite a few (and that's putting it mildly).
"The facts are stacked against atheism, because atheism is an absurd belief," That's a non sequitur. Atheism isn't a belief; it's a lack of belief (in God), because there is no evidence to suggest that your, or any other Gods, are true.
Thats a fallacy, sir! You CAN prove a negative...no serious atheist philosopher would assert something so stupid. You can prove something does not exist, by showing it is logically impossible for it to exist...i.e married bachelors or square circles couldnt exist. Or you can prove something couldnt co-exist with other things we know do exist (i.e ice cant co-exist with heat) Or you can empirically prove a negative i.e the Earth is not flat etc
@relarerfhjk Since it's practically impossible to prove that God doesn't exist (proving a negative), therefore, as you stated, it IS intellectually dishonest to state that he doesn't (exist). Atheism has to do with 'belief'; NOT knowledge. And few atheists would state that 'God doesn't exist'. You sort of contradicted yourself. Again, since one can 't prove a negative concerning the existence of God, therefore 'hard atheism' is intellectually dishonest. I agree with you on that.
@pillsareyummy Its not impossible to prove God doesnt exist,its remarkably easy. Its just that atheists have failed to do it, and all the best evidence indicates he does exist. To prove God does not exist, you would simply have to prove what all naturalists used to argue prior to Big Bang cosmology...that the Universe is past-eternal. But the Bord-Guth-Villenkin theorem confirms that everything in the natural world had a beginning. To falsify Christianity, simply discover the bones of Jesus.
@pillsareyummy Nobody knows what happened prior to the Big Bang, also, the Big Bang wasn't the beginning of the universe, it was the beginning of the 'expansion phase' of the universe, we don't know how long the singularity existed, so all claims about God creating the universe are nullified. As far as the 'natural world' is concerned (Earth) we understand quite a lot about solar system formation and the evolution of life. The only real gap left is Abiogensis.
In intellectual circles (both Atheist and religious), Craig's arguments are regarded as nothing more than Sophistry, not to mention all the Straw men fallacies and quote mining he does. Craig's 'Philosophy' can't be 'peer reviewed' the way that science is peer reviewed. You can't replicate his findings in any meaningful way that can be measured (which is the hart of empiricism which the Peer review process belongs to).
Confidence and repeating "right" don't equal academic integrity...I wish Craig or Coren during some point in this discussion would have stopped the guest and said (To his :"right") and shouted:
This show is horrifically biased. Why is Craig, probably the pre eminent apologist of his age debating some lowly masters student? Lets not even mention the host.
@hippotoast ...Listen to the host in the beginning, they didn't even have any of his books mentioned or to promote. Whoever booked him didn't do their homework and realize who he is. I think they just thought he was some theologian that had a basic opinion.
this guys a fukin idiot..!!! omfg !!! if a paralyzed person got paralzyed HE DOES NOT GIVE A FUCK IF HES GONNA BE CLOSER TO GOD, THATS THE LAST THING IN HIS MIND... HIS LIFE IS RUINED.. YOU FOOLS WHO THINK GOD HAS A REASON FOR THAT ARE FUKIN delusional!!!! fuck god...
This kid doesn't know who the Devil is, lol. He isn't a "force of evil". Just like how hitler isn't a force of evil. He, just like hitler, is a volitional being who works with evil deeds and evil intentions.
This is bad stuff really. The host is completely biased towards Theism for one. Also, this is supposed to be a debate, but the Atheist doesn´t seem to want to debate, but rather discuss. So basically we have Craig debating and the host backing him up, but the Atheist discussing while getting interrupted by the host who wants him to debate.
From what I believe God means (creator) or (the creator). Why can't people just be happy just knowing we are alive and we don't know who are God is? or who are God is yet? Don't try telling me it's Jesus when you don't know either and definatley don't force upon me. This is coming from an ex Christian of the Nazarene Church.
This athiest guy is smart, they're trying to force him into a argument he cannot win like he stated" you cannot prove a double negative" if you're nuetral to the idea of God Craig's arguments hold no weight that's why he keeps getting pressure into saying an argument that is absolute and he is smart enough to not do it. Anything you can attribute to god you can attribute it without God aswell.
It really is too bad that WLC's opponent wasn't really up to the job. It's really too bad only WLC had a ready script. It's really too bad that the "moderator" was clearly decided before the conversation began. I don't think much deep thinking was exposed here.
The only thing I got out of it was to point out that WLC is indeed an apologist (apologizing for God).
The Atheist kid was just rambling away with an empty load of words... I was wishing Richard Dawkins was in his place. At least he would be a more worthy opponent for Craig.
The character of God himself is simply fascinating. You must approach the stories with humility and a realization that on the whole man does tend toward evil, (self evaluation that is hard for many people to do) but it is clear his character is benevolent. A far as the wars and ethnic cleansing, child sacrifice was common among the exterminated peoples, who were by all accounts hardened religious zealots. A good understanding of the history at that time can explain all such topics like that one.
"The character of God himself is simply fascinating."
Yes. Why an omnipotent being would be such a nasty bully is indeed quite a good question.
"his character is benevolent. "
Yes, blaming its creation for the deeds of their ancestors, killing off the whole earth and torturing souls forever in the afterlife are very benevolent indeed.
Anyone that takes an honest, unguided, literal read of the whole Bible (you could even skip some of the mostly historical books from the old testament without harm) will see that it's vastly different from nearly all other religious texts, (because there are some that borrow from it) even if you still don't believe IN it. The deep psychological evaluation of man and often unusually selfish nature are carefully explored in such a way that the majority of people seem unable of doing to themselves.
@1empathy I would agree that the vast majority of all religious texts (all but one actuualy haha) are obviously ridiculous. I would differ with you on the Bible though, and I would presume that you have never given it a full unaided read. The vast majority of all I hear from atheists about the Bible comes from badly misquoted and misinterpreted parts of the Bible, and religion created ritual, quoted and practiced by extremely stupid, bigoted, and closed minded people, the kind that killed Jesus.
I have spent probably close to 150 hours of watching atheists and Christians debate and from what I can tell there really isn't an argument for atheism at all. They just basically say if he exists he is an asshole. Personally I feel like the best and really only smoking gun atheists have to attack Christianity with is the sexual restrictions. I am pretty sure if God permitted orgies this desperate God hate movement would die off, because isn't the "evidence" for evolution thats keeping it alive.
@promossage How do you explain a bible containing ethnic cleansing and scientific inaccuracies? I am an atheist according to religious people, but what i really am is a person without religion. God (or belief in god) is irrelevant, it is belief in the holy books (clearly errant) that retards society and causes conflict. Believe in god/gods if you mus,t but stop being religious please.
haha give him proof that god doesn't exist? - okay then... what is a god in the first place? - where is it?.. how can this be proven to be god and not an alien or an illusion?.. yes - i would answer with questions.
@Tripockets Craig is a professional debater and a professional bender of the truth. Everything Craig said was pure speculation and nothing that could be tested in anyway, even by Craig himself. This guy that they brought is there because they know Craig is prepared to take whatever he has, after all Craig hears arguments from leading atheists all the time. Craig would not dominate a debate against Dawkins or Dillahunty, or even youtube atheists like aronra. Deluded as you are the fool is you.
what do you think a big chunk of your theories are? speculation..do they impose scientific facts yes, are they observable, no....so what is it...speculation...
Craig would completely own Richard dawkins, dawkins knows this, hence why he won't debate him..obvious is obvious... ben stien made dawkins look like an idiot, Dawkins admitted design, and didn't even know his insults to god without reading it... dawkins has no guts, and is known to dish it out but not take it...
@coolst0rybro dawkins has given good reasons not to debate william lane craig - i think people have to get over this - i don't think he'd own dawkins at all... it would be interesting, but - it's not gonna happen.
@coolst0rybro but dawkins doesn't claim to be a better debater than william lane craig... this is a strange analogy.. i think it would be an interesting debate - i actually think dawkins is an excellent speaker and has alot more knowledge about the arguments against god than most of the professors that debate craig on the existance of god.
craig is a fundie - he has his own style - which alot of people are adopting, he is a religious leader, the church of craig may become a denomination.
Whoa, whoa I definitely disagree on craig being a fundie, he stated that the world is NOT 6000 years old. he seems to feel that YEC arises from a strain of anti-intellectualism in the modern church that hasn't been present throughout
I also disagree on Dawkins being better than guys who WLC has debated....Christopher Hitchens in my eyes is more of threat than Dawkins..
It would be interesting, but unfortunetely like you said I don't think it is going to happen...
@coolst0rybro yeah - but i don't really have the ol' pat on the back for looking at some science he can annex into his dogma.. his agnosticism of evolution is kind of stupid for an intellectual.. and his stance on homosexuality is exactly like your regular fundie... so he's a creationist and a homophobe, i'd like to ask him if people choose to be gay - because he said participating in homosexuality is like chain smoking - then i'd ask him when he chose to be straight.
What I love though is when there are new arguments, or some type of originality. I feel like im watching re-runs now when WLC Vs _______ debate now. it is the same arguments and rebuttals over and over lol
@coolst0rybro haha - they're basically carbon copies, especially with his 5 arguments... well - personal witness of the holy ghost isn't an argument.. he gets a bit different when you watch him debate on a particular topic like morality or the resurrection.. maybe not a debate with dawkins - but a conversation.. but i'd actually rather see astrophysicist lawrence krauss having a discussion with craig on the topic of cosmology..
@TheBeerVolcano Dillahunty would be just the right man to spank Craig. While not nearly as smart or educated as Dawkins, he is a good speaker and debater and just as aggressive as Craig if not even more so. Not that Dawkins or Aronra wouldn´t also beat him, they would probably just be a bit to kind to him. Craig has already been defeated in debate IMO though. Find his debate vs Victor Stenger.
@rokkvi1 HAHAHA After every debate about God, the theists say there side one and the atheists say their side one. There are exceptions to this, but it is what happens most of the time.
@FatalKnight yep that is usually true and I said IMO (in my opinion) Stenger won the debate, not that it was a "fact". These debates are not scored, there aren´t any judges, votes on it or anything so nobody officially "wins" these debates. Yet as you say, many people talk about the "fact" that so or so "won" the debate.
WLC fans will quite often say he´s "won" all his debates and that his arguments have never been refuted, both of which are opinions, not facts.
@relarerfhjk I keep hearing that BS statement over and over. The accurate statement is that in YOUR OPINION they have not been properly refuted. Fact is, there exist plenty of refuations of his arguments, refutations of the refutations and so on and so on. These are not mathematically formal arguments and therefore can´t be formally proven or disproven. WLC has never been able to prove the arguments emperically either and the burden of proof is on him.
Was this a grad student? Oh man. So funny lol
Jagzman09 1 week ago
Comment removed
On3Thought 3 weeks ago
The little guy is clearly rehashing things he's read in a few books. He seems like he's trying to recall everything he says whereas Dr Craig is somply telling him how it is through his passion for what he believes in. Dr Craig sees this and is basically laughing his butt off the entire time.
BlongBlarble 1 month ago
Dr. vs student, quite fair indeed Coren...
chronsauce 1 month ago
I'm a Christian and I love the Michael Coren show. I really think that the true, saved and redeemed Christians really need to stop making fun, slamming and putting down Atheists. This is not the love of Christ, we have to be the bigger people here. I see a lot of people cussing them out and getting angry, and if you do these things with an Athiest then you might want to check your conversion to Christ. I'm not saying coddle them and yes stand your ground, but lets be clean about it.
bodom71 2 months ago
At 7:20, Dr Craig looks disgusted with this guy and his cumbersome speech.
MrPaul1872 2 months ago
if cognitive scientist means buffoon then all crap coming from him makes sense.
CumSeNumesteMelodia 3 months ago
this little guy is blabbling crap...Dr Craig wins!!!!
erubians1 4 months ago 9
Comment removed
WSSIIWarlordII 4 months ago
Craig looks so happy at 7:20
scar504 5 months ago 5
@scar504 lol
Dodo251 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK (DONATED) FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
they probably picked this nobody because Craig doesn't do so well outside a debate format.
ganados0 5 months ago
JESUS CHRIST KNEW ABOUT GOD.
Maratom1 6 months ago
Oh my, this guy was in way over his head.
canibalcorpse73 6 months ago
What a smug little prig whose arrogance is a great as his ignorance. But then, most atheists tend to be.
andyyyp2 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@andyyyp2
"What a smug little prig whose arrogance is a great as his ignorance. But then, most atheists tend to be."
Ad hominem noted. Thanks for playing.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
Just look at the expression on Craig's face. It's not hard to tell what he's thinking -
'What a conceited young prig. Wouldn't be so bad if he had something intelligent to contribute to the debate'.
Brendan47051 6 months ago in playlist The Adventures of an Apologist: William L. Craig (Part 2/2)
This has been flagged as spam show
@Brendan47051
"Wouldn't be so bad if he had something intelligent to contribute to the debate'."
The young lad has all the right to be conceited, since it's actually Craig who contributes nothing of significance. And then I am not even talking about this discussion, but about philosophy in general.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
I don't even think Richard Dawkins would stand a chance against this guy...
Stephen2678 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Stephen2678
"don't even think Richard Dawkins would stand a chance against this guy..."
Craig gets his ass kicked all over. Just watch this videos for a Youtuber who does so with vigor:
/watch?v=veB1uUOv6Vg
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
why did they get this plebeian to debate Craig?
jc1daddy2 6 months ago
Why would they put a rookie against William Lane Craig... Poor kid he was thrown against a lion. The kid had no chance since the beginning...
jmanxiv1 6 months ago
@jmanxiv1
"The kid had no chance since the beginning... "
I actually think he did pretty well, but people are too easily swayed by Craig's car-salesman demeanor. If you really follow what is being said the kid makes some very good points that Craig simply dismisses by making very stupid remarks that are supposed to be funny.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer The moderator looked aggravated at the kid, he couldn't get him to response properly to Craig's points. He clearly wasn't at the level of WLC.
jmanxiv1 6 months ago
@jmanxiv1
"The moderator looked aggravated at the kid, he couldn't get him to response properly to Craig's points."
The kid responded with very sound arguments. He just isn't as much of a showman as Craig is and clearly not as used to being on television, which is perhaps why the moderator kept trying to make things "more interesting". It's a shame, since in doing that the moderator actually kept interrupting the good points the kid was making.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer No he doesn't. I was willing to give the atheist the benefit of the doubt. Until he began to suggest that Christian only believe 'because they are told to'. That's a poor argument.
vittoriacolona 6 months ago
@vittoriacolona
"Until he began to suggest that Christian only believe 'because they are told to'."
He's mostly right. People usually follow the religion of their parents, or at least the most prevalent one in the place they live in.
"That's a poor argument. "
Well, whatever. If you don't want to think and let snake-oil salesmen like Craig pander to you with their lies, be my guest. I decide to use my brain and go with the one with the proper arguments, no matter if they're TV-savvy or not.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
--Assuming that Christians chose to follow the Christian faith merely because 1. They were told to or 2. or listening to speakers like Dr. Craig. As opposed to examining the evidence. Is making a stupid assumptions and hardly a sign of “using” ones brains.
I listen to Dr. Craig because he’s done his research on the topic. As opposed to the New Atheists who resort to fallacies and strawman arguments.
vittoriacolona 6 months ago
@vittoriacolona
"follow the Christian faith merely because 1. They were told to"
I doubt anybody would come up with Christian concepts if they had never heard of them.
"I listen to Dr. Craig because he’s done his research on the topic"
Maybe he did 20 years ago, to a degree, but he is absolutely not knowledgeable of current science. He has been repeating his same arguments for decades now and simply handwaves all refutations away.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MomoTheBellyDancer "the kid makes some very good points" hahaha what were these "good points" I must have missed that bit!
relarerfhjk 5 months ago
In comparison to Craig, Payton fails to come up with arguments
tjobv 7 months ago
Question for all atheists: Is William Lane Craig mentally unstable or is God?
conkpit 7 months ago
This atheist is a joke! Bring on an atheist who can actually muster an argument. The moderator had to practically force an argument out of him. William Lane Craig dominated as always.
trevxd7 7 months ago
So if the chimp pulls your balls off, it's just trying to prevent you from breeding? Now can we pull this selfish act into a being with a lot more brainpower, and see if there can be some sort of egocentric behavior behind the "evil" actions of this being? Is not the mantra of religion to be altruistic(e.g. to be "good")?
OrionVulcan 7 months ago
@OrionVulcan I do not understand your statement.
conkpit 7 months ago
@conkpit I agree it was a poor build up of sentence. Mike said that the chimp did the deed as a selfish act, I think humans do many deeds as a selfish act. So is this not a proof of evolution? Good and evil are just words we use to explain i.e. actions, and usually we see egocentric acts as evil and altruistic acts as good. So I tried to point out how religion has made what we see as good and evil, thus this is human made concepts. It would be easier to explain in my own language....
OrionVulcan 7 months ago
@OrionVulcan You stated: "I think humans do many deeds as a selfish act. So is this not a proof of evolution?" But, you also posted: "So I tried to point out how religion has made what we see as good and evil, thus this is human made concepts." Question: Are human-made concepts of good and evil defined by religious standards wrong?
If evolution is true, we also have to accept the selfish motives of religious institutions to best control society by defining what is best for self preservation.
conkpit 7 months ago
@conkpit To me religion is not necessary to define "good" and "evil". We don't need thousand year old scripture to find out what is the right morals and ethics. To have an idea is better than to have faith, you can change an idea, but try to change faith... Now you can find good morals and ethics in religious texts, but there is also a lot of bad morals and ethics. When some religious people interpret the texts literally, you sometimes get people of good morals doing really bad things.
OrionVulcan 7 months ago
@OrionVulcan You have hit it right on the head, my dear Watson! You stated:"...but there is also a lot of bad morals and ethics." As a society, we must be intelligent enough to extract from religion--like any other system such as philosophy, government, science, etc.--that which we believe can benefit and build good moral standards and dispose of ideals that would be destructive to our well being. But let us not be naive to believe all religious doctrine is of no value to a society.
conkpit 7 months ago
@conkpit Hehe. Why do you need religion? If, as you say, we can cherry-pick the good bits and leave out the bad ones, why do we need religion at all? The problem is when you have the religious zealots, who is persistent in not accepting the cherry-picking, but demand submission to the whole religious dogma. This is something I think we can only be sure we're rid off, when religion is scrapped. I have never stated that religion don't have ethics and morals, but the faith part is not needed.
OrionVulcan 7 months ago
@OrionVulcan Did you not state: "To have an idea is better than to have faith, you can change an idea, but try to change faith...." If you can change an idea, you have no concrete moral system. In other words, morals are arbitrarily based on the changing ideals of a society. Morals--apart from religion--based on an arbitrary system accepted by a society are not necessarily good or evil. There is no such existence as good or evil moral in a non-religious, evolutionary society.
conkpit 6 months ago
@conkpit
"In other words, morals are arbitrarily based on the changing ideals of a society. "
Indeed. Modern society has very different morals from the bronze-age society that brought forth the Bible. Believers have been constantly changing their beliefs to reflect new ideas about morality, making the Bible fit in with those new notions, NOT the other way around. In short: the Bible is NOT the source of Christian morality. If it were, we'd still stone adulterers to death.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Oh, I see what you mean.
conkpit 6 months ago
@conkpit You miss the point of that statement. Morals should undergo constant improvement, a developing society are not static. In a changing world we need to evolve, also in terms of morals.And you are right, I do not think in terms of good and evil, I think in terms of right and wrong. Goo and evil are, to me, just religious ways of placing people doing right and wrong things in a spiritual sphere.
OrionVulcan 5 months ago
@OrionVulcan So, Mr. OrionVulcan, you do believe in God and the Bible.
conkpit 5 months ago
@conkpit Haha. How did you come to that conclusion?
OrionVulcan 5 months ago
@OrionVulcan Your sarcastic "Haha" response to my conclusion only validates your deeper conviction of your belief in God. Did I use the word "your" too much?
conkpit 5 months ago
@conkpit You evaded my question, how did you come to that conclusion? The "Haha" was not sarcastic, I just found your comment amusing.
OrionVulcan 5 months ago
@OrionVulcan You already know why you believe in God. There is no need to provide you an answer.
conkpit 5 months ago
@conkpit This is what I'd call trolling. Anyway, since you obviously don't have any more arguments of value, I see no reason to continue this discussion.
OrionVulcan 5 months ago
@OrionVulcan You responded to all of my postings with a defense for your beliefs, but yet, you now accuse me of trolling. If you knew I was trolling, why would you continue to engage in this dialogue with me. Am I bothering you? If so, I will leave you alone.
conkpit 5 months ago
@conkpit IMO you started trolling when you said I believed in God and the bible, but never answered how you came to that conclusion. A constructive discussion is always welcome, but when you start to make unfounded assumptions about me, you move outside what I'd call a constructive discussion.
OrionVulcan 5 months ago
@OrionVulcan How am I trolling if I have an opinion based on an assumption? IMO I am convinced you truly believe there is a God. That is not a trolling statement. I never accused you of trolling because you stated your own beliefs. If you truly do not believe in God, then my assumption is wrong.
To search for the purpose of our existence and to understand the whole nature of an unseen God is more frustrating than denying his own existence.
conkpit 5 months ago
@conkpit When I stated my own belief, I'd not call that trolling, but you stated you knew my beliefs but never explained how you came to that conclusion. That's what I meant when I said you were trolling. Anyway, I am not out to quarrel with you, and we are moving far of topic. I do not believe there is a god, since there has never been any proof of his existence. I can't really say God does not exist, but I can say there has never been proven he does exist.
OrionVulcan 5 months ago
Comment removed
strangetranceoffaith 7 months ago
you have to admit-this atheist is horrible debater... lol at 7:22 - WLC looks like he just smelled a fart...
bfinkish 7 months ago
you have to admit-this atheist is horrible debater...
bfinkish 7 months ago
Lol Coren doesn't want to lay a foundation for his argument, he keeps going around in circles making a fool of himself..
DiLxThief 7 months ago
Looks to me that Craig is just convinced by the poetry of his notions.. which backs up Coren and gives him "permission" to act in a condescending way to Peyton, who is just being honest.
unifiedreality 7 months ago
5:55 - SELF-DEFEATING: If you can't prove a negative, than how can you possibly prove that you can't prove a negative. If you were able to prove that you can't prove a negative, than it would follow that the very proof of this claim would make it self-contradicting because we would have just proven a negative. To claim contradicts itself because it is itself a negative. You can in fact prove negatives: You can prove that the sun is not non-existent. Try checking out the rule of double-negation.
jlangston23 8 months ago
Check out the look on Dr. Craig's face on 7:18. LOL
SonnyDelight55 8 months ago
Dr. Craig is a "debate clown", a sophist. You can never engage in in an honest dialogue with him. It's not hard for a specialist debater not interested in the truth to wiggle around and avoid issues in order to "win" the debate. If you have absolutely no interest in the truth like Dr. Craig then you use whatever dishonest trick available in the bag.
kitzmill 8 months ago
@kitzmill you summed it up completely!
rokkvi1 7 months ago
@kitzmill Your talking nonsense. All of Craig's arguments are perfectly logical and intellectually sound, which is why he has published his arguments in hundreds of peer-reviewed journals of philosophy, and been praised by leading atheist philosophers like Quentin Smith. You dont have a clue what your talking about.
Atheists always accuse Craig of being a "sophist" because they cant understand why he always thumps atheists in debates. Clue....its coz their arguments are so fucking weak.
relarerfhjk 6 months ago
@relarerfhjk I don't think so. Talk of "necessary beings" is not honest, how does anyone know about these entities, he's trying to use ordinary logic at the very boundary of existence and beyond. I can't say that he's wrong, because I don't know what he's talking about and neither does he (imho)
kitzmill 5 months ago
@kitzmill "necessary beings" simply describes anything that is perfect and thus depends on nothing else for its existence. There are only two kinds of beings, contingent beings and necessary beings. The very existence of any contingent beings implies the existence of a necessary being to have brought them into existence,(an uncaused First Cause) since non-existence cant produce existence.
relarerfhjk 5 months ago
@relarerfhjk No, no no, it won't do. These divine attributes like perfect, necessary, omniscient are nonsense. They lead to semantic games. Truth is we have no idea if the mean anything for we have yet to encounter entities with these attributes and investigate them :) So this "necessary" you may think it is defined, but it means nothing, it's sloppy thinking by philosophers, cannot be used in any real argument. Sorry.
kitzmill 5 months ago
@kitzmill Necessity is a real attribute. Rad more about the Principle of Sufficient Reason in the essay by Alexander Pruss ( PhD in Philosophy and Mathematics ) in the book The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology.
TheisticThinker 4 months ago
@relarerfhjk The Lebnizian Cosmological Argument ftw! :D
TheisticThinker 4 months ago
The host is pretty unfair on Payton, and a little condescending. It is possible to bring up Aquinas without the point being central to Aquinas' work. It is possible to quote Wittgenstein in a reasonable way without Wittgenstein "being on your side" in a general sense, and correcting "Wittgenstein was Catholic" with "Jewish actually" is unfair considering the complexity of the issue.
Slossius1983 8 months ago
GOD DOES NOT EXIST. Not in any religious way at least.
...
Oh! and one more thing, Craig is a Pathetic and lame Filosopher, his arguments have less weight than his Tie.
DrErkencho 8 months ago
@DrErkencho coming from the guy that spells philosophy with an F
Parodyguy001 7 months ago
@DrErkencho You are so wrong, Craig is not a Filosopher...he is a Krischian Opologist. :)
conkpit 7 months ago
Michael Payton is pretty pathetic, I could give Dr. Craig better anti-theistic arguments and I'm Christian. Payton just slit his own throat, is the guy even an atheist...lol
SylvanSage 8 months ago
@SylvanSage that is exactly what i was thinking. I could give him a better argument and I believe in God! God bless!
bfinkish 7 months ago
@SylvanSage Why do you classify Mr. Payton as pathetic? I, personally do not believe Payton is as pathetic as you claim.
conkpit 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
7:20 Craig thinking: "omg,i cant believe i missed the game because of this"
joel230182 8 months ago
7:20 Craig thinking: "omg,i cant believe i missed the game because of this!?"
joel230182 8 months ago
7:20 Craig thinking: "omg, missed the game because of this!?"
joel230182 8 months ago
wtf , was that atheist hand picked by craig's team , lol
CHASCHARLTON 8 months ago
watch Dr. Craig's expression at 7:19 :D epic.
danieljanca 8 months ago
Michael Coren at 6:00 even sees there is no argument not to believe in God. He couldn't have even given a reason that God does not exist.
xchampx 9 months ago
The look on his face is like - WTF???
LMAO 7:20
DoYerBest 9 months ago
I can't post what I wanted. Anyway, Rela... Atheism isn't a belief; it a lack of belief.
pillsareyummy 10 months ago
@pillsareyummy Atheism is a belief, you need to go and learn basic philosophy deductive logic.To state something does not exist, without objective proof, is as much a belief as stating that it does exist. If physicists cannot physically see strings, but they use probability to speculate whether or not they exist. If one physicist says the strings exist, and the other says strings dont exist,these are both unproven beliefs.Agnosticism is neutral, whereas atheism rejects the idea God exists.
relarerfhjk 10 months ago
@relarerfhjk Atheism and theism have to do with 'belief', where as gnosticism and agnosticism have to do with 'knowledge'. For example, I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't believe in your God, or any other God(s), because I see no EVIDENCE for them, and the evidence which is given isn't sufficient to change my mind. However, I'm open to the possibility of an 'intelligence' behind the Cosmos, simply because it's possibility I can't ignore, nor can prove to be incorrect (I can't prove a negative).
pillsareyummy 10 months ago
@pillsareyummy you can be an agnostic atheist, but you cant intellectually justify strong atheism (the belief that God does not exist). William Lane Craig is brilliant at demonstrating the fallacy of atheists who say that just because they dont think the evidence God exists is strong enough therefore He does NOT exist... the logical equivalent of "because i don't believe the evidence the stock market is going to go up....that must mean the stock market is going to go down"
relarerfhjk 6 months ago
@relarerfhjk Your point concerning my 'can't prove a negative' comment isn't congruent with the context in which I wrote it (at least from what I remember, since I'm not going to bother looking up my comment). That quote was related to God, and when it comes to God, it's practically impossible to prove a negative (that God doesn't exist). And I can use that fact as a segue to comment on the first post you made to me...
pillsareyummy 6 months ago
@pillsareyummy But its not impossible to prove God does not exist. You simply have to prove that his existence is logically incompatible with known facts (i.e atheists try to argue that god's existence is incompatible with the existence of evil). The problem is that the atheists arguments all fail, as Craig has demonstrated time and time again.
relarerfhjk 6 months ago
Also, why would 'known facts' have anything to do with proving the existence of God? If God is Omnipotent, then he isn't bound by the 'facts' (that we observe) which of course have to do with the laws of nature. All an Atheist can do is state that the laws don't require the existence of God. However, that says nothing about God's existence. God could have created a completely self contained universe, which only has the 'appearance' that he doesn't exist. I'm willing to concede that.
pillsareyummy 6 months ago
The problem with Craig, and others like him, is that they try to infer God's motives and desires, or simply, what God 'thinks'. That's where I loose interest. Nobody knows anything about God, even if the claim to. Anyway, I'm done...
pillsareyummy 6 months ago
@pillsareyummy How are you so sure no one knows anything about God? Did God tell you this truth?
conkpit 5 months ago
@conkpit No, 'God didn't tell me his truth', if he did, I would believe in him. Anyone can make claims about anything, God being one of them. What matters is whether or not they have any evidence to back their claims. Of course, non do, so I'm an Atheist. Also, which 'God' are you referring to? There are, shall we say, quite a few (and that's putting it mildly).
pillsareyummy 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The facts are stacked against atheism, because atheism is an absurd belief," That's a non sequitur. Atheism isn't a belief; it's a lack of belief (in God), because there is no evidence to suggest that your, or any other Gods, are true.
pillsareyummy 10 months ago
@pillsareyummy "you cant prove a negative"
Thats a fallacy, sir! You CAN prove a negative...no serious atheist philosopher would assert something so stupid. You can prove something does not exist, by showing it is logically impossible for it to exist...i.e married bachelors or square circles couldnt exist. Or you can prove something couldnt co-exist with other things we know do exist (i.e ice cant co-exist with heat) Or you can empirically prove a negative i.e the Earth is not flat etc
relarerfhjk 6 months ago
@relarerfhjk Since it's practically impossible to prove that God doesn't exist (proving a negative), therefore, as you stated, it IS intellectually dishonest to state that he doesn't (exist). Atheism has to do with 'belief'; NOT knowledge. And few atheists would state that 'God doesn't exist'. You sort of contradicted yourself. Again, since one can 't prove a negative concerning the existence of God, therefore 'hard atheism' is intellectually dishonest. I agree with you on that.
pillsareyummy 6 months ago
@pillsareyummy Its not impossible to prove God doesnt exist,its remarkably easy. Its just that atheists have failed to do it, and all the best evidence indicates he does exist. To prove God does not exist, you would simply have to prove what all naturalists used to argue prior to Big Bang cosmology...that the Universe is past-eternal. But the Bord-Guth-Villenkin theorem confirms that everything in the natural world had a beginning. To falsify Christianity, simply discover the bones of Jesus.
relarerfhjk 6 months ago
Comment removed
pillsareyummy 6 months ago
@pillsareyummy Nobody knows what happened prior to the Big Bang, also, the Big Bang wasn't the beginning of the universe, it was the beginning of the 'expansion phase' of the universe, we don't know how long the singularity existed, so all claims about God creating the universe are nullified. As far as the 'natural world' is concerned (Earth) we understand quite a lot about solar system formation and the evolution of life. The only real gap left is Abiogensis.
pillsareyummy 6 months ago
In intellectual circles (both Atheist and religious), Craig's arguments are regarded as nothing more than Sophistry, not to mention all the Straw men fallacies and quote mining he does. Craig's 'Philosophy' can't be 'peer reviewed' the way that science is peer reviewed. You can't replicate his findings in any meaningful way that can be measured (which is the hart of empiricism which the Peer review process belongs to).
pillsareyummy 6 months ago
@relarerfhjk To discover the bones of Jesus would invalidate his miraculous resurrection.
conkpit 5 months ago
Comment removed
pillsareyummy 10 months ago
Dr Craig's face at 7:20 sums this up so well "who IS this silly scientist?"lol
relarerfhjk 10 months ago
Is it just me or does the host look like The Penguin?
saltednuts15 10 months ago
Lord above, you gotta feel sorry for the poor scientist here, stumbling, mumbling, incoherent and annihilated by Craig
relarerfhjk 11 months ago 9
Give the guy a break. He is young and he has to debate with the world's greatest Christian debater. You guys are just being too hard on him.
buddhasknowbest 11 months ago
Dr. Craig: Articulate, Euphonic, Eloquent, and Coherent...
Michael Payton: Uh, Uhm, I..., Hmm...
Chess15 11 months ago
Someone should interview Craig and ask him what he thought about Michael Payton. His face is priceless!
DanPrinMan 11 months ago
worst atheist argument ever. i would feel shameful to b an atheist after this kind of showing.
moejobe 11 months ago 9
@moejobe
By that logic, I assume you're ashamed to be religious after the Crusades or in light of the Westboro Baptist Church and Bill O'Reilly.
IBDoyle 9 months ago
Confidence and repeating "right" don't equal academic integrity...I wish Craig or Coren during some point in this discussion would have stopped the guest and said (To his :"right") and shouted:
NO!
NilDesperandum777 11 months ago
why is the devil ludicrous.
RaytownSoClassof2010 1 year ago
It seem's that even the moderator has more common sense and intelligence than the atheist.
mytuber81 1 year ago
This show is horrifically biased. Why is Craig, probably the pre eminent apologist of his age debating some lowly masters student? Lets not even mention the host.
hippotoast 1 year ago 2
@hippotoast ...Listen to the host in the beginning, they didn't even have any of his books mentioned or to promote. Whoever booked him didn't do their homework and realize who he is. I think they just thought he was some theologian that had a basic opinion.
stanfan27 1 year ago
Ugh I can't even listen to this atheist's voice. Anyone else feel the same?
infamous681 1 year ago
@infamous681
lol i think the atheists watching feel the same, just dont wanna admit it!
JusJuiceIt 1 year ago
this guys a fukin idiot..!!! omfg !!! if a paralyzed person got paralzyed HE DOES NOT GIVE A FUCK IF HES GONNA BE CLOSER TO GOD, THATS THE LAST THING IN HIS MIND... HIS LIFE IS RUINED.. YOU FOOLS WHO THINK GOD HAS A REASON FOR THAT ARE FUKIN delusional!!!! fuck god...
warLock21X 1 year ago
This kid doesn't know who the Devil is, lol. He isn't a "force of evil". Just like how hitler isn't a force of evil. He, just like hitler, is a volitional being who works with evil deeds and evil intentions.
6thwing 1 year ago
This is bad stuff really. The host is completely biased towards Theism for one. Also, this is supposed to be a debate, but the Atheist doesn´t seem to want to debate, but rather discuss. So basically we have Craig debating and the host backing him up, but the Atheist discussing while getting interrupted by the host who wants him to debate.
rokkvi1 1 year ago
The host is a biased idiot
rokkvi1 1 year ago
From what I believe God means (creator) or (the creator). Why can't people just be happy just knowing we are alive and we don't know who are God is? or who are God is yet? Don't try telling me it's Jesus when you don't know either and definatley don't force upon me. This is coming from an ex Christian of the Nazarene Church.
Micscience 1 year ago
@Micscience Like a child, man, like a child.
6thwing 1 year ago
This athiest guy is smart, they're trying to force him into a argument he cannot win like he stated" you cannot prove a double negative" if you're nuetral to the idea of God Craig's arguments hold no weight that's why he keeps getting pressure into saying an argument that is absolute and he is smart enough to not do it. Anything you can attribute to god you can attribute it without God aswell.
Micscience 1 year ago
Well, the kid is just not well prepared, and this guy put a lot of pressure on him.
I would like to see Dawkins there. I would actually like to see Dawkins debate Craig. It would be funny.
kostbill 1 year ago
@kostbill yup and your precious dawkins keeps dodging craig from debates hahahah
ServantOfJesus 1 year ago
@ServantOfJesus so you are unaware of the fact they already debated? It wasn´t one on one, but they debated.
rokkvi1 8 months ago
@rokkvi1 yes I was delighted to see dawkins get owned, but i only saw a 7 minute video. I cannot find the full debate.
ServantOfJesus 8 months ago
@ServantOfJesus your opinion.
rokkvi1 8 months ago
the only thing i caught from the atheist was the way he pronounces "about" other than that I found no interests in what he said lol
1diazsantana1 1 year ago
Dude, this athiest kid is dumb.
Like, real dumb. He doesn't even know what he's there for.
micahaarontewers 1 year ago
this debate is just not fair. this kid is playing in WLC's court.
countrydp 1 year ago
HAHAHAHAHA 7:20.. Dr. Craig - "why do i waste my time"
JusJuiceIt 1 year ago 2
It really is too bad that WLC's opponent wasn't really up to the job. It's really too bad only WLC had a ready script. It's really too bad that the "moderator" was clearly decided before the conversation began. I don't think much deep thinking was exposed here.
The only thing I got out of it was to point out that WLC is indeed an apologist (apologizing for God).
drfoxcourt 1 year ago 4
The Atheist kid was just rambling away with an empty load of words... I was wishing Richard Dawkins was in his place. At least he would be a more worthy opponent for Craig.
Zaphenath4 1 year ago
what was the atheist kid argument?? Lol
omar120583 1 year ago
7:20 to 7:25 - Craig "I don't know what I'm listening to, but I never want to hear it again."
ThealityBites 1 year ago 2
The character of God himself is simply fascinating. You must approach the stories with humility and a realization that on the whole man does tend toward evil, (self evaluation that is hard for many people to do) but it is clear his character is benevolent. A far as the wars and ethnic cleansing, child sacrifice was common among the exterminated peoples, who were by all accounts hardened religious zealots. A good understanding of the history at that time can explain all such topics like that one.
promossage 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@promossage
"The character of God himself is simply fascinating."
Yes. Why an omnipotent being would be such a nasty bully is indeed quite a good question.
"his character is benevolent. "
Yes, blaming its creation for the deeds of their ancestors, killing off the whole earth and torturing souls forever in the afterlife are very benevolent indeed.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
Anyone that takes an honest, unguided, literal read of the whole Bible (you could even skip some of the mostly historical books from the old testament without harm) will see that it's vastly different from nearly all other religious texts, (because there are some that borrow from it) even if you still don't believe IN it. The deep psychological evaluation of man and often unusually selfish nature are carefully explored in such a way that the majority of people seem unable of doing to themselves.
promossage 1 year ago 3
@1empathy I would agree that the vast majority of all religious texts (all but one actuualy haha) are obviously ridiculous. I would differ with you on the Bible though, and I would presume that you have never given it a full unaided read. The vast majority of all I hear from atheists about the Bible comes from badly misquoted and misinterpreted parts of the Bible, and religion created ritual, quoted and practiced by extremely stupid, bigoted, and closed minded people, the kind that killed Jesus.
promossage 1 year ago
I have spent probably close to 150 hours of watching atheists and Christians debate and from what I can tell there really isn't an argument for atheism at all. They just basically say if he exists he is an asshole. Personally I feel like the best and really only smoking gun atheists have to attack Christianity with is the sexual restrictions. I am pretty sure if God permitted orgies this desperate God hate movement would die off, because isn't the "evidence" for evolution thats keeping it alive.
promossage 1 year ago
@promossage How do you explain a bible containing ethnic cleansing and scientific inaccuracies? I am an atheist according to religious people, but what i really am is a person without religion. God (or belief in god) is irrelevant, it is belief in the holy books (clearly errant) that retards society and causes conflict. Believe in god/gods if you mus,t but stop being religious please.
1empathy 1 year ago
I never realized how weak the atheist argument truly is until watching this clip.
shutthesucka 1 year ago 2
ROFL @ 7:20!!
Runetee 1 year ago
Michael Coren. What a dick.
IBDoyle 1 year ago
I wonder if this guy converted to Christianity after this...
ashamedz 1 year ago 4
haha give him proof that god doesn't exist? - okay then... what is a god in the first place? - where is it?.. how can this be proven to be god and not an alien or an illusion?.. yes - i would answer with questions.
lukeism2 1 year ago
this kid got taken to slaughter
flexicon1996 1 year ago
@flexicon1996 he was 23 - he was told he was debating craig the day before... the whole thing is on 12tuesday on their latest podcast
lukeism2 1 year ago
I like what the kid said - EXCEPT THAT HE DIDN'T GIVE AN ARGUMENT!
(By the way, Craig's face at 7:20 is priceless!)
AchillesShield 1 year ago
Monkey Testies!!!
JRHockney 1 year ago
This is so stupid. Atheism is rationally impossible, while Christianity is?...
msinummoc 1 year ago
@Tripockets Craig is a professional debater and a professional bender of the truth. Everything Craig said was pure speculation and nothing that could be tested in anyway, even by Craig himself. This guy that they brought is there because they know Craig is prepared to take whatever he has, after all Craig hears arguments from leading atheists all the time. Craig would not dominate a debate against Dawkins or Dillahunty, or even youtube atheists like aronra. Deluded as you are the fool is you.
TheBeerVolcano 1 year ago
@TheBeerVolcano
what do you think a big chunk of your theories are? speculation..do they impose scientific facts yes, are they observable, no....so what is it...speculation...
Craig would completely own Richard dawkins, dawkins knows this, hence why he won't debate him..obvious is obvious... ben stien made dawkins look like an idiot, Dawkins admitted design, and didn't even know his insults to god without reading it... dawkins has no guts, and is known to dish it out but not take it...
coolst0rybro 1 year ago
@coolst0rybro fail troll is fail,no one is retarded enough to use ben stein as a symbol of authority, even the average christian.
TheBeerVolcano 1 year ago
Comment removed
coolst0rybro 1 year ago
@TheBeerVolcano
So stating Dawkins looked like a fool to Ben Stein makes Ben Stein a symbol of authority to you ROFL.....wow
coolst0rybro 1 year ago
@coolst0rybro dawkins has given good reasons not to debate william lane craig - i think people have to get over this - i don't think he'd own dawkins at all... it would be interesting, but - it's not gonna happen.
lukeism2 1 year ago
Comment removed
coolst0rybro 1 year ago
@coolst0rybro but dawkins doesn't claim to be a better debater than william lane craig... this is a strange analogy.. i think it would be an interesting debate - i actually think dawkins is an excellent speaker and has alot more knowledge about the arguments against god than most of the professors that debate craig on the existance of god.
craig is a fundie - he has his own style - which alot of people are adopting, he is a religious leader, the church of craig may become a denomination.
lukeism2 1 year ago
@lukeism2
Whoa, whoa I definitely disagree on craig being a fundie, he stated that the world is NOT 6000 years old. he seems to feel that YEC arises from a strain of anti-intellectualism in the modern church that hasn't been present throughout
I also disagree on Dawkins being better than guys who WLC has debated....Christopher Hitchens in my eyes is more of threat than Dawkins..
It would be interesting, but unfortunetely like you said I don't think it is going to happen...
coolst0rybro 1 year ago
@coolst0rybro yeah - but i don't really have the ol' pat on the back for looking at some science he can annex into his dogma.. his agnosticism of evolution is kind of stupid for an intellectual.. and his stance on homosexuality is exactly like your regular fundie... so he's a creationist and a homophobe, i'd like to ask him if people choose to be gay - because he said participating in homosexuality is like chain smoking - then i'd ask him when he chose to be straight.
lukeism2 1 year ago
@lukeism2
What I love though is when there are new arguments, or some type of originality. I feel like im watching re-runs now when WLC Vs _______ debate now. it is the same arguments and rebuttals over and over lol
coolst0rybro 1 year ago
@coolst0rybro haha - they're basically carbon copies, especially with his 5 arguments... well - personal witness of the holy ghost isn't an argument.. he gets a bit different when you watch him debate on a particular topic like morality or the resurrection.. maybe not a debate with dawkins - but a conversation.. but i'd actually rather see astrophysicist lawrence krauss having a discussion with craig on the topic of cosmology..
lukeism2 1 year ago
@lukeism2
ok i got it for ya, ill send you a link on his view of homosexuality.
coolst0rybro 1 year ago
@TheBeerVolcano Dillahunty would be just the right man to spank Craig. While not nearly as smart or educated as Dawkins, he is a good speaker and debater and just as aggressive as Craig if not even more so. Not that Dawkins or Aronra wouldn´t also beat him, they would probably just be a bit to kind to him. Craig has already been defeated in debate IMO though. Find his debate vs Victor Stenger.
rokkvi1 1 year ago
@rokkvi1 HAHAHA After every debate about God, the theists say there side one and the atheists say their side one. There are exceptions to this, but it is what happens most of the time.
FatalKnight 1 year ago
@FatalKnight yep that is usually true and I said IMO (in my opinion) Stenger won the debate, not that it was a "fact". These debates are not scored, there aren´t any judges, votes on it or anything so nobody officially "wins" these debates. Yet as you say, many people talk about the "fact" that so or so "won" the debate.
WLC fans will quite often say he´s "won" all his debates and that his arguments have never been refuted, both of which are opinions, not facts.
rokkvi1 1 year ago
@rokkvi1 his arguments have never been refuted though
relarerfhjk 10 months ago
@relarerfhjk I keep hearing that BS statement over and over. The accurate statement is that in YOUR OPINION they have not been properly refuted. Fact is, there exist plenty of refuations of his arguments, refutations of the refutations and so on and so on. These are not mathematically formal arguments and therefore can´t be formally proven or disproven. WLC has never been able to prove the arguments emperically either and the burden of proof is on him.
rokkvi1 10 months ago