DOES GOD EXIST? William Lane Craig vs Antony Flew (HQ) 7/11

[2005ndcstudent]

what's with all the banging and shouting? how terribly rude! why weren't the perpetrators removed??

[scar504]

Antony flew reminds me of professor farnsworth in the episode were he presents his death clock at the scientific academy the schematics of which he wrote on a napkin. That being said i feel sorry for him and hope that people understand the is indeed a very intelligent man.

[quranresponse]

@ianuseraccountname Quran:

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

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

[curtsphobias]

This guy/atheist wrote a book?! This hurts to watch, I think it's time for him to hang up his towel and retire in defeat. Creation FTW!!!

[HMSRedbeard]

What an amazing discourse on the sovereignty of God and the freewill of man from a soul that denies the existence of God! This is a Theistic doctrine that has been debated for centuries, and good men have varying degrees of belief. The Biblical principle of the free will of man is just as true as the sovereignty of God, hence the debate within the Church over the centuries! When one tries to deny one truth or the other, one creates error. Dr. Flew's "Theology" is flawed and does not damage WLC.

[quranresponse]

@HMSRedbeard Quran:

(SURAH-3-THE FAMILY OF IMRAN-VS-25)

Then how will it be when we shall gather them together on a day about which there is no doubt, and every soul shall be fully paid what it has earned, and they shall not be dealt with unjustly?

[AmenMaranhata]

Every time the subject of hell comes, Antony loses breath, I bet demons within are trying to kill him right there, before he convert to God.

[Hillsillverr]

@AmenMaranhata u mean angels...

[AmenMaranhata]

Mr. Flew tremble every time the subject of hell arises. Demons within him twist at the idea of hell, and can't speak.

[AmenMaranhata]

Mr. Flew tremble every time the subject of HELL arises.

[billhicks8]

Antony Flew is in no fit state to debate anything here. It would be almost reasonable through dignity to take these videos down- but I guess he brought it upon himself by agreeing to debate in such a fragile state.

The eagerness of the religious to claim Flew as one of their own now is also slightly disturbing, but perhaps unsurprising. But all that can be seen here is a confused, stuttering, incoherent and senile man.

[ShawDAMAN]

@billhicks8 I agree it's wrong for the religious to in effect 'recruit' Flew who withheld belief in any kind of doctrinal set of beliefs. However I see no good reason to call Flew 'incoherent and senile,' he was certainly not in the best of physical shape but I understand him fine and I see some atheists with almost equal eagerness to discredit Flew's intellectual state and therefore his conclusions.

[billhicks8]

@ShawDAMAN

I have little personal interest in simply feeling sore for a poorly represented atheist position in this debate, nor do I make these observations as a personal attack on Flew. His own dignity is undermined here, any attempt to look positively on this awkward and uncomfortable situation feels patronising to a once sharp and analytical intellect. The first minute of this video segment in particular is excruciating.

[ShawDAMAN]

@billhicks8 the first minute is indeed uncomfortable but it seems to have been exacerbated by some disturbance in the crowd we can't hear or see clearly. He's obviously not in great shape but for most of the debate I actually found his expressions to be quite sufficiently lucid if not as fluently enunciated as he may at another time have been capable of. I just felt your description of "a confused, stuttering, incoherent and senile man" was excessive. Cheerio

[VerseInfinitum]

Many issues facing the world today despite the idea of an omnipresent and omnipotent god actively monitoring our actions would be a common argument among Atheists. While an awe inspiring wonder of life, the universe and beyond would be referred to as mystical or even a religious identity by the Theists. One lesson I've learned from this debate is that we're a culturally and cognitively diversified species with a wealth of ideas and viewpoints of the same reality.

[ScreeminMeeme]

It might have been helpful had Dr. Flew deigned to read the bible, the repository for information on the God he is insisting does not exist. The questions he has posited would have been already answered and we would have been spared his unreasoned and incoherent rambling.

[irishmauddib]

Afraid not because it is the bible that is claiming that said god exists. You can not use the bible to prove the bible.

However if you find any arguments, evidence, reasons or data to support the claim that said god exists, id be agog to hear it.

[meshzzizk]

@ScreeminMeeme What a bizarre thing to say in response to a clip in which the guy, you know, quotes the fucking Bible.

[MoonwalkerWorshiper]

0:22 - 0:40

What is the problem with this guy??

[lucasdasilvamaria]

very disrespectful

D=

[joe018687645]

There is one thing the atheist will never admit, yet they will never escape. The belief that at one point, space was black and void containing nothing. And this nothing exsisted in a vaccum. We can prove this by knowing that "pure nothingness" is a vaccum. Then at some point "something" exsisted. Out of nothing? This is damn good evidence of a creator. but i digress.

[ibreakkidslegs]

time itself does not necessitate a cause. in fact, it makes no sense whatsoever to talk about a cause of time, since causality is a property OF time, not of some phenomenon of which time is a subset.

[TheLeetPiper]

@mattetho

No wonder people like you get laughed out of academia. Deist means he just believes in some sort of intelligence and by very definition NOT the christian god.

[thinkwithyourownmind]

He's not a "believer". He doesn't believe in the God that most people believe in. He is not a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Sikh, Jain, Pagan, etc and may never be. He is a Deist. He rejects the idea of a personal God, just like Einstein and Spinoza. If he has something in common with any religion it's Buddhism.

Also Mr Flew is clearly very frail in his old age, which is quite sad to watch actually, because he is also a very distinguished intellectual. But you might not realise from this video.

[awesomewelles90]

or sufi islam

[TheLeetPiper]

Yes, Not your god though. He is not a theist. Simply a confused deist. You lose.

[Fiction52]

The argument for theism from deism is a far shorter leap than atheist to deist ;)

[TheLeetPiper]

@Fiction52 So? Doesn't mean Flew has made that leap now, does it?

[anguspure]

Fantastic, Flew has a respectablity that the Yank could only wish for. His arguments are crap, but Craig is playing a game. Hardly Godly. Rock on JRR Tolkein, CS Lewis, and lets not forget Yeats.

[cronocoffin]

Flew is more difficult to listen to than Obama.

[4750910]

Wow, Mr. Flew is very difficult to understand, while Mr. Craig is coherent. Mr. Craig's arguments seem rather plausible.

[rofyle]

Plausible enough that they aided in Flew's recent conversion to Theism!

/watch?v=SNkxpTIbCIw&feature=P­layList&p=44EE390DD3338A15&pla­ynext=1&playnext_from=PL&index­=13

[TheLeetPiper]

He's a deist. Not a theist.

He's also demented (in the literal sense of the term)

[DeJay17Revolution]

@TheLeetPiper Im sure that if dawkins were open minded and became a diest you would say the say

[TheLeetPiper]

@DeJay17Revolution My beliefs are not contingent on what somebody else thinks. This is where I have the edge over you. My beliefs come from physical evidence and reasoned logic. I'm not a deist, atheist or theist. I merely believe in evidence.

[awesomewelles90]

You take a leap of faith then to believe in evidence!

[EclecticSceptic]

No leap of faith needed to respond to evidence. Evidence is evidence. Faith = belief without evidence. If you need faith to "believe" in evidence then we are all doomed.

[awesomewelles90]

But why believe that evidence is needed to justify claims in the first place?

[EclecticSceptic]

Ok I'm really trying to decide whether to answer that or not.

Well. . how to you reason with someone who thinks that evidence isn't important. .

Without evidence there is no proof. I could speculate about anything I wanted - the earth is square, rock have brains, rivers are snake tears, snow is sugar falling from the sky.

I could say, I just jumped into the stratosphere and back again, give me a world record please. "Oh well he has absolutely no proof of this but we'll give it to him anyway".

[awesomewelles90]

I never said that evidence is not important. However to believe that evidence IS important requires faith. I.e. to accept reason, logic and evidence (as I'm sure you do) requires the acceptance of those things without their use (how can you use logic to prove logic is true (circular). So how to accept them then? Blind faith. Congratulations! You have more in common with the Christian than you may have realised!

[EclecticSceptic]

No. You are grasping at straws which aren't there.

Accepting something because it is proven true and call be successfully applied is not faith, it is not the same as faith, it can only be twisted into looking like faith.

I don't know what "proving logic is true" means. Logic is what it is. Logic is a functional process, you can't say it's either right or wrong because those are labels that are irrelevant to it.

I don't have blind faith in anything. I am not like a christian.

[awesomewelles90]

haha but what can be proven true? All that philosophers can come up with is "I think therefore I am" and even that seems shaky to me! There is no absolutely rational and logical way of looking at the world! This is why you DO have more in common with the Christian Jew and Muslim than you wish to admit!

[EclecticSceptic]

Ok debate terminated.

1) You said all philosophers have come up with is "I think therefore I am

2) You said "There is no absolutely rational and logical way of looking at the world!" - it's called science, nice absurd statement there

3) Just because you say that I have something in common with followers of the monotheistic religions doesn't make it true at all, I know it isn't and so do you.

If you're going to come out with such absurdities than I'm not going to bother.

[Fiction52]

I agree with you. I also think that Flew is a far better writer than speaker

[TheLeetPiper]

@Fiction52

Admittedly he hasn't alwasy been this retarded.

[CrissJami]

haha Poor old Flew, I feel bad for him how he sounds like he's stuttering and struggling for breath all while getting yelled at about speaking up. lol Whether you're an atheist or theist, Craig undeniably had this by a landslide by more than just strong arguments but also charisma.

[THEREIZNOGOD]

spoken like a true christian

[CrissJami]

Sarcasm? What about my statement was or was not Christian-like?

[Dhalsim06]

Jeez, I've never seen Flew so flustered before.

This shows that he is clearly on the brink of changing his mind, which he did.

[GetMeThere1]

To his credit (IMO), Flew seems unable to really take the argument seriously (yes, I know about his subsequent turnaround).

The points made by Craig simply aren't even taken as points worthy of argument by modern philosophers. They are the arguments of clever children (actually, they're more like SALESMEN'S arguments).

[Christianjr4]

"The points made by Craig simply aren't even taken as points worthy of argument by modern philosophers."

They are actually. Philosophers of religion debate these arguments all the time. In fact they are among the most discussed arguments in the field (minus Craig's argument for the Resurrection).

[GetMeThere1]

Well....I'm not aware of any serious philosophers of "religion," who make those arguments--except promoters of religion, who teach at religious institutions, who call themselves philosophers.

"Real" modern philosphers are those who work in general institutions (not religious ones), and who publish in general journals (not one's that specialize in religious topics).

[Christianjr4]

"Well....I'm not aware of any serious philosophers of "religion," who make those arguments"

How about Richard Swinburne (Oxford), Robert and Marilyn Adams (Oxford), Alvin Plantina (Notre Dame), Peter Van Inwagen (Notre Dame), Thomas V. Morris (Notre Dame), Keith Yandell (Wisconsin-Madison), Eleonore Stump (St. Louis), Nicholas Wolterstorff (Yale), Robert Koons (Texas at Austin) etc etc etc etc etc etc??

Those aren't religious institutions.

[Christianjr4]

Cont.... The fact that you aren't aware of such high profile figures in this field tells me you aren't even remotely in touch with this subject.

""Real" modern philosphers are those who work in general institutions (not religious ones), and who publish in general journals (not one's that specialize in religious topics)."

I already listed Christian philosophers who teach at prominent secular Universities. General journals in philosophy include journals in the philosophy of religion category.

[GetMeThere1]

Craig makes repeated references to CHRISTIAN ideas: historical reality of jesus; the objective reality of the resurrection, etc. ALL of christian thought is based on those issues. NONE of modern philosophy is interested in those issues.

Any NON-RELIGIOUS scholarship that might be directed toward those issues would be part of archaeology (or specific studies of ancient writings).....or....regarding miracles....parapsychology--a discipline which currently has no academic representation.

[Christianjr4]

I already said that philosophers of religion aren't really engaged in the arguments for Jesus' Resurrection that Craig presented. But they are (both Atheists and Theists) engaged in an ongoing discussion of the cosmological, fine-tuning, and moral arguments for God's existence, among others. That's undeniable. Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument for example, is now the most widely discussed argument for God's existence in the field among professional philosophers of religion.

[GetMeThere1]

Yes, the phenomenon of "fine-tuning" is under discussion--and, as you know, has sucked Flew into its vortex.

Nothing (realistic) can ever come from fine-tuning arguments that would IDENTIFY a god (as Craig clearly and vehemently does). Nothing in mainstream philosophy can lead to anything beyond a VERY vague "seems like some intelligence involved" conclusion, from "fine-tuning." That (obviously) is not what Craig is selling--or is interested in.

[Christianjr4]

The arguments aren't meant to point you to the Christian God or any other. They are just supposed to give you an intelligent creator, which is all that is needed to defeat Atheism. If you want to know which God is it then look at Craig's argument for the Resurrection, since it's precisely this argument which is meant to point you to the Christian concept of God.

[Intellisecular]

"The arguments aren't meant to point you to the Christian God or any other. They are just supposed to give you an intelligent creator, which is all that is needed to defeat Atheism."

False. A "god" that is completely natural, that doesn't violate the law of identity, is a scientific question, not a philosophical question. Craig is a third rate hack peddling the 5 ways in modern dress. It's lame and easily refutable. Only the true believer will be sucked in. Flew was obviously loosing his edge.

[Intellisecular]

This "god", of course, would be indistinguishable from an Alien - in fact, you could call it a super-alien. The intelligent creator argument really amounts to claiming that consciousness has primacy over existence. This ultimately is a failure to understand the nature of consciousness (that it's a faculty of awareness, not of creation) and it has natural biological orgins. Realism always wins. Atheism presupposes Realism as does Langauge itself.

[Christianjr4]

I don't see how your comment refutes my statement. Indeed, your comment is totally irrelevant as far as I can tell. Regardless of whether or not the god hypothesis is a philosophical question or a scientific question the point still remains that an intelligent creator is incompatible with Atheism. Insofar as Craig's first 4 arguments show that they therefore plausibly defeat Atheism.

[Intellisecular]

You're hell-bent on arguing for idealism - yet you exist in the realm of realism. You can't and won't accept any other answer. My point was to mention, not an intelligent creator of existence, as you groundlessly postulate, but a "god" that is natural as an open-minded possibility. It's plainly obvious that you can't be open to any other conclusion. We both only have access to the same reality, yet you leap out of reality for answers which only compound the mystery of existence.

[Christianjr4]

"My point was to mention, not an intelligent creator of existence, as you groundlessly postulate"

Then why did you quote a statement of mine that has absolutely nothing to do with your response to it? In any case, you're wrong, I am open to the possibility of being wrong. I don't really know what you mean by "god that is natural" but I assume it's at bottom Atheism.

"Atheism presupposes Realism"

So does Theism as well. In fact, realist Theism is what philosophers like Craig and others argue.

[squint1991]

i like how all atheists try to make Christians out to be dumb whenever debating God if they cant answer a logically strong argument with substance. If they cant answer a qeustion than they put it off and say ur dumb. Its their way of winning. But everyone knows its just a cop out, of the desputing evidence for a creator that is in heaven who is Jesus Christ as Lord.

[DeeperRootsProject]

//Craig is a third rate hack peddling the 5 ways in modern dress.//

Correction, an *undefeated* third rate hack I'll have you know.

:-)

[Birdieupon]

"It's lame and easily refutable".

Refute it.

[Intellisecular]

Refute what? Nothing in reality has really been said. It's easily refutable because a mind-independent reality is all there is. Too bad you don't accept reality as having the final word.You're impressed by word games and logical deductions leading nowhere. BS doesn't impress me! And, a zero is NOT a standard of identification, philosophically. But I write this in vain because truth is not a concern for you.

[Birdieupon]

Kalam is a logical argument.

Disprove a premise or don't say anything at all.

If it is so blatantly BS then it won't be hard to refute.

All you've offered is accusations, that is not reasonable.

Don't pull the ad hominem on me, mate, I'm an agnostic.

If you claim Craig is refutable, refute it. Put your money where your mouth is or keep it shut.

[Intellisecular]

"Kalam is a logical argument." Correction. Kalam is a logical argument divorced from reality. Or, Kalam is Castle Kalam built in the sky. Or, Kalam is a floating abstraction. So you're an Agnostic. :). Ok. I have news for you. You're merely a brain in a vat. Disprove you're not! I don't take seriously arbitrary arguments. I leave that to promiscuous agnostics (a redundancy, I know). As for your last point. Onus probandi. Reality is. It gives rise to causes. It's axiomatic. What caused God?

[Birdieupon]

Sorry friend but you said Kalam was refutable and you haven't refuted it. All you do now is say that it is irrelevant. Stop dodging the challenge or retract that it is refutable.

[Intellisecular]

No dodging here. You evade my answer. I've already refuted it by pointing to a reality where A is A. You refute it each and every time you attempt to communicate Kalam or any other theory, thought or word. You refute it in your actions by merely walking across the street or getting up in the morning. There's nothing intelligible to communicate about "God".

If there were (see what I've written below) we'd be able to rationally communicate with this entity and/or kill it.

[Intellisecular]

I want to follow up on your obvious dodge. A super-intelligence, far superior to anything else, would have to be something. You "believe" in this entity but have no clue what it is you believe in. Note the background (see John Searle's discussion of background) would necessarily exist prior to its creation to make this even intelligible. So, my hypothetical god is the best you could hope for. But, he wouldn't be a God in your sense or understanding. Understanding requires cognitive rules.

[Birdieupon]

You haven't refuted Kalam. You've dismissed it.

You given reasons for not bothering to engage with it. That's not the same as meeting the argument on its own terms and trying to prove the logic or premises wrong.

You've called it all sorts of names and tried to characterize it as arbitrary and irrelevant. Again, that's dismissal not refutation.

Do you disagree that things which begin to exist need causes? Do you think the universe is eternal?

You fail to impress me. Live up to your name.

[Intellisecular]

"You haven't refuted Kalam. You've dismissed it". Actually it's both. My approach is like Samuel Johnson's reply to idealism by kicking a large stone and saying: "I refute it thus". My approach is to point out the axiomatic foundations of knowledge necessary for arguments, ie, the primacy of existence and that things have natures. Kalam is like a Dog chasing its own tail. I equate your position to someone demanding that I accept their argument against rationality or volition.

[Birdieupon]

Samual Johnson's kicking of the stone wasn't a refutation. Despite it being a witty stunt, his kicking the stone did nothing to disprove idealism; he merely demonstrated that he was content living without it. That is dismissal, not refutation. So, yes, your reply is just like his.

Kalam isn't the equivalent of "prove you're not a brain in a jar" or "prove free will" because it is disprovable. Find us reason to believe that something can come from nothing, or that we live in an eternal universe.

[Intellisecular]

Disprovable? Bull shit! It's a Walt Disney metaphysics outside of reality. How can anything exist and be done outside of space and time? Actions are the actions of entities within space and time. You steal concepts at an inflationary Bernanke rate. If something exists it has identity. What created God? What was God conscious of in the beginning? Something from nothing is your problem. Eternal? A limitless attribute is your view, that's laughably and embarrassingly obvious.

[Intellisecular]

"Do you disagree that things which begin to exist need causes?" The universe is everything that exists and thus isn't a thing. If you were in New York and asked 10 people from Japan why they were also in New York and they gave you their individual reasons, you wouldn't then ask: Now, why is the whole group in New York?

[Birdieupon]

Imagine you began, instead, by asking the group "why are you all here"? and they said "we're on a business trip from Mitsubishi". It's possible to view them both as individuals and as a whole.

The same applies to the universe, and you refute yourself in your phrasing:

"The universe is everyTHING that exists and thus isn't a THING."

- it all counts as someTHING or THINGs.

Hence the expression: out of noTHING noTHING comes.

It is you who seems to be living in the world of arbitrary abstracts.

[Intellisecular]

"Imagine you began, instead, by asking the group "why are you all here"? and they said "we're on a business trip from Mitsubishi". It's possible to view them both as individuals and as a whole.

....The same applies to the universe."

True. Your best point yet, junior! But it still isn't a thing. So follow the logic. The universe is another way of saying existence. Existence is identity. If a God existed it too would be something, as opposed to nothing - A theistic God is nothing - literally.

[Intellisecular]

I don't see value in continuing this discussion. I believe you to be psychologically motivated to believe what you must know on some level - deep down - to be utter nonsense. Projecting evasion onto me when I've made no cosmological claims other than to state that all scientific claims about what caused the universe - to be considered knowledge - must have identity. Craig and his ilk make fantastic claims.They mimic the rational and honest by stealing concepts. It's intellectually dishonest.

[Birdieupon]

You are rambling and incoherent.

You've offered no reason to believe things can begin to exist without a cause.

You've offered no reason to believe that the universe is eternal.

You don't even seem to know Kalam properly:

"When did God begin to exist? What caused his existence?"

He didn't begin, thus doesn't need a cause. How is this difficult for you to grasp?

If it were the case that the universe never began, you'd have no objection.

You fail to live up to your claims.

[Birdieupon]

"I've made no cosmological claims other than to state that all scientific claims about what caused the universe - to be considered knowledge - must have identity".

If you have read the Kalam, the identity of the cause is a timeless, spaceless, immaterial mind. THAT is an act of identification based on the logic of the argument - because the cause cannot be that which began to exist at the Big Bang.

If you think the idea of a disembodied mind is stupid, explain why, and why is it illogical?

[Intellisecular]

I too was done but you're a dishonest, irrational misfit that has implicitly discredited himself. Thanks for providing your own self refutations. Let me bring them to light. "A timeless, spaceless, immaterial mind" is a definition by negation. It violates all the rules of a definition. Now compare your negation with the definition of nothing. Nothing occupies no space and is also immaterial. Contrast your God with nothing. Explain how this nothing pre-exists existence. How would you know it?

[Birdieupon]

I've been over your objections and they're shockingly messy and, I say again, non-refuting:

a) "It's easily refutable because a mind-independent reality is all there is"

- That's an unsupported statement.

.......

[Birdieupon]

e) "You're merely a brain in a vat. Disprove you're not! I don't take seriously arbitrary arguments."

- I have already said Kalam is not like this argument, because you can falsify it with evidence.

f) " Reality is. It gives rise to causes. It's axiomatic. What caused God?"

- 1) You offer no reasons to think God isn't part of reality

2) Asking "what caused God" sounds as though you haven't even understood Kalam. If he didn't begin, he doesn't need a cause..........

[Birdieupon]

g) "There's nothing intelligible to communicate about "God".

- False. You know precisely what we mean by God: the disembodied creator posited by Kalam.

h) "If there were...we'd be able to rationally communicate with this entity and/or kill it. "

- we can't communicate with rocks or kill them, so they don't exist? Your reasoning here is totally absurd...............

[Birdieupon]

..............

i) "axiomatic foundations of knowledge necessary for arguments, ie, the primacy of existence and that things have natures"

- Again, this does not refute the God of Kalam, because he has a defined nature by the argument. Merely calling something axiomatic doesn't mean it's right.

j) You end by asking again, "what created God" (which shows misunderstanding of Kalam) and by saying universe is "all existence"...... that definiton destroys multi-verse theory!

[Birdieupon]

....

If you feel I've misrepresented you, it is only because you have mis-represented yourself through a complete lack of articulation.

Next time you claim to be able to (easily!)refute something, make sure you can deliver.

Remember how our conversation started:

Int: This argument is easily refutable.

Bir: Refute it.

Int: Refute what? There's nothing to refute!

Thus began this whole discourse of you simply trying to dismiss Kalam. I'm Disappointed.

End.

[Birdieupon]

(p.s. sorry I know that was meant to be my last post, but I've looked up this guy John Searle and he seems very interesting, and I shall be reading more of him. I fail to see how your referring to his theory of "background" in any way supported your non-refutation, however.

Okay, now I'm truly done.

Ciao!)

[Intellisecular]

Dude, you're an obtuse neophyte when it comes to Philosophy. Read more than just Craig. Yes, by all meaning read John Searle's: The Construction of Social Reality. While you're at it you should also read: George H Smith's Atheism: The Case Against God, Ayn Rand's: Introduction To Objectivist Epistemology, John Hospers: An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis, and George Walsh's,The Role of Religion in History. This is a start. You may like,Terry Goodkind, because I see you're a scifi fan.

[Intellisecular]

Sorry. The above should read: by all means...

[Intellisecular]

"Next time you claim to be able to (easily!)refute something, make sure you can deliver."

I kicked your ass!

[Intellisecular]

Just a follow up final thought. The onus of proof in logic is on those who assert the positive. I stand with reality. The one reality we all perceive. Kalam is a dog chasing its tail style of argument. Not only is his definition a definition by negation but it doesn't even begin to give an explanation to anything. It's like saying: It happened by magic! No one can possibly integrate Kalam into their consciousness. It cannot be knowledge. Period. Full stop. Read those books, Biridie!

[Birdieupon]

If I were to try to put this into a refutation:

It seems you are saying that both premise 1 and 2 can be true, but that the fault lies in the conclusion of the disembodied mind.

Would you agree that using a process of elimination is a reasonable process in any investigation?

e.g. if we find a corpse dismembered with certain teeth marks, then we strike off the list candidates who do not match those teeth.

So, are you saying we can use elimination, but not allow for the possibility of mind?

[Birdieupon]

"The onus of proof in logic is on those who assert the positive."

I agree with this, but sometimes asserting a positive can also result in proving a negative (e.g. if I proved that the surface of the moon was solely rock and dust then it would result in dis-proving any claim of marine life on the moon).

"I stand with reality. The one reality we all perceive".

That's a broad and difficult statement to back-up. You'll need to define it much more. What do we ALL perceive? What's reality?

[Birdieupon]

I know you'll probably say you've already defined what reality is.

However, I really don't think you've done it very clearly. You have a habit of jumping around in your writing and leaving claims unexplained.

Could you please, therefore:

1) define what your definition of reality is

2) explain why it is objectively true

3) explain why this reality is incompatible with the contemplation of a disembodied mind.

This is sounding much more like its leading to a refutation.

You okay to continue?

[Birdieupon]

So you reply was:

1) a recommendation of books (thank you and I will read them) but that in itself isn't an argument.

2) arguing that a solitary "mind" = nothing. If it is possible to have such a mind, it would not be nothing. Could you go into further detail as to why we cannot have a timeless, immaterial mind, as this seems to be the core of your argument (also, if this mind exists, then it doesn't exist outside of existence, merely outside the universe).

3) "kicked your ass" = no argument.

[Birdieupon]

(sorry this post isn't in the right place, upload error)!

b) "word games and logical deductions leading nowhere".

- It leads somewhere: a CONCLUSION. Refute it.

c) "divorced from reality. Or, Kalam is Castle Kalam built in the sky...a floating abstraction"

- Unsupported and false: it appeals to essential causal metaphysics and scientific evidence.

d) "You refute it in your actions by merely walking across the street"

Unsupported and false: such action is causal within a finite universe.

[Intellisecular]

B has been answered. C and D. This is an egregious lie! I don't support the idea that the universe is infinite. But, if all was contingent on God then he could change the law of identity to something else. How did God act upon sub-atomic particles, etc, to create physical reality?

[Birdieupon]

Furthermore, even if we grant that you are correct about the universe not being a "thing" (which you are not, and I have already demonstrated why, but let's allow it for the moment) you still haven't addressed the premise! You've steered clear out of it's way. One doesn't have to respond to a scientific, causal claim such as premise one by quibbling over definitions of the universe. To sum up: I say you are still be evasive, and have just demonstrated why.

[Birdieupon]

*being, apologies for spelling error.

[Intellisecular]

Premise one. " Do you disagree that things which begin to exist need causes?"

You disagree with your own premise. When did God begin to exist? What caused his existence? You can't have any knowledge of what you're about to "answer". It will be white noise. Now, in your answer will be incoherent. You will treat the non-existent, as if it exists. Nothingness, as if you could integrated into your consciousness. Action as if it could divorced from an entity, spirit from matter. Etc. Etc.

[Birdieupon]

If you think the Kalam argument is a waste of your time, then I respect that.

All I ask is that you don't confuse dismissal with refutation.

Refusing to play isn't the same as winning.

I'd expect someone with the name Intelli (gent?) secular to know better.

[GetMeThere1]

The farthest that philosophers go are where Flew himself has gone: flirtation with a vague sort of deism--and even those are very rare (perhaps Flew himself is the only one??)

[EclecticSceptic]

The points he makes only seem intelligent on the surface, they are smoke and mirror arguments or salesman arguments as GetmeThere1 put it so perfectly. The objective morality argument was pathetic and hinged on "we all know deep down what is right or wrong" - which can be obliterated in a sentence. No philosopher worth his mind would use arguments like Craig's.

[TheOriginProject]

I don't know why he struggles so much, he has spent a lot of time thinking, so why can he express what he has thought of?

[Christianjr4]

He's old

[TheOriginProject]

That is part of it yes, but surely if he is this bad all the time, he wouldn't of been invited for the debate, nor would he want to debate

[Christianjr4]

Well debates aren't supposed to be about rhetoric. It is ultimately about the arguments and if you listen to Dr. Flew's arguments, you'll find that their not as simplistic or uninformed as you would expect from the average Atheist.

[okkima]

YOU CANNOT PROVE ZEUS DOESN'T EXIST!

[AbdielAbiram]

Go to mount Olympus, in Greece. Tell me if you see Zeus or any other Greek god.

[okkima]

Go heaven and see if you see any your god there.

[AbdielAbiram]

Sure.

[hinbane]

We will.

[PricklyHairStubble62]

No, but the fact that no one believes in him any longer is evidence that he never existed, for if he did exist, he would not tolerate such a situation to last for 1700 years.

[okkima]

Why not he tolerate? Do you really think if he'd exist it would even be in his interest whether people believe him or not? Not every god is attention whore like some you might know. And you said there is evidence that he never existed? Where? I want to see that.

If this is referring to the fact some people visited mount Olympus, so what, maybe he exists in different dimension somewhere in top of that mountain, just like nowadays people believe god lives in heaven.

[okkima]

We can't even disprove there is or was a man called "Jigsag Mogoroc Losalas Hinhensiamonki". We can search every book in history and check every countbook we got but still it wouldn't be even certain that he wouldn't live in this time! There are countless of people that aren't registered in anything. Does this mean we have to believe this man exists because we can't find any evidence he doesn't exist(And What Kind Of Evidence Would That Be!?)?

[baldwalrus7]

If he doesn't care whether we believe in him, why should we?

[okkima]

@Tonloc1986

Tell me how can you find proof of something NOT existing?

Some kind of Anti-Evidence maybe?

If you prove that belief is unlogical, that the idea that he can do anything but doesn't do nothing. The idea that he's all loving, even he watches when people die in hunger.

That is the only Anti-Evidence you could find of his non existance. If religion would say god doesn't care jack shit, would it be way harder to convince he does not exist.

[UNDRTKR984]

I feel bad for Flew here. He is really struggling to even talk because of his age. I think the debate would have been more engaging had this taken place when Flew was like 10 years younger. I do not agree with Flew (I believe in God), but I wished this could have taken place earlier so that we could get Flew's arguments in full force.

[mojoforyeshua]

I agree, i feel bad for the guy. I know he's a genious in writing but his speeking abilities arent up to par with his writing

[Tonloc1986]

Flew completely lost me. All Flew had done was rant against God, not prove why doesn't exist. I guess for that reason alone he found later in 2004 to believe a God did exist.

[Saibomb]

LOL HILARIOUS!

[marephrem]

I may not be an atheist, but I really feel sorry for Flew within the first minute...that's just sad.

[PricklyHairStubble62]

Me too.