I recently encountered an extremely dangerous and sophisticated Computer Hacker. He proved to be my inferior, so I made him believe in GOD. I consider this funny because I'm an atheist. lolol
I love how on Craig's channel, the same video has comments blocked. Most likely cause he knows he'd have a googlolplex of comments all laughing and taunting his dumb ass.
@mistereveready I find that the muslims have a "pending approval" clause in thier public humiliations.... atleast the disabled option is "fair"....LOL
As to the debat Craig excels and is obviously the more skilled, logical debater. As a philosopher, he is far far better at discussing science, than Stenger is at religion. It was embarrassingly bad when Stenger claimed "justice vs mercy" as evidence against God when God's balance of the two is beautiful as seen in Judeo-Christianity. Lane is spot on and Stenger comes off as an ill informed and dishonest debater.
Victor J Stenger, ' God, the failed hypothesis' is one of my favourite books. For similar great thoughts try Dan Barker, John W. Loftus, Robert M Price, Valerie Tarico, Christopher Hitchens, Bart Ehrman, Ken Humphreys, Richard Carrier, Ken Pulliam, Keith Parsons, Gary Greenberg, Robert Ingersoll, Thomas Paine, Mark Twain, Earl Doherty, Israel Finkelstein, Daniel Dennett, C Dennis Mckinsey, Joseph Wheless, Bertrand Russell, Sam Harris
what if someone points a shot gun in your face, will u be scared. because u have no evidence that they put bullets in there, u cant take the gun from his hand to put it in a test tube. u can pull out a fact sheet and come up with a formually. so based on FAITH!!!!! u r naturally gonna be scared bc u dont wanna take the chance of being wrong.... how is god any different.
There is no harm if you believe there is or there is no existence of a God....the only reason I care is which one offers a better option to the cure of death which haunts mankind
The contingency of material reality makes it reasonable to believe in the existence of a necessary entity from which the whole of material reality initially came.
No. "Material reality", based on modern cosmology, has always existed. Our universe is just one form of time and space. While it had a beginning to its present form, there is no requirement to believe that nothing existed anywhere before that. More importantly, there is absolutely no reason to assign intelligence, desire, or consciousness to the "cause" of our universe. The best you can do is "I don't know what "caused" this present universe". Nothing indicate other than natural cause
@14Guitars That may not even appear to be the case because the nature of matter (contingent and transient) militates against the possibility that it exists necessarily and eternally. It is not even reasonable to believe that "nothing existed anywhere before that" since only nothing can come from nothing. Indeed, I do not know what caused the universe to come into being. But it has a cause, which does not appear to be something that is natural, contingent or transient.
And, as a follow-up, you claim to be a scientist as well as a Christian. I should further like to know: Was it rational inquiry and the scientific method that led you to accept the existence of a God? Or do you accept God on the basis of faith and/or because you were raised Christian? Because if it is the former, why haven't so many millions of other scientists (atheists and of other faiths) come the same conclusion as you? And if the latter, on what basis do you bring science into matter?
I am quite aware that a scientist could be a deist. My question would be on what basis does this deistic scientist believe in a god when there is no scientific evidence for a god?
I have seen a LOT William Lane Craig debates on youtube - but I haven't yet seen one where he doesn't go first.
I can't see how his 'Here's six arguments which I require you to refute followed by a challenge to provide me with good reasons why atheism is true before making your own case presenting your counter arguments (all in 12 minutes)" stunt would work if he went second.
Has anyone ever seen this? Or is going first in his contract, or something?
they're using the word "god" as if it is something/someone everybody agrees on about who/what he/it is...its easy to disprove god of the old testament at least: simply disprove the scientific claims made by YHWH through his prophets or his own mouth, e.g.:
1) first human offspring was Cain (genesis 4:1) approximately 6000-7000 years ago.
Ah, a shifting of the burden of proof. Clever, but, no, old darling. It was you who asserted that there was a God. Not that there was a high probability of there being a "god", but there is a god. Period. I was merely mocking your assertion, because anyone can make such an assertion. ("Yes, Krishna exists. Next question."). But I should like to ask, what observable evidence led you to the undeniable conclusion that there is a God (whatever you happen to define God to be).
Ah, a shifting of the burden of proof. Clever, but, no, old darling. It was you who asserted that there was a God. Not that there was a high probability of there being a "god", but there is a god. Period. I was merely mocking your assertion, because anyone can make such an assertion ("Yes, Krishna exists. Next question."). But I should like to ask, what observable evidence led you to the conclusion that there must be a God (whatever you happen to define God to be).
@drjackflash The burden of proof rests on the shoulders of the one positing the claim. And once again, you are making an assertion and backing it up with no evidence. On what evidentiary basis do you say that God is "inherent knowledge?" And what is "inherent knowledge"? And how is what you are saying any different than a Muslim saying that the knowledge of Allah's revelation is inherent in all human beings, and that infidels like you are choosing to ignore the revelation out of arrogance.
And another follow-up question: Did you come to the conclusion that there was a God before you became a Christian? Or were you give lessons about God during your upbringing?
Interesting. I ask you some straight and honest questions as to why I should believe the way you do and what led you to your belief, and you come back to me with this? You're surmising that the only reason I could not believe something you do is that I suffer from insanity ostensibly brought on by lead poisoning? How utterly immature and childish of you. I do not know what particular denomination you belong to, kind sir, but you are hardly good representative of it. Good day.
@drjackflash I ate the paint chips that bestow the ability to think critically, demand rigorous and conclusive evidence for the unsubstantiated claims of others, and avoid pretending to know things I couldn't possibly know.
@drjackflash No spin. I'll gladly admit that my definition of critical thinking is exactly as you say it is. I'll even be so bold as to say that questioning the claims of others--and your own, as well--is NEVER a bad idea.
I'd rather be guilty of asking too many questions than of not asking enough.
Victor Stenger definitely dominated this debate. As usual Craig just responds with his usual pat answers as he does to every question in every debate without responding to any particular arguments. V.S actually proposed his position in actual argument form whereas a lot of W.C other opponents fail on that ground. Also, V.S presents his scientific arguments better than any of W.C other opponents that I have seen debate for the atheist position. You lost this one Craig.
I find it very telling that Craig's video upload of this same debate has disabled commenting. I guess us non-theologians are too unsophisticated to even comment on the subject of God.
@CartesianTheist You used your father's efforts, as if they were your own, to belittle a person you don't even know (not that I care, it's the internet after all). However, you should not assume things about people you've never met. Maybe you should learn to be a Christian... Once again, poor René Descartes.
@CartesianTheist My father also did missionary work in Africa as a civil engineer to help build schools, for example, and much more; this is how I formed my perspective. I, by no means came from a wealthy family, and know very personally what it takes to start from nothing (I was only lucky where I happened to be born).
Anyways, you taking credit for what your father did is rather pathetic, and means nothing to me. Not very Christian-like... René Descartes would be sad.
I can think of a lot of things that don't exist and why they should, and for obvious reasons, Graig's god is not on the list. Graig always answers why, not how. He just appeals to the emotional fucktard.
@FallenAngel0fDoom I am not emotional at all and his debates appeal to me so you are wrong on that note. As a matter of fact I live a happy life and I am very healthy and never get sick. And it may amaze you that I am a Christian also.
@7tylerjb Your comment has nothing to do with the context of my previous post. You make no sense, so it doesn't surprise me that you're a Christian. Additionally, you don`t know that Bill is short for William, I noticed... you don`t seem too smart.
@FallenAngel0fDoom You made a reference I quote "He (Dr. Craig) just appeals to the emotional ****tard". I told you that I am not emotional at all and he still appeals to me. There are studies proving that atheists don't believe in Christianity because they live evil lifestyles and fear Christianity will not allow them to do that.
@7tylerjb Wow, you still don't get it. Furthermore, if you think Christianity stops Christians from living an immoral lifestyle then you could be as stupid as stupid can get.
@FallenAngel0fDoom Well, you're right. Being a Christian doesn't automatically stop you from leading an amoral lifestyle. I myself am a Christian and lead an immoral lifestyle to a certain extent. I guess for me I look at it as well... if I wasn't a Christian, then I wouldn't know or care that I was living an immoral lifestyle. That for me is the difference.
@BloodOfRayne I can tell you that being a nonbeliever doesn't stop one knowing right from wrong; additionally, being a nonbeliever doesn't stop you from caring.
@FallenAngel0fDoom You're absolutely right, it doesn't! But you have to say that YOU care and in the end there is no deeper meaning to your caring if YOU will ultimately disappear. Ever read the original version of A Little Mermaid? She dies and becomes nothing more than sea foam after she realizes the prince will never love her even though she did the right thing by letting him go to love another. In the end, your caring is nothing but sea foam.
@BloodOfRayne And because you're a Christian, somehow your caring is worth more than mine? Please explain how your ego gives you the title as a Christian and then puts you on a pedestal above others who don't share your belief?
@FallenAngel0fDoo My point is there is nothing for you in death. So... you care! So wha? What does it mean that you ever cared? You're dead and your memory will die when the people who remember you are dead! My view is that God is everlasting as would be everything you do! But on your view, there is nothing! No ego needed! Ego itself will be dead so that's a weak argument!
@BloodOfRayne Your claim of an afterlife does nothing but satisfy your own fear of death: It's purely base on your ego. I have no recollection of the billions of year that came before my existence, and I couldn't care less about the billions of years that come after my death. Heaven is being alive on this earth, and that's all that matters to me. I have no need for an afterlife, nor the arrogance to want to live for eternity.
@BloodOfRayne Why don't you go on a Christian missionary where you'll bribe starving people by making them listen to you read the bible in exchange for food and technology? At least if they starve to death after getting to know Jesus they'll go to heaven instead of just starving and going straight to hell for eternity. ROFL.
@crazyboyxx Of course I am. No doubt. Even your speakers have to admit that. Obviously you have a mixed up idea about religion. We make our own meaning? Jajajaja, maybe paying for the mortgage? And where do you put your hope on? Luck? I can respect someone atheism as long as it is coherent with that worldview. Trying to conciliate atheism with hope, meaning and justice is a mental delution.
When a magician performs a trick i at least dont see the card sticking up his sleeve. Thats the difference. But is a better Spin doctor than most other apologists.
Universities are not places where ideas in theology and philosophy are investigated. They are places where uninvestigated dogma is socially amplified into deified status and where the obvious is dismissed as taboo and censored. As the philosopher Hume put it "The question is not of God's existence" . It never was very likely that higher order dynamic logics, as in mathematics, would have proof in matter. Jesus is supposed the existence-fact of God perspective in Trinity.
@infinitemika: How are the Elvis and Diana examples weak? There are literally tens of thousands of people who believe that their deaths were staged so that they could enjoy a quiet retirement away from the limelight. This is in an era where photographs of dead bodies and televised funerals would, in theory, dispel such illusions. In the first century, such tools didn't exist. People didn't know about other planets, so there were no alien abduction stories. Instead there were demons and fairies.
also,more evidence that something extreme did take place,, after Jesus death...thousands were being converted to Christianity, form the STRICT, monotheistic, Jewish faith, that was one of the oldest est. beliefs systems of its time...why would thousands in book acts...convert instantly to Christianity?? if it was not for the risen Christ. Trust me, the Jewish leaders were very zealous &if they could put down the resurrection stories, they would have! Period..but they couldnt
Why did Christianity become most widespread in Gentile areas like Greece, Turkey and Egypt? Why were the Jews so committed to the sort of military Messianism presented in Isaiah or Micah that they were willing to fight the Romans in AD 70 over religious matters? Why did Christianity overwhelm the pagan faiths within four centuries, but never absorbed Judaism? I think this implies that those who were far away from the alleged resurrection, and heard of it last, were the ones who bought the story.
on the contrary, ur statement is a great example of the power of the Jesus story. If it was false, if he never rose from dead, if he never healed sick, the blind, rose people form dead, and most importantly claimed to be God, and proved his claim by the above supernatural miracles, witnessed by thousands and thousand of people in modern day Israel....Christianity would have NEVER made it till today. Most persecuted religion/book on earth, still standing
What matters regarding the preservation of a social system is not what's true, but what people believe to be true. When the memory of Jesus was fresh, his followers were one Eastern cult among dozens in the Roman Empire. As generations and centuries passed, they began to write and compile holy books, and to ruthlessly stamp out those with rival interpretations. After the marriage of the new Bible and the Late Empire in the fourth century, the preservation of doctrine became formal state policy.
I find it rather astounding that a person can go to a reputable university and obtain a degree in the subject of an unprovable,totally invisible space wizard.
He has a degree in theology, philosophy, and history. He also has a vast knowledge in physics. It's funny how those with a minimal college degree can undermine the workings of proffesional scholars simply by attaching derogatory words to what they deem to be unworthyof their time.
@regelemihai " He then proceeded to graduate studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois, where he graduated with two M.A. degrees in 1974 and 1975, one in the philosophy of religion and the other in church history"
I also have a vast knowledge OF physics.Degree in church history,how meaningless and self-suiting can you get.However he does NOT have a degree in astro-physics nor a degree in evolutionary biology OR general biology.
@regelemihai Certainly,I too know a sizable amount re physics&biology ,doesnt help.You have to get the stuff past the peer reviews.He doesnt have ACTUAL proof of god,plus you have the problem of dealing with WHICH god if you do,using scripture isnt good enough,might as well use the Koran.What is it that every fundie is always anti-science but desperately show off their "qualified"scientific apologists.If science is so poor why are you so eager to proove your "god "with it.
Nobody has an "actual proof" of anything. This demonstrates you do lack a seizable amount of knowledge in philosophy and epistomology. There is no such thing as abosulte proof; God notwithstanding.
I am very much pro science, and Craig does publish his works in peer-reviewed journals--I gave you an example yesterday of The Journal of Astophysics and Space Science. WHICH god is irrelevant when talking about a creator.
@regelemihai Yeah yeah BUT I can provide you with absolute proof that if you jump out of a fifth floor window you WILL injure yourself severely.Certain things are more consistant than others,proving the above is a lot more reliable than proving god,and such the like with other natural and scientifically proven phenomena
@regelemihai Given all that he therefore does not have any ACTUAL biological,scientific OR REAL historical proof of the existence of a totally enigmatic cosmic genie NOR her purportedly magic jew being risen from a state of being permanently buggered.If you'd bothered to think for a split second you might observe that its not the derogatory lingo,but the plausability of having a degree in something thats has ZERO evidence(anecdotal counts for zip) of actually being there.
He has the proper credentials. He is one of the world's most renowned philosophers. These infantile attacks are indicative of a profound lack of knowledge on the part of YT dim-witted atheists. They can't refute what he says so they mock him. "Ohh,ohh he believes he can prove his sky daddy exists." To someone who has the least amount of education in the subject these comments seem pathetic.
You claim he has no proof. I assume you read his book, yes? If no...What are you talking about?
@regelemihai Which book?The Son Rises?Apologetics: An Introduction?God, Are You There?People refute him frequently,like I said being an expert in theology doesnt qualify you to refute evolutionary BIOLOGY.I have endured some of his books which ones are you referring to?
This serves as another indication that you indeed haven't read a word from schoalrs that oopse your simplistic mind-set. Until you do, these attacks make you look silly.
@regelemihai You're not addressing my response,Im not attacking craig,just your invisible,non-existent space genie.Where is this irrefutable proof of the existaence of god,and that it just happens to be Yahweh and not Allah or Shivah(both modern deities.)
@regelemihai I have a degree in fairyism and a masters in psychokenesis,I am therefore qualified to tell you that fairies actually exist(and the female ones can teleport.)Go away
infinitemika - There are indeed a couple historically accurate verses in the Bible. But they're rare. Can you list the ones you know? And then if we can look at the ratio of historically accurate to inaccurate/disproved etc.
also i dont have to know the bible to tell you it is bullshit...I read half of genesis and automatically can detect that it is fictional baced on my knowledge of things, The bible is an insult to my intelligence and i felt less intelligent after reading some of it, because of the notion that this is what people beleive....it is not even funny...It is an insult to any intelligent person that knows a little something about science and history...I know bad journalism when i see it
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
so you think the bible is bullshit, well you should know that the bible has many metaphors.
do you think t bullshit cause it looks like it. cause if thats the case then you lack understading of the bible. in other words before you can make a comment of the bible, understand it. cause your judgement is tautology
i dont care if shakespeare or Nostradamus wrote the bible even...I know fiction from reality...For you to even suggest that i dont know how to interpret a fictional book(especially unintelligable 2,000 year old scribbles)...and tell me that it is fact baced...well...Maybe you need to take a reality check or something, or grow up from childish santa claus stuff
not really, i dont read fairy tale fantasy if it isnt a Real history book i dont wanna read it, Religious text is a waste of time, and it does not make me ignorant i use common sense here...If its a fairy tale fable book what do i have to lose discrediting it?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
bahahahaha. oh man. Not a real historical book,. Seriously that is horrible. Even atheistic historians will agree that its a historical book, and one that is pretty accurate. Retard. I hate it when people make dumb comments on things they know nothing about, maybe pick it up one day and read a verse, so at least you can say you have opened one up. Ignorance is bliss.
the only thing that makes it a history book at all is the fact idiots out there believe its true, but it isnt actual relatity that it documents so, in the fairy tale sense it is a history book, but it is not baced on true events
Which historians? I don't know anyone who thinks a city fell via trumpet blasts, or that all the Israelites were slaves in Egypt (no Egyptian chronicle mentions this, and desperate archaeology by Israelis has confirmed that there was no time in the desert). David's kingdom was quite modest compared to the Bible's representation. This makes sense, since nearly all Old Testament works were written hundreds of years after the fact. Acts of the apostles is good history, and the epistles are letters.
i dont believe in alex the great, or pres. Lincoln...this is how stupid ur comment is
why dont u look..instead of being the typical naive utube scholar
there isnt ONE historian who would deny that the jews were enslaved by Egypt..weve even found coins with Joseph name on them..as said in the old testament, when he was sold by his bros, then viceroy over Egypt. The bible is unmatched in terms of historical evidence, UNMATCHED
Perhaps JOSEPH was in Egypt, that doesn't have any bearing on whether ALL the Israelites were there hundreds of years later. We believe in Alexander because there are innumerable accounts of him by his contemporaries, even his enemies. There are towns called Alexandria from Egypt to Afghanistan. We belive in Lincoln for these reasons plus photographs of him. And I have bad news for you: I'm a historian. The Torah was written hundreds of years after its events, by semi-literate people in Babylon.
ok...so our earliest dated writings of the existence of alex are oh,....about 500 yrs after he supposedly walked earth. No one doubts he exsisted.Now the writings about Jesus...drum roll pls...earliest manuscripts r dated about 30-40 yrs after the event....dated writings that would have been around when the actual eyewitnesses to Jesus would have still been alive to rebut them if they were not true..same goes for old test. NOTHING compares to the bible in terms of historical accuracy..nothing
The Bibliotheca Historia by Diodorus was wrtitten in the first century BC, some 200 years later. It cites sources, such as Ptolemy and Nearchus, that unfortunately don't survive. But other writers, like Plutarch, cite these same sources and present a similar account. The same can't be said for the Gospels. Matthew, Luke, and John posit three different birthplaces for Jesus. Only John mentions Lazarus, and most miracles are the same - only in one book. Which are inspired. As I said, Acts is good.
First, I notice that we've shifted discussion from the Old Testament. Good move for you, since the Old Testament was written a thousand years late by multiple authors with no primary sources, and its claims have been largely paleontologically disproven, the Deluge for example. Second, there's no religion based on Alexander. Clearly SOME Greek general conquered the Mideast and placed Greeks in charge, even if he was old and fat. Without the specific person of Jesus the prophecies fail to pass.
remember, we think this happend becasue of historical writings..that were dated 500-700 yrsafter the fact!
could error possibly been injected into alex's story?Of course
30 yrs is what separated Jesus death in 33AD from the oldest dated writings we have which is mark dated around 60-70AD. 500+yrs compared to 30+ yrs??Yet we belive in alex w/out predudice,its crazy. There is more evidence 4 Jesus's life,claims& miricles than ANY historical figure in antiquity.Its not even close
Did you read my response? Diodorus wrote 200 years later, not 500, citing sources. Second, we have to consider the nature of the story. A preacher, who gathered several dozen followers and was then executed, would leave very little evidence of his existence. SOMEBODY overthrew the Perisan empire, laid siege to Tyre and SIdon, and placed dynasties of Greeks on a dozen thrones. Was he young, blond and handsome? Maybe not, but there is evidence of battles and campaigns, coins, maps and followers.
Regarding the New Testament - no one is suggesting that there were no Christians, or that they didn't belive what they said. In our own time, we've seen thousands maintain that Elvis, or Diana are still alive in a secret retirement. Ten times that maintain that they've seen UFOs, even been abducted. In a semiliterate world, the great mass of superstitious people would have played telephone for thirty years. (I heard he was born of a virgin! Well, I heard he walked on water) before writing books.
ya, but the difference NONE of these people our anyone has clamed themselves to be GOD, as Jesus did when he walked on this earth over 2k yrs ago. He healed sick, raised dead, was crucified, rose again. So if this was true,which i believe it was, its a very important issue for you. if Jesus was who he said he was, then id be trying to validate his claims, which BTW can be. No one is history has made such claims, with backup as Jesus did, no one..so this makes his history more important 2 u
Many people have claimed to be God, and many have claimed to raise the dead. Sidi Baba is doing it right now, allegedly. Will you go to India and follow him? Genghis Khan was born of a virgin, is he God? Was Perseus conceived by the sun? The first century was a time of superstition and illiteracy. There's not a single story of Jesus that wasn't also attributed to Isis and Mithras and Krishna and Zoroaster. Did Mohammed ascend bodily to heaven? That's written down, too, and millions say so.
lay off the u tube vids like zeitgeist, and divinchi code documentaries..wow,,the ignorance is overwhelming
to speed this up, and watch someone smarter than you an actual, historian,. WOW , yes a person who has made it his LIFE to srtudy religous hisotry
type in "is the bible bogus" & watch a PHD in history destroy all ur arguements ini less than 5 min, oh and radical athesist micheal shermer at the same time
Read any ancient history, it will be literally chock full of miracles. Try Plutarch for starters. The fact is, the ancients saw miracles everywhere because they didn't know the true causes of events. Mental illness was caused by demons for thousands of years, but in the nineteenth century civilized people stopped talking about demons, and stopped going to the exorcist to treat seizures. What's more likely - that the demons suddenly disappeared, or that they never existed and were a misdiagnosis?
thats great....show me the manuscript evidence for plutarch...lets compare it to the bible,lets compare ALL historical manuscript evidence to the bible...u will see VERY quickly, why the BIBLE is 100 times more reliable than ANY other work of antiquitie....none compare to the amount or date of documents to actual events..nothing..were talking 30-40yrs after Jesus death (mark).Most other works r dated 100's of yrs after supposed events..such as alex the great, or Plutarch....hundreds! case closed
You've missed my point. I do not believe that Jesus Christ never existed, I just don't trust the Gospels on the details. My point was that in Plutarch, there are miracles all over the place. Disembodied heads speaking, spontaneous combustion, Augustus was allegedly born of a virgin, etc. To me it makes more sense to conclude that in ancient times, everyone believed in miracles and used them as evidence for the greatness of their heroes, and that they were all honestly mistaken, not liars.
i do appreciate your reply. it actually makes sense, and does have validconcerns. I urge u to dwell deeper into some of these older writings that talk about things that 'seem' to be very similar to Jesus story...9/10 theres No evidence for there claims. drwitherington a PHD in new test. explains this here, type in 'ben witherington BW3" he explains that within historical literature academia, secular & religious, these ideas of Jesus like stories are just that stories, with no real proof
thats ur prob not mine.I bet 100% u believe alex great existed? yet our earliest dated manuscript evidence for him is hundreds of yrs after his "supposed" existence .Gospels written w/in lifetime of those who would hav seen& heard of Jesus.e.g:mark, written 30yrs after he was crucified...not enough time to bring in error,.Contemp's would hav destroyed Jesus story if mark was lying,caus they would hav had access 2 it? but NO rebuttals, NONE
Im not trying to rude, but the di, and elvis examples are very weak. Yes, maybe 30-40 yrs could bring in minor, trivial errors to stories that really dont matter, but not if the stories involved one of them rising from the dead. Contempories would put them down in minutes, with fact, proof. You do not see this anywhere in terms of the Jesus story.
Pretty important to find out..caus if hes who he claimed to be, which was GOD in flesh, what he says is pretty important isnt it?
Again, the types of evidence left by a conquering hero and an itinerant preacher would be very different. People wouldn't have had access to the story, except from Christian sources. There were in fact dozens of Gospels, which were narrowed down to the present four at a church council. The four Gospels themselves differ on major points. Also, to non-Christians in the first century, the story held basically no interest - there were many tiny Eastern cults in Rome at the time e.g. Mithras or Isis.
The examples of Elvis and Princess Di show that thirty years is more than enough time for mythology to become widespread, even in an age of photography and medical records. Regarding Alexander, of course many of the stories are mere legend - people used to say he was a virgin birth too! Gordian knot, breaking the stallion, etc. But it desn't matter whether these stories are true. They add color to the story and serve as metaphors. But if Jesus' miracle stories aren't true Chritianity unravels.
Again, the types of evidence left by a conquering hero and an itinerant preacher would be very different. People wouldn't have had access to the story, except from Christian sources. There were in fact dozens of Gospels, which were narrowed down to the present four at a church council. The four Gospels themselves differ on major points. Also, to non-Christians in the first century, the story held basically no interest - there were many tiny Eastern cults in Rome at the time e.g. Mithras or Isis.
You still havent raised ANY historical writings rebutting the Jesus story, of death & resurection. Again, this happened in front of 100s & 100s of witnesses as written in the gospels& again the gospels were dated within the life of these witnesses..so why wouldnt we see even ONE story denying this event took place? we both know 100% Jesus was killed by Romans, under Pilate, this is fact....but did he rise from dead, as claimed in bible? is he God, as he claimed to be in the bible
Why are there still Jews? If these events truly happened in front of thousands of witnesses, in Judea, how could anyone deny them? And yet most Jews must have since they believed that the leaders of the rebellion of AD 70 were the Messiah, which correlates better with the prophecies. The case that Matthew and John (the authors) are Matt and John (the apostles) is pretty weak. We don't have any confirmed eyewitness accounts. Also, most ancient books are lost. Who knows what was written back then?
Take the star of Bethlehem. Comets used to always signify some great event - Hastings in 1066, the birth of Mithridates, the coming of Attilla. Now we can predict their arrival and understand what they are, so they no longer have the same prophetic power. The following were, allegedly, born of virgins: Perseus, Mithras, Huizipochtli, Buddha, Genghis Khan, and many more. All of these 'events' were written down. Some of these are obviously not real people. Are they still Gods? Miracles = nonsense.
I find it interesting that when I present people with these problems they never address the points I raise, they just point me in the direction of their favorite designated apologist. Also, I've had about twenty people tell me I''m silly for watching Youtube videos in Youtube comments sections. Its also funny how when 90% of biologists tell them evolution is real, they're elitists, but when a Christian has a PhD it means no one can question his views and be taken seriously. Read Joseph Campbell.
I don't know what 'zeitgeist' refers to, but I can tell you that the current zeitgeist is that people are getting fed up with Bronze age myths. Never seen the DaVinci code, my understanding is that it postulates Jesus wasn't celibate. I couldn't be less interested in that subject. Do you understand the definition of 'ignorance'? I'm citing sources and doing my best to explain this in 500 characters and you're misspelling 'yawn'. You don't know me. I am an 'actual' historian, whatever that means.
If all you have in response to my assertion that miracle stories are ancient nonsense is to baselessly question my academic credentials, you should examine your own position. Truth doesn't neccessarily come with a degree. If you think you have a good reason to believe that Jesus was resurrected that doesn't also logically bind you to say that Mohammed split the moon in half, Buddha was immaculately conceived, and Hercules fought the Nemean Lion, then I'm all ears.
i want you to admit that you simply "dont know"...I can admit that and i am willing to find out and seek answers to what i dont know...im not gunna sit around with my thumb up my ass listening to just hearsay and reading bullshit fables, im actually going to dig for evidence, What the fuck have you ever done?
religion makes me sick because their beliefs can be exempted from laws...They can use religion as a justification to discriminate against other religions, homosexuals, race, and Constitutional rights of other people...there will be a time this century where christians are going to have to stand up for their right to be christian...Gays had to do it, women had to do it, Different races had to...Now it is time for "religion to do it" you arnt exempt from the constitution you douchebags
It is only a matter of time where human beings start to completly realise how much a diety is not present in natural affairs, and that Everything can be explained over time thinking about it critically and logically...Religion is a total ignorant cop out to to inability to want to intellectually think...it is amazing how the stupidest of human beings can be regaurded as the smartest all because the individual removes all responsibility from himself to an immaginary Deity dogma, belief vs fact
I truely believe we will never be able to prove or disprove any diety that ever has been conjured by humanity...i accept that fact, I accept the fact that if there is a diety no human has ever interacted with the entity in the natural realm to know its purpose and what it wants. And anything in the real world has a natural answer to it, and over time God is proven to be less responsible more and more for things that nature automatically deals with
i think you fucking idiots need to try to explain the World better and the universe beofre throwing god as an escape from ignorance..If you truly want to believe in a god try to disprove his existance first, try to find reasons of why certain things happen, and have happend, put logic into it first before using god as an escape to deal with not being able to figure it out. do your religion a favor in knowing what god controls and doesnt control, Dont make shit up and not give nature credit
william L.C is an idiot it doesnt say anywhere in the christian bible that god is everywhere, it say specifically that god is mad in mans immage and that animals are here for humans to enjoy, this fucking creationist nut is making this shit up as he goes along
Actually, the Bible DOES teach that God is omnipresent, and not just in the present, but also in the past and in the future because he is timeless. So he is present and all-knowing in all time.
Also man was made in God's image, not the other way around and God gave man dominion over the animals, which is a responsibility, not just enjoyment.
So William Lane Craig is not an idiot and he's not making stuff up.
ok fine...but who gives a shit about whats in the bible!?!? it was written by people who had no idea of the science we now have today...they were people that couldnt accept "i dont know" as an answer, instead they make up elaborate poisionous bullshit to fill in the gaps of the areas they didnt understand...So i dont give a fuck about what the bible says it is not a credible source of information or history. Theres no excuse to toss god into the salad just because you "dont understand" something
Madman, I read the rest of your posts and all I can say is that you are one angry person who has no idea about what the Bible really says, and how it came into existence. Also, just because someones ideas and worldviews differ from yours does not make them ignorant. I don't believe in God because there is something I "don't understand". I choose to believe in God because to me it seems to be the most plausible explanation for the natural world.
who are you to judge what type of person i am? your acting like just a typical elitist thinking christian...And yes you do believe in god because you "dont understand"
if you think you do, i would like to hear the evidence supporting gods existance...i dont wanna hear your opinion or beleifs i wanna hear some facts... if you cant put up any facts than it is most definatly something "you dont understand"
i'm not judging you, but it's obvious from your posts that you are angry and that you don't understand the Bible.
The Bible is not proof that God exists because the Bible already assumes that God exists. There is as little evidence for the existence of God as there is for the non-existence of God. It is a philosophical question, not a scientific one. That being said, a strong case for the existence of God can be made philosophically. that is what William Lane Craig argues.
first of all you have no idea if i am angry or not, you make that assumption because of my screen name + the wording choices i have made...if you must know i am only a bit "annoyed" i am far from being angry or upset, if anything i would of expected you to detect my "contempt"
anyhow, i am annoyed at the fact that i am very well educated in science, math, and history, and of nature in general, and i cant even say that i know the origins of life.But yet people of less intelligence say they can
I can't control what other people say, but I can say for myself that I BELIEVE that God exists. Do I KNOW God exists? I don't think so. Belief and knowledge are inextricably connected, so that with a certain acqusition of knowledge, a belief system arises. Through my acqusition of knowledge, I have come to believe that a God exists.
People of less intelligence say all sorts of things. That shouldn't affect what you believe.
hmmm, well i suppose i just find it odd for someone to make up their mind if an answer really isn't known yet...I will never understand the mental condition of how people talk to god or w/e...I was once a christian myself bud for 10 years, I never doubted it till i finally hung up the hat trying to communicate with something that doesnt communicate back to me, i found life more pleasant being free from the fear religion gave me anyhow, best thing that ever happend to me.
@MSALLADLACIENCIA Because i dont need Emotional Childish Crutches Like HOPE,Justice or meaning... Hope is bs...you want something to happen you have to get off your ass and make it happen, justice is for the weak who cant defend themselves, And as for meaning...Who cares about meaning, we asked WHY WHY WHY all our childhood, so WHY are we still doing it it doesnt matter why we are here, learning the answer would not change anything
@MadMAn12gauge That's a pretty sad, conformist and superficial world view, and you are confusing hope with vagrancy, but if you say that it works for you ..
and tell it how it is, there are no such thing as miricles so stop bothing with hope, hoping for something does not change the outcome so why do it? maybe such individual is too emotional i dont know
"I choose to believe in God because to me it seems to be the most plausible explanation for the natural world."
what's plausible is to believe that the natural world is infinite..matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed..therefore, it's only rational to believe that reality has no end or beginning..if one can believe god is inifninte, why not skip a step and conclude that the universe is inifinite?..some say that's impossible, but then how is it possible that god is infinite?
then some will say that he's above reality and science, and the natural world..but, then we get into the area of people inventing attributes of god in oder to support their conclusion that he exists and that he is infinite..like i said, i feel it's most rational to suspect that reality is infinite, since what it is made of cannot be created nor destoryed...why suspecy that there is anything outside and above reality itself?
"So does god exist?, in order to answer that question rationally we need to address 2 further questions. FIrst What good reasons are there to think that god exist? And secondly what good reasons are there to think that god does not exist?" Wiliam L.C.
First of all, we must give the word god a definition, then, take that definition and start debating about it. Adjunct to that: if there are good reasons to think that such a god would exist or otherwise.
Big difference. Quantam physics isn't fully understood but we know it yields highly accurate predictions. It is science. It challenges our understanding of natural law. Miracles, on the other hand, demand the SUSPENSION of natural law. They are not subject to verification or falsification. If you believe in miralces, then anything goes.
haz, that is why the natural sciences cannot directly deal with miracles but when a miracle occurs in YOUR life, it is at least verified to you right? Others may write it off but u know it was true. This is why philosophy is in a different realm than science. Philosophical positions must be determined by each person individually- they embrace a philosophical worldview because something clicks. Natural science is just raw data.
Why do atheists keep bringing Scientists to debate Craig about the question of God which is primarily a philosophical question? This is Craig's turf and all atheistic scientist who come up against Craig have been like lambs to the slaughter. Thank God for atheistic philosophers like Sinnott-armstrong who at least argue on the same level with Craig. I would also love to see Craig debate Steele, that would be a great match. Poor Vanity Faire writer Hitchens, Craig smoked him like a Cuban cigar.
Hitchens did fine against Craig. He could have done better but he's smug and prefers to advance his own points let the absuridty of Craig's sophist tautologies speak for themselves. I don't think Craig ever actually "beats" scientists - he is as out his league in their world as they are in his. Basically, these are debates where the oppononets talk past one another.
Haz, come on.. Hitchens against Craig was like Tiger Woods taking on Bruce Lee in an ultimate fighting Challenge. I agree that Craig and scientists are in different areas but the question of God is essentially a philosophical one that the scientific enterprise cant touch (Remember Gould?) that is why an atheist philosopher should take on Craig not a scie
I recently encountered an extremely dangerous and sophisticated Computer Hacker. He proved to be my inferior, so I made him believe in GOD. I consider this funny because I'm an atheist. lolol
Slumpnasty 4 days ago
I love how on Craig's channel, the same video has comments blocked. Most likely cause he knows he'd have a googlolplex of comments all laughing and taunting his dumb ass.
mistereveready 2 months ago in playlist Debate between William Lane Craig & Victor Stenger
@mistereveready I find that the muslims have a "pending approval" clause in thier public humiliations.... atleast the disabled option is "fair"....LOL
MrFreezeframe666 1 day ago
As to the debat Craig excels and is obviously the more skilled, logical debater. As a philosopher, he is far far better at discussing science, than Stenger is at religion. It was embarrassingly bad when Stenger claimed "justice vs mercy" as evidence against God when God's balance of the two is beautiful as seen in Judeo-Christianity. Lane is spot on and Stenger comes off as an ill informed and dishonest debater.
cmottes 2 months ago
An *8-minute* introduction?? Yikes.
drumrnva 2 months ago
Victor J Stenger, ' God, the failed hypothesis' is one of my favourite books. For similar great thoughts try Dan Barker, John W. Loftus, Robert M Price, Valerie Tarico, Christopher Hitchens, Bart Ehrman, Ken Humphreys, Richard Carrier, Ken Pulliam, Keith Parsons, Gary Greenberg, Robert Ingersoll, Thomas Paine, Mark Twain, Earl Doherty, Israel Finkelstein, Daniel Dennett, C Dennis Mckinsey, Joseph Wheless, Bertrand Russell, Sam Harris
zytigon 5 months ago
Stenger kicks WLC's asshole back to the Kalam
theGroveMan 5 months ago
Stenger crushes him
Scienceoverreligion 5 months ago 4
Ask 'critically' Why is it, that only, 'White Anglo Saxon Males are on stage??? You did say the University of Hawaii?
pauljosephp1 5 months ago
what if someone points a shot gun in your face, will u be scared. because u have no evidence that they put bullets in there, u cant take the gun from his hand to put it in a test tube. u can pull out a fact sheet and come up with a formually. so based on FAITH!!!!! u r naturally gonna be scared bc u dont wanna take the chance of being wrong.... how is god any different.
jsp8675309 6 months ago
There is circumstantial evidence that supports a designed universe, but none that supports a god as described by religious doctrine.
revo1974 6 months ago
There is no harm if you believe there is or there is no existence of a God....the only reason I care is which one offers a better option to the cure of death which haunts mankind
upholdingthetruth 7 months ago
The contingency of material reality makes it reasonable to believe in the existence of a necessary entity from which the whole of material reality initially came.
wbarquez 8 months ago
@wbarquez
No. "Material reality", based on modern cosmology, has always existed. Our universe is just one form of time and space. While it had a beginning to its present form, there is no requirement to believe that nothing existed anywhere before that. More importantly, there is absolutely no reason to assign intelligence, desire, or consciousness to the "cause" of our universe. The best you can do is "I don't know what "caused" this present universe". Nothing indicate other than natural cause
14Guitars 7 months ago
@14Guitars That may not even appear to be the case because the nature of matter (contingent and transient) militates against the possibility that it exists necessarily and eternally. It is not even reasonable to believe that "nothing existed anywhere before that" since only nothing can come from nothing. Indeed, I do not know what caused the universe to come into being. But it has a cause, which does not appear to be something that is natural, contingent or transient.
wbarquez 7 months ago
OIh gosh.. Here we go.. WLC comes out and falls flat.. just as expected.
ShadowReubenKee 10 months ago
And, as a follow-up, you claim to be a scientist as well as a Christian. I should further like to know: Was it rational inquiry and the scientific method that led you to accept the existence of a God? Or do you accept God on the basis of faith and/or because you were raised Christian? Because if it is the former, why haven't so many millions of other scientists (atheists and of other faiths) come the same conclusion as you? And if the latter, on what basis do you bring science into matter?
felisleo101 11 months ago 15
@felisleo101 a scientist could be a deist
that means u believe there is a god but no jewish zombies, talking snakes or virgins giving birth etc.
MamaMario13 8 months ago
@MamaMario13
I am quite aware that a scientist could be a deist. My question would be on what basis does this deistic scientist believe in a god when there is no scientific evidence for a god?
felisleo101 8 months ago
@felisleo101 there's no scientific evidence that other minds other than my own exists. but I'm perfectly rational to accept that they exist.
Drgamedood 7 months ago
@Drgamedood
What evidence would be acceptable to prove that?
PTurchan1 5 months ago
@felisleo101 LOL
Scientific method can't answer everything.
kidasterorig111 1 month ago
I have seen a LOT William Lane Craig debates on youtube - but I haven't yet seen one where he doesn't go first.
I can't see how his 'Here's six arguments which I require you to refute followed by a challenge to provide me with good reasons why atheism is true before making your own case presenting your counter arguments (all in 12 minutes)" stunt would work if he went second.
Has anyone ever seen this? Or is going first in his contract, or something?
SAHBfan 11 months ago
they're using the word "god" as if it is something/someone everybody agrees on about who/what he/it is...its easy to disprove god of the old testament at least: simply disprove the scientific claims made by YHWH through his prophets or his own mouth, e.g.:
1) first human offspring was Cain (genesis 4:1) approximately 6000-7000 years ago.
2) global flood during noah's life
nickleus1977 1 year ago
Yes, there is a God. Next question......
drjackflash 1 year ago
@drjackflash
Yes, there is an invisible Dragon in my garage. Next question...
felisleo101 11 months ago
@drjackflash
Yes, there is an invisible Dragon in my garage. Next question...
What? You mean you want evidence for me to back up my assertion?
felisleo101 11 months ago
@felisleo101 I am a scientist in addition to being a Christian. You want to take the science stance, back up your claims. Dont worry, I will wait.
drjackflash 11 months ago
@drjackflash
Ah, a shifting of the burden of proof. Clever, but, no, old darling. It was you who asserted that there was a God. Not that there was a high probability of there being a "god", but there is a god. Period. I was merely mocking your assertion, because anyone can make such an assertion. ("Yes, Krishna exists. Next question."). But I should like to ask, what observable evidence led you to the undeniable conclusion that there is a God (whatever you happen to define God to be).
felisleo101 11 months ago
@drjackflash
Ah, a shifting of the burden of proof. Clever, but, no, old darling. It was you who asserted that there was a God. Not that there was a high probability of there being a "god", but there is a god. Period. I was merely mocking your assertion, because anyone can make such an assertion ("Yes, Krishna exists. Next question."). But I should like to ask, what observable evidence led you to the conclusion that there must be a God (whatever you happen to define God to be).
felisleo101 11 months ago
@felisleo101 There is no shifting of the burden of proof. God is an inherent knowledge that atheists choose to ignore.
drjackflash 11 months ago
@drjackflash The burden of proof rests on the shoulders of the one positing the claim. And once again, you are making an assertion and backing it up with no evidence. On what evidentiary basis do you say that God is "inherent knowledge?" And what is "inherent knowledge"? And how is what you are saying any different than a Muslim saying that the knowledge of Allah's revelation is inherent in all human beings, and that infidels like you are choosing to ignore the revelation out of arrogance.
felisleo101 11 months ago
@drjackflash
And another follow-up question: Did you come to the conclusion that there was a God before you became a Christian? Or were you give lessons about God during your upbringing?
felisleo101 11 months ago
@drjackflash
And lastly: Even if God was "inherent knowledge" (which you still have not demonstrated it is), how is that proof of a God's existence?
felisleo101 11 months ago
@felisleo101 Every now and then, atheists on here make me want to scream. Did you all eat paint chips as a kid?
drjackflash 11 months ago
@drjackflash
Interesting. I ask you some straight and honest questions as to why I should believe the way you do and what led you to your belief, and you come back to me with this? You're surmising that the only reason I could not believe something you do is that I suffer from insanity ostensibly brought on by lead poisoning? How utterly immature and childish of you. I do not know what particular denomination you belong to, kind sir, but you are hardly good representative of it. Good day.
felisleo101 11 months ago
@drjackflash I ate the paint chips that bestow the ability to think critically, demand rigorous and conclusive evidence for the unsubstantiated claims of others, and avoid pretending to know things I couldn't possibly know.
Which paint chips did *you* eat?
shantih433 11 months ago
@shantih433 Critical thinking on here is to question and deny anything that adds credence to a higher power. Nice spin attempt though.
drjackflash 11 months ago
@drjackflash No spin. I'll gladly admit that my definition of critical thinking is exactly as you say it is. I'll even be so bold as to say that questioning the claims of others--and your own, as well--is NEVER a bad idea.
I'd rather be guilty of asking too many questions than of not asking enough.
shantih433 11 months ago
Victor Stenger definitely dominated this debate. As usual Craig just responds with his usual pat answers as he does to every question in every debate without responding to any particular arguments. V.S actually proposed his position in actual argument form whereas a lot of W.C other opponents fail on that ground. Also, V.S presents his scientific arguments better than any of W.C other opponents that I have seen debate for the atheist position. You lost this one Craig.
cigs1000 1 year ago
The debate starts at 8:22 when the dumb fuck starts talking.
nemirn 1 year ago 32
@nemirn It would do you better to address the issue instead of resorting to name-calling.
wbarquez 8 months ago
bloody hell.
What happened to "you both know the rules, have a good fight."? [Ding! Ding!]
Two referees! (no doubt they both operate in opposite halfs of the pitch during the game)
jazzx251 1 year ago
can wlc be honest?
thekwizatshaderach 1 year ago 2
@thekwizatshaderach in short, NO :))
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
supersmash43 1 year ago
I find it very telling that Craig's video upload of this same debate has disabled commenting. I guess us non-theologians are too unsophisticated to even comment on the subject of God.
turbozed 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist Whatever. This is boring.
FallenAngel0fDoom 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist You used your father's efforts, as if they were your own, to belittle a person you don't even know (not that I care, it's the internet after all). However, you should not assume things about people you've never met. Maybe you should learn to be a Christian... Once again, poor René Descartes.
FallenAngel0fDoom 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist My father also did missionary work in Africa as a civil engineer to help build schools, for example, and much more; this is how I formed my perspective. I, by no means came from a wealthy family, and know very personally what it takes to start from nothing (I was only lucky where I happened to be born).
Anyways, you taking credit for what your father did is rather pathetic, and means nothing to me. Not very Christian-like... René Descartes would be sad.
FallenAngel0fDoom 1 year ago
Wow Dr. Craig is amazingly intelligent. He has wrote over 30 books? I never knew that. Why were they referring to him as Bill though?
7tylerjb 1 year ago
@7tylerjb Bill is short for William.
RonBurgundy161 1 year ago
@RonBurgundy161 Thanks for telling me that.
7tylerjb 1 year ago
@7tylerjb No problem.
RonBurgundy161 1 year ago
I can think of a lot of things that don't exist and why they should, and for obvious reasons, Graig's god is not on the list. Graig always answers why, not how. He just appeals to the emotional fucktard.
FallenAngel0fDoom 1 year ago
@FallenAngel0fDoom I am not emotional at all and his debates appeal to me so you are wrong on that note. As a matter of fact I live a happy life and I am very healthy and never get sick. And it may amaze you that I am a Christian also.
7tylerjb 1 year ago
@7tylerjb Your comment has nothing to do with the context of my previous post. You make no sense, so it doesn't surprise me that you're a Christian. Additionally, you don`t know that Bill is short for William, I noticed... you don`t seem too smart.
FallenAngel0fDoom 1 year ago
@FallenAngel0fDoom You made a reference I quote "He (Dr. Craig) just appeals to the emotional ****tard". I told you that I am not emotional at all and he still appeals to me. There are studies proving that atheists don't believe in Christianity because they live evil lifestyles and fear Christianity will not allow them to do that.
7tylerjb 1 year ago
@7tylerjb Wow, you still don't get it. Furthermore, if you think Christianity stops Christians from living an immoral lifestyle then you could be as stupid as stupid can get.
FallenAngel0fDoom 1 year ago
@FallenAngel0fDoom Well, you're right. Being a Christian doesn't automatically stop you from leading an amoral lifestyle. I myself am a Christian and lead an immoral lifestyle to a certain extent. I guess for me I look at it as well... if I wasn't a Christian, then I wouldn't know or care that I was living an immoral lifestyle. That for me is the difference.
BloodOfRayne 1 year ago
@BloodOfRayne I can tell you that being a nonbeliever doesn't stop one knowing right from wrong; additionally, being a nonbeliever doesn't stop you from caring.
FallenAngel0fDoom 1 year ago
@FallenAngel0fDoom You're absolutely right, it doesn't! But you have to say that YOU care and in the end there is no deeper meaning to your caring if YOU will ultimately disappear. Ever read the original version of A Little Mermaid? She dies and becomes nothing more than sea foam after she realizes the prince will never love her even though she did the right thing by letting him go to love another. In the end, your caring is nothing but sea foam.
BloodOfRayne 1 year ago
@BloodOfRayne And because you're a Christian, somehow your caring is worth more than mine? Please explain how your ego gives you the title as a Christian and then puts you on a pedestal above others who don't share your belief?
FallenAngel0fDoom 1 year ago
@FallenAngel0fDoo My point is there is nothing for you in death. So... you care! So wha? What does it mean that you ever cared? You're dead and your memory will die when the people who remember you are dead! My view is that God is everlasting as would be everything you do! But on your view, there is nothing! No ego needed! Ego itself will be dead so that's a weak argument!
BloodOfRayne 1 year ago
@BloodOfRayne Your claim of an afterlife does nothing but satisfy your own fear of death: It's purely base on your ego. I have no recollection of the billions of year that came before my existence, and I couldn't care less about the billions of years that come after my death. Heaven is being alive on this earth, and that's all that matters to me. I have no need for an afterlife, nor the arrogance to want to live for eternity.
FallenAngel0fDoom 1 year ago
@FallenAngel0fDoom And after all that I still say... so what? Heaven is being alive on Earth! Ha ha ha Tell that to the starving milions!!! :D
BloodOfRayne 1 year ago
@BloodOfRayne Why don't you go on a Christian missionary where you'll bribe starving people by making them listen to you read the bible in exchange for food and technology? At least if they starve to death after getting to know Jesus they'll go to heaven instead of just starving and going straight to hell for eternity. ROFL.
FallenAngel0fDoom 1 year ago
@FallenAngel0fDoom What would be the point? They're ALREADY in heaven aren't they? :D
BloodOfRayne 1 year ago
@crazyboyxx Of course I am. No doubt. Even your speakers have to admit that. Obviously you have a mixed up idea about religion. We make our own meaning? Jajajaja, maybe paying for the mortgage? And where do you put your hope on? Luck? I can respect someone atheism as long as it is coherent with that worldview. Trying to conciliate atheism with hope, meaning and justice is a mental delution.
MSALLADLACIENCIA 1 year ago
When a magician performs a trick i at least dont see the card sticking up his sleeve. Thats the difference. But is a better Spin doctor than most other apologists.
omnissient 1 year ago
craig is a lying quote mining word spindoctor... craig... hahaha... you magnificent idiot.
lukeism2 1 year ago
Universities are not places where ideas in theology and philosophy are investigated. They are places where uninvestigated dogma is socially amplified into deified status and where the obvious is dismissed as taboo and censored. As the philosopher Hume put it "The question is not of God's existence" . It never was very likely that higher order dynamic logics, as in mathematics, would have proof in matter. Jesus is supposed the existence-fact of God perspective in Trinity.
cloudbusterman 1 year ago
Man, the moderators need to turn their mics off when the guests are speaking. It's so bloody annoying hearing them breathe, licking their lips, etc.
Bugzelot 1 year ago
Craig was supposed to be the philospher, I'm guessing?
e4mmacro 1 year ago
@infinitemika: How are the Elvis and Diana examples weak? There are literally tens of thousands of people who believe that their deaths were staged so that they could enjoy a quiet retirement away from the limelight. This is in an era where photographs of dead bodies and televised funerals would, in theory, dispel such illusions. In the first century, such tools didn't exist. People didn't know about other planets, so there were no alien abduction stories. Instead there were demons and fairies.
bcgonynor 1 year ago
also,more evidence that something extreme did take place,, after Jesus death...thousands were being converted to Christianity, form the STRICT, monotheistic, Jewish faith, that was one of the oldest est. beliefs systems of its time...why would thousands in book acts...convert instantly to Christianity?? if it was not for the risen Christ. Trust me, the Jewish leaders were very zealous &if they could put down the resurrection stories, they would have! Period..but they couldnt
infinitemika 1 year ago
Why did Christianity become most widespread in Gentile areas like Greece, Turkey and Egypt? Why were the Jews so committed to the sort of military Messianism presented in Isaiah or Micah that they were willing to fight the Romans in AD 70 over religious matters? Why did Christianity overwhelm the pagan faiths within four centuries, but never absorbed Judaism? I think this implies that those who were far away from the alleged resurrection, and heard of it last, were the ones who bought the story.
bcgonynor 1 year ago
on the contrary, ur statement is a great example of the power of the Jesus story. If it was false, if he never rose from dead, if he never healed sick, the blind, rose people form dead, and most importantly claimed to be God, and proved his claim by the above supernatural miracles, witnessed by thousands and thousand of people in modern day Israel....Christianity would have NEVER made it till today. Most persecuted religion/book on earth, still standing
infinitemika 1 year ago
What matters regarding the preservation of a social system is not what's true, but what people believe to be true. When the memory of Jesus was fresh, his followers were one Eastern cult among dozens in the Roman Empire. As generations and centuries passed, they began to write and compile holy books, and to ruthlessly stamp out those with rival interpretations. After the marriage of the new Bible and the Late Empire in the fourth century, the preservation of doctrine became formal state policy.
bcgonynor 1 year ago
Reminds me of the point (not his own, I think) that Dawkins made. The chances for and against the existence of God are not even necessarily 50-50.
This is to confuse probability with possibility. A common mistake.
nrubdarb 2 years ago
Public notice
Drcraigvideos has incredible gall to accuse Dawkins of fear while censoring and blocking dissent....
selectively.
EternalSkeptic77 2 years ago 2
who cares; there is or there isn't. just don't blow people up.
bdinger74 2 years ago
I agree, except that I think we should blow people up. Lots of people.
sandwiches1976 2 years ago
fair nuff; to each their own.
bdinger74 2 years ago
I find it rather astounding that a person can go to a reputable university and obtain a degree in the subject of an unprovable,totally invisible space wizard.
VaiRoth 2 years ago 23
@VaiRoth
He has a degree in theology, philosophy, and history. He also has a vast knowledge in physics. It's funny how those with a minimal college degree can undermine the workings of proffesional scholars simply by attaching derogatory words to what they deem to be unworthyof their time.
"Space wizard"...Jeez.
regelemihai 1 year ago
@regelemihai " He then proceeded to graduate studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois, where he graduated with two M.A. degrees in 1974 and 1975, one in the philosophy of religion and the other in church history"
I also have a vast knowledge OF physics.Degree in church history,how meaningless and self-suiting can you get.However he does NOT have a degree in astro-physics nor a degree in evolutionary biology OR general biology.
VaiRoth 1 year ago
Not in Biology, I agree. It's fair to point out that he never uses biology for his case.
He has articles published in scientific journals. Astrophysics and Space Science journal is one example.
Suffice to say that he knows a fair bit about cosmology and physics without him being one.
regelemihai 1 year ago
@regelemihai Certainly,I too know a sizable amount re physics&biology ,doesnt help.You have to get the stuff past the peer reviews.He doesnt have ACTUAL proof of god,plus you have the problem of dealing with WHICH god if you do,using scripture isnt good enough,might as well use the Koran.What is it that every fundie is always anti-science but desperately show off their "qualified"scientific apologists.If science is so poor why are you so eager to proove your "god "with it.
VaiRoth 1 year ago
Nobody has an "actual proof" of anything. This demonstrates you do lack a seizable amount of knowledge in philosophy and epistomology. There is no such thing as abosulte proof; God notwithstanding.
I am very much pro science, and Craig does publish his works in peer-reviewed journals--I gave you an example yesterday of The Journal of Astophysics and Space Science. WHICH god is irrelevant when talking about a creator.
regelemihai 1 year ago
@regelemihai Yeah yeah BUT I can provide you with absolute proof that if you jump out of a fifth floor window you WILL injure yourself severely.Certain things are more consistant than others,proving the above is a lot more reliable than proving god,and such the like with other natural and scientifically proven phenomena
VaiRoth 1 year ago
@regelemihai Going to try out my new ipad now yay
VaiRoth 1 year ago
@regelemihai Given all that he therefore does not have any ACTUAL biological,scientific OR REAL historical proof of the existence of a totally enigmatic cosmic genie NOR her purportedly magic jew being risen from a state of being permanently buggered.If you'd bothered to think for a split second you might observe that its not the derogatory lingo,but the plausability of having a degree in something thats has ZERO evidence(anecdotal counts for zip) of actually being there.
VaiRoth 1 year ago
He has the proper credentials. He is one of the world's most renowned philosophers. These infantile attacks are indicative of a profound lack of knowledge on the part of YT dim-witted atheists. They can't refute what he says so they mock him. "Ohh,ohh he believes he can prove his sky daddy exists." To someone who has the least amount of education in the subject these comments seem pathetic.
You claim he has no proof. I assume you read his book, yes? If no...What are you talking about?
regelemihai 1 year ago
@regelemihai Which book?The Son Rises?Apologetics: An Introduction?God, Are You There?People refute him frequently,like I said being an expert in theology doesnt qualify you to refute evolutionary BIOLOGY.I have endured some of his books which ones are you referring to?
VaiRoth 1 year ago
Again, you're not funny.
This serves as another indication that you indeed haven't read a word from schoalrs that oopse your simplistic mind-set. Until you do, these attacks make you look silly.
regelemihai 1 year ago
@regelemihai You're not addressing my response,Im not attacking craig,just your invisible,non-existent space genie.Where is this irrefutable proof of the existaence of god,and that it just happens to be Yahweh and not Allah or Shivah(both modern deities.)
VaiRoth 1 year ago
It seems by this response that you haven't read a single page of apologetics. Do you know nothing of the counter argument laid against atheism?
Also, where the hell does anyone say there is "irrefutable proof?"
regelemihai 1 year ago
@regelemihai I have a degree in fairyism and a masters in psychokenesis,I am therefore qualified to tell you that fairies actually exist(and the female ones can teleport.)Go away
VaiRoth 1 year ago
A fine way of signing off after a weak attempt at mockery. lol.
Keep quiet, be a good boy, and until you learn to respond with real arguments it would be better if you keep low profile.
regelemihai 1 year ago
@VaiRoth hahahaha
beradification 1 year ago
@VaiRoth Classic! :)
hongkongluna 1 year ago
infinitemika - There are indeed a couple historically accurate verses in the Bible. But they're rare. Can you list the ones you know? And then if we can look at the ratio of historically accurate to inaccurate/disproved etc.
MagnumDB 2 years ago
also i dont have to know the bible to tell you it is bullshit...I read half of genesis and automatically can detect that it is fictional baced on my knowledge of things, The bible is an insult to my intelligence and i felt less intelligent after reading some of it, because of the notion that this is what people beleive....it is not even funny...It is an insult to any intelligent person that knows a little something about science and history...I know bad journalism when i see it
MadMAn12gauge 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
so you think the bible is bullshit, well you should know that the bible has many metaphors.
do you think t bullshit cause it looks like it. cause if thats the case then you lack understading of the bible. in other words before you can make a comment of the bible, understand it. cause your judgement is tautology
TheNotoriousSoul 2 years ago
i dont care if shakespeare or Nostradamus wrote the bible even...I know fiction from reality...For you to even suggest that i dont know how to interpret a fictional book(especially unintelligable 2,000 year old scribbles)...and tell me that it is fact baced...well...Maybe you need to take a reality check or something, or grow up from childish santa claus stuff
MadMAn12gauge 2 years ago 2
"also i dont have to know the bible to tell you it is bullshit"
good one, ignorance is bliss.
infinitemika 2 years ago
not really, i dont read fairy tale fantasy if it isnt a Real history book i dont wanna read it, Religious text is a waste of time, and it does not make me ignorant i use common sense here...If its a fairy tale fable book what do i have to lose discrediting it?
MadMAn12gauge 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
bahahahaha. oh man. Not a real historical book,. Seriously that is horrible. Even atheistic historians will agree that its a historical book, and one that is pretty accurate. Retard. I hate it when people make dumb comments on things they know nothing about, maybe pick it up one day and read a verse, so at least you can say you have opened one up. Ignorance is bliss.
infinitemika 2 years ago
the only thing that makes it a history book at all is the fact idiots out there believe its true, but it isnt actual relatity that it documents so, in the fairy tale sense it is a history book, but it is not baced on true events
MadMAn12gauge 2 years ago 2
Which historians? I don't know anyone who thinks a city fell via trumpet blasts, or that all the Israelites were slaves in Egypt (no Egyptian chronicle mentions this, and desperate archaeology by Israelis has confirmed that there was no time in the desert). David's kingdom was quite modest compared to the Bible's representation. This makes sense, since nearly all Old Testament works were written hundreds of years after the fact. Acts of the apostles is good history, and the epistles are letters.
bcgonynor 2 years ago
``or that all the Israelites were slaves in Egypt
YAAAAAAAN.
i dont believe in alex the great, or pres. Lincoln...this is how stupid ur comment is
why dont u look..instead of being the typical naive utube scholar
there isnt ONE historian who would deny that the jews were enslaved by Egypt..weve even found coins with Joseph name on them..as said in the old testament, when he was sold by his bros, then viceroy over Egypt. The bible is unmatched in terms of historical evidence, UNMATCHED
infinitemika 2 years ago
Perhaps JOSEPH was in Egypt, that doesn't have any bearing on whether ALL the Israelites were there hundreds of years later. We believe in Alexander because there are innumerable accounts of him by his contemporaries, even his enemies. There are towns called Alexandria from Egypt to Afghanistan. We belive in Lincoln for these reasons plus photographs of him. And I have bad news for you: I'm a historian. The Torah was written hundreds of years after its events, by semi-literate people in Babylon.
bcgonynor 2 years ago
ok...so our earliest dated writings of the existence of alex are oh,....about 500 yrs after he supposedly walked earth. No one doubts he exsisted.Now the writings about Jesus...drum roll pls...earliest manuscripts r dated about 30-40 yrs after the event....dated writings that would have been around when the actual eyewitnesses to Jesus would have still been alive to rebut them if they were not true..same goes for old test. NOTHING compares to the bible in terms of historical accuracy..nothing
infinitemika 2 years ago
The Bibliotheca Historia by Diodorus was wrtitten in the first century BC, some 200 years later. It cites sources, such as Ptolemy and Nearchus, that unfortunately don't survive. But other writers, like Plutarch, cite these same sources and present a similar account. The same can't be said for the Gospels. Matthew, Luke, and John posit three different birthplaces for Jesus. Only John mentions Lazarus, and most miracles are the same - only in one book. Which are inspired. As I said, Acts is good.
bcgonynor 2 years ago
First, I notice that we've shifted discussion from the Old Testament. Good move for you, since the Old Testament was written a thousand years late by multiple authors with no primary sources, and its claims have been largely paleontologically disproven, the Deluge for example. Second, there's no religion based on Alexander. Clearly SOME Greek general conquered the Mideast and placed Greeks in charge, even if he was old and fat. Without the specific person of Jesus the prophecies fail to pass.
bcgonynor 2 years ago
"alexander'
remember, we think this happend becasue of historical writings..that were dated 500-700 yrsafter the fact!
could error possibly been injected into alex's story?Of course
30 yrs is what separated Jesus death in 33AD from the oldest dated writings we have which is mark dated around 60-70AD. 500+yrs compared to 30+ yrs??Yet we belive in alex w/out predudice,its crazy. There is more evidence 4 Jesus's life,claims& miricles than ANY historical figure in antiquity.Its not even close
infinitemika 2 years ago
Did you read my response? Diodorus wrote 200 years later, not 500, citing sources. Second, we have to consider the nature of the story. A preacher, who gathered several dozen followers and was then executed, would leave very little evidence of his existence. SOMEBODY overthrew the Perisan empire, laid siege to Tyre and SIdon, and placed dynasties of Greeks on a dozen thrones. Was he young, blond and handsome? Maybe not, but there is evidence of battles and campaigns, coins, maps and followers.
bcgonynor 1 year ago
Regarding the New Testament - no one is suggesting that there were no Christians, or that they didn't belive what they said. In our own time, we've seen thousands maintain that Elvis, or Diana are still alive in a secret retirement. Ten times that maintain that they've seen UFOs, even been abducted. In a semiliterate world, the great mass of superstitious people would have played telephone for thirty years. (I heard he was born of a virgin! Well, I heard he walked on water) before writing books.
bcgonynor 2 years ago
ya, but the difference NONE of these people our anyone has clamed themselves to be GOD, as Jesus did when he walked on this earth over 2k yrs ago. He healed sick, raised dead, was crucified, rose again. So if this was true,which i believe it was, its a very important issue for you. if Jesus was who he said he was, then id be trying to validate his claims, which BTW can be. No one is history has made such claims, with backup as Jesus did, no one..so this makes his history more important 2 u
infinitemika 2 years ago
Many people have claimed to be God, and many have claimed to raise the dead. Sidi Baba is doing it right now, allegedly. Will you go to India and follow him? Genghis Khan was born of a virgin, is he God? Was Perseus conceived by the sun? The first century was a time of superstition and illiteracy. There's not a single story of Jesus that wasn't also attributed to Isis and Mithras and Krishna and Zoroaster. Did Mohammed ascend bodily to heaven? That's written down, too, and millions say so.
bcgonynor 1 year ago
" "There's not a single story of Jesus..yaaaaan
u got to be kidding me?
lay off the u tube vids like zeitgeist, and divinchi code documentaries..wow,,the ignorance is overwhelming
to speed this up, and watch someone smarter than you an actual, historian,. WOW , yes a person who has made it his LIFE to srtudy religous hisotry
type in "is the bible bogus" & watch a PHD in history destroy all ur arguements ini less than 5 min, oh and radical athesist micheal shermer at the same time
infinitemika 1 year ago
Read any ancient history, it will be literally chock full of miracles. Try Plutarch for starters. The fact is, the ancients saw miracles everywhere because they didn't know the true causes of events. Mental illness was caused by demons for thousands of years, but in the nineteenth century civilized people stopped talking about demons, and stopped going to the exorcist to treat seizures. What's more likely - that the demons suddenly disappeared, or that they never existed and were a misdiagnosis?
bcgonynor 1 year ago
thats great....show me the manuscript evidence for plutarch...lets compare it to the bible,lets compare ALL historical manuscript evidence to the bible...u will see VERY quickly, why the BIBLE is 100 times more reliable than ANY other work of antiquitie....none compare to the amount or date of documents to actual events..nothing..were talking 30-40yrs after Jesus death (mark).Most other works r dated 100's of yrs after supposed events..such as alex the great, or Plutarch....hundreds! case closed
infinitemika 1 year ago
You've missed my point. I do not believe that Jesus Christ never existed, I just don't trust the Gospels on the details. My point was that in Plutarch, there are miracles all over the place. Disembodied heads speaking, spontaneous combustion, Augustus was allegedly born of a virgin, etc. To me it makes more sense to conclude that in ancient times, everyone believed in miracles and used them as evidence for the greatness of their heroes, and that they were all honestly mistaken, not liars.
bcgonynor 1 year ago
i do appreciate your reply. it actually makes sense, and does have validconcerns. I urge u to dwell deeper into some of these older writings that talk about things that 'seem' to be very similar to Jesus story...9/10 theres No evidence for there claims. drwitherington a PHD in new test. explains this here, type in 'ben witherington BW3" he explains that within historical literature academia, secular & religious, these ideas of Jesus like stories are just that stories, with no real proof
infinitemika 1 year ago
" I just don't trust the Gospels on the details"
thats ur prob not mine.I bet 100% u believe alex great existed? yet our earliest dated manuscript evidence for him is hundreds of yrs after his "supposed" existence .Gospels written w/in lifetime of those who would hav seen& heard of Jesus.e.g:mark, written 30yrs after he was crucified...not enough time to bring in error,.Contemp's would hav destroyed Jesus story if mark was lying,caus they would hav had access 2 it? but NO rebuttals, NONE
infinitemika 1 year ago
Comment removed
bcgonynor 1 year ago
Im not trying to rude, but the di, and elvis examples are very weak. Yes, maybe 30-40 yrs could bring in minor, trivial errors to stories that really dont matter, but not if the stories involved one of them rising from the dead. Contempories would put them down in minutes, with fact, proof. You do not see this anywhere in terms of the Jesus story.
Pretty important to find out..caus if hes who he claimed to be, which was GOD in flesh, what he says is pretty important isnt it?
infinitemika 1 year ago
Again, the types of evidence left by a conquering hero and an itinerant preacher would be very different. People wouldn't have had access to the story, except from Christian sources. There were in fact dozens of Gospels, which were narrowed down to the present four at a church council. The four Gospels themselves differ on major points. Also, to non-Christians in the first century, the story held basically no interest - there were many tiny Eastern cults in Rome at the time e.g. Mithras or Isis.
bcgonynor 1 year ago
The examples of Elvis and Princess Di show that thirty years is more than enough time for mythology to become widespread, even in an age of photography and medical records. Regarding Alexander, of course many of the stories are mere legend - people used to say he was a virgin birth too! Gordian knot, breaking the stallion, etc. But it desn't matter whether these stories are true. They add color to the story and serve as metaphors. But if Jesus' miracle stories aren't true Chritianity unravels.
bcgonynor 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Again, the types of evidence left by a conquering hero and an itinerant preacher would be very different. People wouldn't have had access to the story, except from Christian sources. There were in fact dozens of Gospels, which were narrowed down to the present four at a church council. The four Gospels themselves differ on major points. Also, to non-Christians in the first century, the story held basically no interest - there were many tiny Eastern cults in Rome at the time e.g. Mithras or Isis.
bcgonynor 1 year ago
You still havent raised ANY historical writings rebutting the Jesus story, of death & resurection. Again, this happened in front of 100s & 100s of witnesses as written in the gospels& again the gospels were dated within the life of these witnesses..so why wouldnt we see even ONE story denying this event took place? we both know 100% Jesus was killed by Romans, under Pilate, this is fact....but did he rise from dead, as claimed in bible? is he God, as he claimed to be in the bible
infinitemika 1 year ago
Why are there still Jews? If these events truly happened in front of thousands of witnesses, in Judea, how could anyone deny them? And yet most Jews must have since they believed that the leaders of the rebellion of AD 70 were the Messiah, which correlates better with the prophecies. The case that Matthew and John (the authors) are Matt and John (the apostles) is pretty weak. We don't have any confirmed eyewitness accounts. Also, most ancient books are lost. Who knows what was written back then?
bcgonynor 1 year ago
ha..u beat me to my next point! LOL....ur quick!! but i do appreciate ur arguments, they are good,& well researched and for that I respect you!!
infinitemika 1 year ago
lol idiot...
maddtappin 1 year ago
great comeback...very eloquent..LOL
infinitemika 1 year ago
Take the star of Bethlehem. Comets used to always signify some great event - Hastings in 1066, the birth of Mithridates, the coming of Attilla. Now we can predict their arrival and understand what they are, so they no longer have the same prophetic power. The following were, allegedly, born of virgins: Perseus, Mithras, Huizipochtli, Buddha, Genghis Khan, and many more. All of these 'events' were written down. Some of these are obviously not real people. Are they still Gods? Miracles = nonsense.
bcgonynor 1 year ago
I find it interesting that when I present people with these problems they never address the points I raise, they just point me in the direction of their favorite designated apologist. Also, I've had about twenty people tell me I''m silly for watching Youtube videos in Youtube comments sections. Its also funny how when 90% of biologists tell them evolution is real, they're elitists, but when a Christian has a PhD it means no one can question his views and be taken seriously. Read Joseph Campbell.
bcgonynor 1 year ago 12
I don't know what 'zeitgeist' refers to, but I can tell you that the current zeitgeist is that people are getting fed up with Bronze age myths. Never seen the DaVinci code, my understanding is that it postulates Jesus wasn't celibate. I couldn't be less interested in that subject. Do you understand the definition of 'ignorance'? I'm citing sources and doing my best to explain this in 500 characters and you're misspelling 'yawn'. You don't know me. I am an 'actual' historian, whatever that means.
bcgonynor 1 year ago 8
" I am an 'actual' historian, whatever that means. "
sure you are
infinitemika 1 year ago
If all you have in response to my assertion that miracle stories are ancient nonsense is to baselessly question my academic credentials, you should examine your own position. Truth doesn't neccessarily come with a degree. If you think you have a good reason to believe that Jesus was resurrected that doesn't also logically bind you to say that Mohammed split the moon in half, Buddha was immaculately conceived, and Hercules fought the Nemean Lion, then I'm all ears.
bcgonynor 1 year ago
i want you to admit that you simply "dont know"...I can admit that and i am willing to find out and seek answers to what i dont know...im not gunna sit around with my thumb up my ass listening to just hearsay and reading bullshit fables, im actually going to dig for evidence, What the fuck have you ever done?
MadMAn12gauge 2 years ago
religion makes me sick because their beliefs can be exempted from laws...They can use religion as a justification to discriminate against other religions, homosexuals, race, and Constitutional rights of other people...there will be a time this century where christians are going to have to stand up for their right to be christian...Gays had to do it, women had to do it, Different races had to...Now it is time for "religion to do it" you arnt exempt from the constitution you douchebags
MadMAn12gauge 2 years ago
It is only a matter of time where human beings start to completly realise how much a diety is not present in natural affairs, and that Everything can be explained over time thinking about it critically and logically...Religion is a total ignorant cop out to to inability to want to intellectually think...it is amazing how the stupidest of human beings can be regaurded as the smartest all because the individual removes all responsibility from himself to an immaginary Deity dogma, belief vs fact
MadMAn12gauge 2 years ago
I truely believe we will never be able to prove or disprove any diety that ever has been conjured by humanity...i accept that fact, I accept the fact that if there is a diety no human has ever interacted with the entity in the natural realm to know its purpose and what it wants. And anything in the real world has a natural answer to it, and over time God is proven to be less responsible more and more for things that nature automatically deals with
MadMAn12gauge 2 years ago
i think you fucking idiots need to try to explain the World better and the universe beofre throwing god as an escape from ignorance..If you truly want to believe in a god try to disprove his existance first, try to find reasons of why certain things happen, and have happend, put logic into it first before using god as an escape to deal with not being able to figure it out. do your religion a favor in knowing what god controls and doesnt control, Dont make shit up and not give nature credit
MadMAn12gauge 2 years ago
william L.C is an idiot it doesnt say anywhere in the christian bible that god is everywhere, it say specifically that god is mad in mans immage and that animals are here for humans to enjoy, this fucking creationist nut is making this shit up as he goes along
MadMAn12gauge 2 years ago
Madman
Actually, the Bible DOES teach that God is omnipresent, and not just in the present, but also in the past and in the future because he is timeless. So he is present and all-knowing in all time.
Also man was made in God's image, not the other way around and God gave man dominion over the animals, which is a responsibility, not just enjoyment.
So William Lane Craig is not an idiot and he's not making stuff up.
mjc1024 2 years ago
ok fine...but who gives a shit about whats in the bible!?!? it was written by people who had no idea of the science we now have today...they were people that couldnt accept "i dont know" as an answer, instead they make up elaborate poisionous bullshit to fill in the gaps of the areas they didnt understand...So i dont give a fuck about what the bible says it is not a credible source of information or history. Theres no excuse to toss god into the salad just because you "dont understand" something
MadMAn12gauge 2 years ago
Madman, I read the rest of your posts and all I can say is that you are one angry person who has no idea about what the Bible really says, and how it came into existence. Also, just because someones ideas and worldviews differ from yours does not make them ignorant. I don't believe in God because there is something I "don't understand". I choose to believe in God because to me it seems to be the most plausible explanation for the natural world.
mjc1024 2 years ago
who are you to judge what type of person i am? your acting like just a typical elitist thinking christian...And yes you do believe in god because you "dont understand"
if you think you do, i would like to hear the evidence supporting gods existance...i dont wanna hear your opinion or beleifs i wanna hear some facts... if you cant put up any facts than it is most definatly something "you dont understand"
MadMAn12gauge 2 years ago
i'm not judging you, but it's obvious from your posts that you are angry and that you don't understand the Bible.
The Bible is not proof that God exists because the Bible already assumes that God exists. There is as little evidence for the existence of God as there is for the non-existence of God. It is a philosophical question, not a scientific one. That being said, a strong case for the existence of God can be made philosophically. that is what William Lane Craig argues.
mjc1024 2 years ago
first of all you have no idea if i am angry or not, you make that assumption because of my screen name + the wording choices i have made...if you must know i am only a bit "annoyed" i am far from being angry or upset, if anything i would of expected you to detect my "contempt"
anyhow, i am annoyed at the fact that i am very well educated in science, math, and history, and of nature in general, and i cant even say that i know the origins of life.But yet people of less intelligence say they can
MadMAn12gauge 2 years ago
ok, you're contemptuous not angry.....
I can't control what other people say, but I can say for myself that I BELIEVE that God exists. Do I KNOW God exists? I don't think so. Belief and knowledge are inextricably connected, so that with a certain acqusition of knowledge, a belief system arises. Through my acqusition of knowledge, I have come to believe that a God exists.
People of less intelligence say all sorts of things. That shouldn't affect what you believe.
mjc1024 2 years ago
hmmm, well i suppose i just find it odd for someone to make up their mind if an answer really isn't known yet...I will never understand the mental condition of how people talk to god or w/e...I was once a christian myself bud for 10 years, I never doubted it till i finally hung up the hat trying to communicate with something that doesnt communicate back to me, i found life more pleasant being free from the fear religion gave me anyhow, best thing that ever happend to me.
MadMAn12gauge 2 years ago 7
@MadMAn12gauge How putting and end to hope, and justice, and meaning could hae been the best thing that happened to you?
MSALLADLACIENCIA 1 year ago
@MSALLADLACIENCIA Because i dont need Emotional Childish Crutches Like HOPE,Justice or meaning... Hope is bs...you want something to happen you have to get off your ass and make it happen, justice is for the weak who cant defend themselves, And as for meaning...Who cares about meaning, we asked WHY WHY WHY all our childhood, so WHY are we still doing it it doesnt matter why we are here, learning the answer would not change anything
MadMAn12gauge 1 year ago
@MadMAn12gauge That's a pretty sad, conformist and superficial world view, and you are confusing hope with vagrancy, but if you say that it works for you ..
MSALLADLACIENCIA 1 year ago
@MSALLADLACIENCIA No i just dont candy coat the bullshit
and tell it how it is, there are no such thing as miricles so stop bothing with hope, hoping for something does not change the outcome so why do it? maybe such individual is too emotional i dont know
MadMAn12gauge 1 year ago
@MadMAn12gauge Your choice.
MSALLADLACIENCIA 1 year ago
"I choose to believe in God because to me it seems to be the most plausible explanation for the natural world."
what's plausible is to believe that the natural world is infinite..matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed..therefore, it's only rational to believe that reality has no end or beginning..if one can believe god is inifninte, why not skip a step and conclude that the universe is inifinite?..some say that's impossible, but then how is it possible that god is infinite?
itzahazylife 1 year ago
then some will say that he's above reality and science, and the natural world..but, then we get into the area of people inventing attributes of god in oder to support their conclusion that he exists and that he is infinite..like i said, i feel it's most rational to suspect that reality is infinite, since what it is made of cannot be created nor destoryed...why suspecy that there is anything outside and above reality itself?
itzahazylife 1 year ago
"So does god exist?, in order to answer that question rationally we need to address 2 further questions. FIrst What good reasons are there to think that god exist? And secondly what good reasons are there to think that god does not exist?" Wiliam L.C.
First of all, we must give the word god a definition, then, take that definition and start debating about it. Adjunct to that: if there are good reasons to think that such a god would exist or otherwise.
prgalois 2 years ago
"Quantum physics is one big anomaly"
Big difference. Quantam physics isn't fully understood but we know it yields highly accurate predictions. It is science. It challenges our understanding of natural law. Miracles, on the other hand, demand the SUSPENSION of natural law. They are not subject to verification or falsification. If you believe in miralces, then anything goes.
hazydavey 2 years ago
haz, that is why the natural sciences cannot directly deal with miracles but when a miracle occurs in YOUR life, it is at least verified to you right? Others may write it off but u know it was true. This is why philosophy is in a different realm than science. Philosophical positions must be determined by each person individually- they embrace a philosophical worldview because something clicks. Natural science is just raw data.
agnostaxian 2 years ago
Why do atheists keep bringing Scientists to debate Craig about the question of God which is primarily a philosophical question? This is Craig's turf and all atheistic scientist who come up against Craig have been like lambs to the slaughter. Thank God for atheistic philosophers like Sinnott-armstrong who at least argue on the same level with Craig. I would also love to see Craig debate Steele, that would be a great match. Poor Vanity Faire writer Hitchens, Craig smoked him like a Cuban cigar.
agnostaxian 2 years ago
Hitchens did fine against Craig. He could have done better but he's smug and prefers to advance his own points let the absuridty of Craig's sophist tautologies speak for themselves. I don't think Craig ever actually "beats" scientists - he is as out his league in their world as they are in his. Basically, these are debates where the oppononets talk past one another.
hazydavey 2 years ago
Haz, come on.. Hitchens against Craig was like Tiger Woods taking on Bruce Lee in an ultimate fighting Challenge. I agree that Craig and scientists are in different areas but the question of God is essentially a philosophical one that the scientific enterprise cant touch (Remember Gould?) that is why an atheist philosopher should take on Craig not a scie