William Lane Craig vs Theodore Drange (HQ) 10/11

[happysappy21]

it's funny how Drange mumbles and stumbles his way through his 5 minutes and is so relieved when it's over. WLC on the other has to hurry to get all the refutations covered in time. Drange has so little to defend his argument

[AgeOfReasonXXI]

Mr Lame Contradiction contradicts himself again: he denied that if God reduced suffering more people would believe in God. /btw, if that's true shouldn't we stop treating people suffering due to diseases or natural disasters, since it's goignt to bring them closer to Yahweh? shouldn't all start living like the Ethiopians?/

Yet he has stated on numerous other occasions that evil/suffering (the so called Problem of Evil) is the main reason why it's hard for people to believe in God

[lifeandphilosophy]

Interesting though how the changes of science would make this debate different. Now there are plausible multiverse theories like the chaotic inflationary models. A TOE is looking more plausible(though I agree it won't solve the fine-tuning anyhow). I think Craig needed to press further the difference between belief in God, and the relevant kind of belief for salvation(dedicating ur life to God). The latter is a matter of free will despite what Drange tells you.

[wachnathan]

He is asserting nothing more it least be honest about that.

[wachnathan]

Who cares what you think Craig your the one with the burden and you haven't delivered so i am not buying.

[Pucker7]

@wachnathan he is delivering, you just wont accept what he is delivering. I'm not saying your ignorant i'm just saying that you are not convinced with what he says. Now you can say no there isn't a god and become an atheist, but what is there to suggest that this is true? Or you can become an agnostic in where you aren't denying nor believing the god theory.

[6thwing]

@wachnathan Yes, yes he has. Did you watch all the videos? Lol. If so then show which one of his premises that you reject, and show why they are false. Use logic. Because right now, you are relying solely on your rejection of truth, not any refutation of false.

[HonestTechnoAtheist]

If he wants everyone to be saved then he needs to provide the evidence which he knows that people want or else they won't believe in him.

[pobanmanu]

WLC clearly ducked the question about if the first cause of universe, source of objective moralities, the one who resurrected zesus, being who finetuned the universe and the being he personally experienced were a single being. He also dodged the questions regarding homosexual, premarital sex and other questions. What a loser he turned out be in the end.

[MoonwalkerWorshiper]

@pobanmanu I thought so too but listen at 4:55, he hasn't any time left to refute all those stupid questions. He's not the source of moral values and can't decide what is right and wrong, which is knowing God immediately, and this was the closing comments not continued argumenting.

[hisdoodnes]

if you would have told someone 3000 years ago you could see across a universe or knew what it was they wouldn't even comprehend what you were talking about or would think you were crazy, but now we can and our understanding is still just a drop in a bucket compared to what we will know give it some time

[hisdoodnes]

dont read the bible, look up cosmology and and astrology and stephen hawking, craig is a wash he only has the argument that the odds of humans being alive was small really small, but his fine tuning argument falls insufficient for a few reasons one being that we do not know enough about all of laws and how they are in place and ya good argument we won't find a unified theory labeling it a pipe dream

[TheHonestTheist]

It is true that we are still to learn, much, much more about the universe. But that is the best argument you have against fine-tuning? That is extremely weak. The fact is, from the evidence we have fine-tuning exists throughout the universe in every aspect of it. It is true that something else may come along which may change some things, but I don't see why we should cling onto the unknown future in hope of something to refute it, rather then embrace current scientific research.

[6thwing]

@hisdoodnes Wow. You are really ignorant of his arguments. Just watch the first video in this series. Or even THIS video. Not only is Fine-Tuning NOT his only point, but it is also plausible.