New Atheist Arguments Against God's Existence Refuted (3 of 5)

[Personmr]

7. implausiblity does not allways translate to imposability.

8. the argument that the universe was created by a personal actor is no less gesswork than the idea that it wasn't, both use assumptions that come about from observations of our suroundings.

9. simple and complex are relative ideas, for example you claim that a mosaic is made of simple parts, however a chemist could argue that the parts are complex because of the chemical reactions required to make glass/stone ect.

[THChristus]

William Lane Craig FTW.

[allendharmonica]

I like the way he debates, he does seem pretty sincere and genuinely interested in logically demonstrating his points. I´d like to see him going head to head with the neo-atheists though. Has such a debate happened already? If so, can anyone one point me to a video of it? Thanks

[lukehase]

Craig is amazing!

[lukehase]

Craig is amazing!

[Destorath666]

Isnt a universe with the existence of the god of causality a infinite one? This first cause(given that it must be uncaused) would either have to have infinite power or must sacrifice itself in order to create anything(since there is no other medium to start the universe with) so then is the first cause finite?

[Destorath666]

@Destorath666 revision:sacrifice part of itself it does not have to be the whole of the entity

[ryanellis000]

I LOVE Dr. Craig! He affirms my faith. There are so many atheists on YouTube, and now I know I can direct them here. I really want to read Tactics, by Greg Koukl, so I can be better at debating. I love the Columbo tactic Koukl talks about on his show, where you put the burden of proof on the other party. That's basically what I try to do, because I am not as studied up as Dr. Craig. I've prayed for you, Dr. Craig. I hope you effect change for good to the fullest Glory to God now and forever. :)

[oodlesofosz]

What Dawkings is doing by not debating Craig is simply sucker punching him and running away instead of having a 10 round match. He throws his argument out and refuses to hear any back. To use the boxing analogy again, he refuses to fight Craig because he "just knows" Craig's punches are weak, therefore he doesn't need to take them to prove he is stronger, yet he will occasionally hit him for no reason.

[songwriter4artists]

Keep in mind that achievements and goals are only reached when the actions to reach them begins with believable thought. In other words, a construction worker can't build a house without first thinking and planning. Therefore, thought precedes creation and action. Likewise, the creation of the universe had to began first by a thought, and the only one who existed with a thought, was a being. Which implies that thought is the process that precedes creation and building.

[TheRgordon16]

@songwriter4artists That was well said. *Thought* is the only rational explaination for the complex order of the Universe which displays INFORMATION and LAWS that governs the universe.

[jsoccerw87]

I disagree with Craig that "the laws of nature permit a large range of values for [Reese's fundamental constants]." The laws of nature (electromagnetism, gravity, the strong nuclear force, and the weak force) and the fundamental constants seem to be determined by the properties of physical particles (photons, gravitons, gluons, and W and Z bosons). I'm not sure what made particles have these properties, or what caused the Big Bang. But my best guess is a spontaneous quantum fluctuation.

[drcraigvideos]

@jsoccerw87 Nope: watch?v=_xAP06ykvZM

[1TheVoiceofTruth]

If you were invited to a feast with all kinds of good meats, would you believe that there has been no one to cook them? But nature is a banquet prepared for us! You have tomatoes & peaches & apples & milk & honey. Who has prepared all these things for mankind? Nature is blind. If you believe in no God, how can you explain that blind nature suceeded in preparing just the things that we need in such plenitude and variety? If you desire more, email me at 1thevoiceoftruth@gmail.com. God is real

[SuperSharko]

"The argument of the Multi Universe defies Occam's razor" No it doesn't GOD would be more complex then our laws of Nature FAR FAR MORE COMPLEX. we know a Universe expanded we know it is made up of elementary particles WE DON'T KNOW A EVEN MORE COMPLEX GOD EXISTS!

[kimbo99]

Beautifully crafted arguments on the existence of God here, but the debate misdirects each person away from awkening the divine spark within themselves, which exists as a silent partner in each of you. The God within you requires only a triggering to reveal himnself to you internally. Gnosis. Takes only 20mins to trigger. Immediate physical evidence.Vivid messaging dreams 7 days. The experience eclipses this beautiful debate 100 fold. But why would any christian want to know God directly?

[pacothetaco556]

We all came from the backs of crystals!

Crystals I tell you! that's where we all came from!

;-)

[BennyMetal7]

Well if Dawkins would reach down and find his balls and actually debate Craig, He wouldn't have to do this.

[finchy633]

It is notthing to do with 'finding the balls' whatsoever. Craig seems very sincere, but I have to question anyone with his obvious intellect pushing the fine tuning argument. Its exactly the same as why reputable historians do not usually debate holocaust deniers. By debating them, you are basically saying that there are two viable sides. Which they are not.

[elijah5791]

@finchy633 "By debating them, you are basically saying that there are two viable sides. Which they are not."

I disagree. By pushing the argument, you are acknowledging THAT ANOTHER SIDE EXISTS. Not only does another side exist, in this case, it is very WIDELY BELIEVED, and therefore it must be addressed seriously and respectfully.

[finchy633]

No, that is just incredulous relativism, and just plays into the hands of the theists. The fine tuning argument it ridiculous, and starts from a wholly subjective premise (has anyone seen a non-fine tuned universe?). Im not saying im exactly brilliantly educated, but even I can see through that. It isn't science. Therefore it cannot be debated in the same realms of science. Exactly the same reason why scientists cannot debate palm readers for example.

[finchy633]

cont...People like Craig simply go from conclusion to evidence, which is ridiculous. Anyone can do that. Even so, even if he did reduce Dawkin's arguments to mush, it still wouldn't promote the idea that God exists.

[sk84life0707]

confusion.... the only one who is confused is Craig.... he is embarrassing to watch....

[ScottyVOR]

@sk84life0707 Why not call him a bank robber as well? It's as equally unfounded...unless you want to back up your drive-by comment.

[drcraigvideos]

@sk84life0707 Why not be specific and tell us what you're confused about concerning Craig? Or are you only here to do drive-by cowardly comments?

[Creationcreed]

@drcraigvideos I think its another drive-by, Is anybody hurt?:)

[drcraigvideos]

@Creationcreed I doubt it. But something tells me sk84life0707 is the only one hurt here. He's just too cowardly to deal with the video.

[TarriCJx19]

@drcraigvideos I agree with u

[EruditeWarrior]

@sk84life0707

I agree. Do tell...

[imanoutkast]

@sk84life0707 Interesting...I'd like to hear how so? Perhaps you just need to think a little bit harder about his arguments -- and start by listening with open ears and an open mind?? I don't say this to be a jerk, but because his arguments make perfect sense to me. I've read the God Delusion, and Craig's right, Dawkins' arguments tend to be confusing...not to mention desperate at times.

[SuperSharko]

@imanoutkast Would you? Lets start with Fine tuning. scientist past and present measured the constants of nature through hundreds of experiments and there is absolutely no coincidence here (just right) no hidden secret. In this Universe at least, they couldn't have had any other values. The existence of fundamental constants of nature is contingent on the way we construct explanations of natural phenomena, in a progressively more complex and encompassing scientific narrative.

[SuperSharko]

@imanoutkast For example just in the last ten years we have had to add dark energy and the still unknown values of the neutrino masses. As we probe deeper into Nature and discover new phenomena we will need new kinds of explanations built upon new fundamental constants.

Second there is absolutely no evidence that our Universe is fit for life. In fact all evidence at hand justifies the opposite statement that life exists in spite of the harshness and indifference of the cosmos

[SuperSharko]

@imanoutkast Heard of the weak version of the anthropic principle? The cosmos couldn't care less for us. Think of the billions of probably trillions of barren worlds in our galaxy alone. I can't read the message just right for life written in so many dead worlds. If the cosmos had plans for us and for cosmic intelligence in general, then execution of these plans has been very poor indeed. our cosmos seems to pushes ahead creating and destroying worlds with total indifference.

[SuperSharko]

@imanoutkast "The simplicity of the whole is the simplicity of the parts "

The Microwave background radiation is a true fossil of a distant past when the cosmos was so hot and dense that no materiel structures familiar to us existed no galaxies no stars no planets not even large molecules. All that existed was radiation the basic constituents of atoms protons neutrons and electrons: and the nuclei of the lightest chemical elements and their isotopic variations

Now my next argument

[SuperSharko]

@imanoutkast "Occam's razor" The cosmic story describes an increased complexificatin of matter starting from a hot primordial soup of its simplest indivisible components called elemntrary paricles to their gradual assembly into more organized atomic nuclei atoms and molecules eventually leading to stars plants animals and people

Where is God in all this? We don't need God to explain anything we are simply a different phase in the imperfect Universe which shuddered 13.6 billion years ago.

[neoclassicism1]

@SuperSharko You're basing yourself on a particularly 'matter-based' argument, which is common among biologists, but not among physicists and cosmologists. For instance, it's generally acknowledged in the physic community of the existence of trans-spacio-temporal-realitie­s, which are basically quantum fluctuations that are not in time or space - i.e. they are mathematical conceptions which CAUSE time and space. But this leads to a problem with old fashioned materialism...

[neoclassicism1]

@SuperSharko ...because a concept can only exist in a mind - a concept is not a physical thing. So here we have a mind-based phenomenom PRODUCING physical things. In other words, consciousness, a mind-based-reality, is at the heart of the universe. Which is why many physicists are now quasi-idealists, and why somebody like Richard Barclay can say that 'All real things are contents of consciousness'. Whose consciousness? Ours?...

[neoclassicism1]

@SuperSharko ...It couldn't be ours, because, unless you fall into the old Kantian dilemma of humans creating the laws of the universe, then you have to acknowledge that the universe existed before us. So if the last seventy years of physics are true - and the PC I'm using kinda confirms that, for one thing - then we have to recognise the mathematical idealism of the universe existing in some kind of consciousness not our own, but rather outside the universe, outside space-time. I.e. God.

[agnostaxian]

@sk84life0707 No, the only ones confused are Dawkins Drones who buy his "I will only debate a Bishop" chickenshit. Dawkins needs to put up or shut up. His refusal to debate Craig slipped his courage meter down one notch from coward to pussy

[iToyRobot]

hes pretty much having a debate with Dawkins, without Dawkins being there lol

[drcraigvideos]

@iToyRobot I'm afraid you're right. This may be the closest that Craig will have in debating Dawkins. If only Dawkins had the courage to take on Craig...

[iToyRobot]

@drcraigvideos i think its best for Dawkins if he never does...

[100percentrekkie]

@drcraigvideos You've undoubtedly had several people say this... but Dr. Craig is a philosopher and theologian. Dawkins is a scientist and thinker. They don't have much room debating each other.

[MrSB1274]

@100percentrekkie: Yet, Dawkins has no problem sticking his neck out into the realm of theology and philosophy does he? He knows he has an audience that will devour any sort of rubbish he puts into print simply to make himself a nice profit, regardless of his ability to stick his foot in his mouth philosophically and theologically. If Dawkins wants to be taken seriously on this subject and throw punches, maybe he should get in the ring with someone who knows what he's doing.