Christianity is an interesting old mythology whose time has come and gone. Modern society does not need to, nor should it, build a system of morals and ethics based on the writings of ancient sheep-sacrificing hebrew tribesmen.
i would feel bad for the atheist guy...but im sure under his intense belief in survival of the fittest he would approve of this slaughter he is recieving.
@acousticnirvana94 - Do you think Craig got a little irritated that this clown is his opponent? Any imbecile can clearly see that this is an utter waste of Craig's time right?
I mean this little fella is nothing more than any other atheist, a mere bitter shut in with a junior college understanding of serious issues
@mollkatless Right, all atheists are bitter shut-ins with little understanding of serious issues. If Craig was irritated it was because his opponent didn't accept his arguments. In fact, Craig actually revealed his irritation and insecurity regarding atheists and how "they claim to be brighter". It's not an argument for creation theory, but a window into Craig's insecurity. Nor does Craig ever provide actual evidence for his "five points", but rather goes into his typical circle of illogic.
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
It's interesting that, when Michael Payton made the point about Africans being destitute, the presenter and also William Lane Craig twisted it into an issue of race.
That's what happens when you know you don't have a decent enough answer...resort to cheap shots and side stepping.
When it comes to Craig's religious beliefs, they can be easily refuted due to lack of evidence, but his strength comes from his argument for Gods existence, which is mainly due to his ability at exploiting what is scientifically unknown and filling in the gaps with a supposedly loving, all power creator which is conveniently exclusive to his world view. Atheists do NOT have the burden of proof to prove the existence of something which just isn't there. And yes, personal experiences do not count.
the atheist was a lightweight yes, but too say the burden of proof is on atheists proving god doesn't exist is nonsenical ,a bit like disproving every other god , fairies,unicorns,santa . We cannot see any logical or reasonable evidence and WLC hasn't given a shred of physical or hard evidence for his christian god's existence ,just is own "I'm right you atheists are wrong" because he badly wants it too be true so he can eternally praise his god for infinite .(Sounds like hell to me).Grow up sir
Ok, I will say this one last time. WLC Arguments are DESITIC Arguments, all of the rest of nonsense he likes to talk on the Teistic subject matter cannot be considered propperly an argument. A personal God is nonsensical and he knows it, so he leans on the Desitic approach, to inadvertedly for many derive TEISTIC implications from those. Agreed most Teistic claims cannot be proven wrong, but DOES NOT make THEM RIGHT. WLC is I stand corrected a SAD EXCUSE for wishful thinking, just do your hwork.
@unifiedreality I agree. I'm on the side of the Christian, but I thought that came out of left field. I would have been like, 'What the heck are you guys talking about?'
In the West, especially the US, those who are "educated" ARE those who have constantly been told something until they adopted the accepted view. In short, a university degree may prove political savvy, but it is hardly a trustworthy measure of intellectual ability or cognitive strenuousness, as one might presuppose.
Well, Craig is such a douche bag that it is a real shame that atheist dude had so few argumentation skills. I'd like to see Dawkins, Dan Dennet or Hitchens, or even Harris debate this piece of bologni called William Lane Craig, just to see how he melts on his chari like a candle under a plasma gun. If he wants some cosmology he could talk to Laurence Krauss on the subject.
Have a link, a book, a magazine article? if not, well I guess you just got your word for it, and I' affraid I -and many others- will have some problems with that.
@DrErkencho He already debated Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens..He won both debates by wide margins..Lol @ debating Dawkins though.Everyone knows about Mr.Dawkin's staunch refusal to debate Dr.Craig..Dawkins,doesn't offer a rational argument against God..His entire book(God delusion)which i read,was refuted(Torn down)by another book.I'm not sure if Dr.Craig has faced Mr.Dennet..I haven't heard any of Mr.Dennet's arguments,so i'm not in the best position to make any judgement there.
Well I don't agree he "won" the debates. Here's why; WLC arguments are pro DEISM, and he used them PRO TEISM. I don't think Dawkins would want to debate DEISM. There is a huge leap from one to the other which WLC maliciously attemps to ignore. You can see what I mean if you investigate on Spinoza´s DEISM which was used by many known ATHEISTS to express their most hopeful thoughts about the logic in the universe. An its a known FACT WLC is at best dishonest in its logical? argues..
@DrErkencho Whether or not he won,is not predicated on if you agree..WLC does not argue/defend deism.He argues for a personal Go.A deist,doesn't believe in a personal God,and would never use Jesus in his or her arguments.Dawkin's excuse for turning down offers to debate Dr.Craig,was that he's only willing to debate a priest,a cardinal,a bishop or a pope.(None of Mr Dawkin's past opponents,prior Dr Craig's invitation were either of those)I don't have enough room to reply to your last part.
Only if you define see getting your ass kicked squarewise and being put in the corner like a petulant child as "winning". My main problem is that most people are way too polite with Craig and let him ramble on for too long, enabling him to build his brick walls of sophistry. They should shoot him down as soon as he starts talking nonsense, which is usually very early in the debate.
@MomoTheBellyDancer I define winning as reigning victorious,in a competition.Overcoming one's competitor or rival.Winning,is winning(No matter how one wishes to define it)Dr Craig doesn't ramble on any longer than his competitors.(They each are allotted the same amount of time)If Dr.Craig's arguments are non-sense,then any intellect,worth his name,should be able to point that out said flaws,and tear them down.No matter how tall he builds the wall.No excuses..
@MomoTheBellyDancer Well,do you have any arguments that lead up to that conclusioin?Or is this just a wild guess?if you're able to demonstrate that God,does not exist,i'll listen/read to whatever arguments you have..
"Well,do you have any arguments that lead up to that conclusioin?"
Not arguments, but evidence. Or better: the total lack of evidence for the existence of gods, despite centuries of efforts by theists.
"if you're able to demonstrate that God,does not exist"
I don't need to provide evidence for a negative. And what the heck is that comma doing between the words "God" and "does"? Please learn how to use commas correctly.
@MomoTheBellyDancer LOL..You're hilarious..You try so hard,that your own claims,contradict each other.WOW!!Yes,you do,need to provide arguments.evidences,for any assertion you make(Be it,negative or affirmative)who teaches you,that you need not an argument for a negative position?In my secondary school,we had forensics class(Debate class)We had two sides,taking 2 positions,in each debate.(The negative and the affirmative)So,if it was really the case,that the opponent,
@MomoTheBellyDancer taking the position of the negative,didn't need to have arguments/evidences,then,there would be no purpose of the opponent,asserting the negative,to be in the debate..Infact,if a negative,need not be proven,then the negative,wins by default..(in any given scenario)We know,this is not the case..P.S:Commas,are punctation marks,that are used to indicate a pause(Among other uses)
"Infact,if a negative,need not be proven,then the negative,wins by default"
Yes, the negative IS the default position. We're getting somewhere.
"Commas,are punctation marks,that are used to indicate a pause"
So where the heck are the pauses in those fragments? There's one trick to see if you apply your commas correctly: read it aloud. As it is right now your sentences are nearly unreadable.
@MomoTheBellyDancer I didn't say,that a negative need not be proven.(Your words,not mine)I argue,that the negative,is not a default position..People,make negative assertions everyday(That need proving)For instance,a defendant in a court case,has to prove he/she,is not guilty of the crime they're being accused of.(I didn't do it)Is the negative position.(It does not,simply win by default)If this were true,there would be no arrests made at all,because,everyone would claim innocence.
@MomoTheBellyDancer Also,if the nagative,wins by default,there would be no reason for the side holding the affirmative position,to even state his or her argument..(Because the negative already won)I can go on and on all day,with illustrations(but why?)And,with respect to teh last part of your comment(Which i had every intention of ignoring initially)but,i could not resist..Lol..The pauses,are where you see my commas.(Remember?)Read it aloud?I say it,as i type it(Simultaneously)
"If the nagative,wins by default,there would be no reason for the side holding the affirmative position"
I am not saying the negative side wins. I say it's the default position, UNLESS the opposing side has convincing evidence. Atheism is the default. The burden of proof is on the theists to show their god(s) exist.
"The pauses,are where you see my commas."
There is no pause between "pause" and "are". If you really talk that way, you'd better see a speech therapist.
@MomoTheBellyDancer However,you say it,it's not a default position..No allegation(be it negative,or affirmative)is a default position..They both,are in need of being argued..(E.G: A case,for both of the positions,are necessary)You can't just say,'well,no God does not exist' and then everyone,just goes home(Because case closed)Lol..I don't know why i'm so surprised to read this coming from anyone.
No, default position is atheistic. Agnosticism is a conscious stance on the existence of gods. Persons don't form the belief by themselves that there is an invisible man in the sky watching them. That concept has to be taught .
"And how did the first person come up with the concept that there is a God?"
Because he found out that he could scare people into submission by telling them his god would punish them. People have likely been spinning stories since they could talk, and new religions have been created until fairly recently (Mormonism, Scientology), so it's not so hard to imagine.
@MomoTheBellyDancer They simply,usually lack tenable arguments,for their positions..We've heard the arguments for theism already..Where are the ones for atheism?I could not remain an atheist,because it was a position of which,i was unable to sustain the burden of proof for..I'll go back to atheism,however,if someone shows me a strong case for it..
The only arguments the atheist needs to espouse is: "I don't believe you". The burden of proof is squarely on the theists. So far, they have never shown any evidence that their claims hold water.
@MomoTheBellyDancer lol..no,it's not the only argument the atheist needs.that assertion,is a perfect example of intellectual laziness.The atheist,makes the assertion that God does not exist..That's a position..A position that begs some justification.Lol @'squarely on the theists' An argument is 2 sided.If the atheist has no obligation here,i don't see why s/he would show up at these talks..
@MomoTheBellyDancer P.s: 'i don't believe you' is not an argument..Lol..and atheism,isn't simply doubt or disbelief..It's an assertion..A claim to knowledge..
@MomoTheBellyDancer Stating that you find someone's arguments unconvincing,is still not an argument.Saying 'I disagree' is not an arguement..Your job in a debate,is to tear down the opposition's argument,and erect one of your own,in it's place.I hav'nt saw any of Dr.Craig's opponents,do this to date.(With respect to his case for the existence of God)Atheists,claim they know stuff too..They 'know' for instance,that God,does not exist.
@MomoTheBellyDancer P.S:Theist,don't claim to know anything that is unavailable to non-theists..If this were the case,then there would be no reason for missionaries and evangelists,to go out and spread the gospel..
Intellect doesn't have with this to do. It's people arrogance or megalomania. Those people aren't down to earth. You can be very intelligent and be a Christian. You can be very intelligent and be an atheist.
Atheists can't stand the fact that there is someone or something that will judge them. They want to live their own lives which they think they can accomplish very well by themselves.
If you can get a good life without Christ, think about how good of a life you could have gotten with Christ.
God has never been proven to exist, so how does the burden of proof rely on the athiest side?? Craig speaks in absolutes. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In my opinion religion is a fallacy.
@VDMpeniel You win some, you lose some. You have to give credit where credits due, and even though I dont agree with him, he is a powerhouse! I still think his arguments are flawed and based on assumptions, circular reasoning and Informal fallacies. I think the burden of proof to the question"is there a god"must lie with the theist position, because god has not been proven to exist or not to exist. But with exceptional claims being put forward, need to be proven as true, just as science does.
Even though I don't agree with the atheist's opinion I thought he was very respectful and evenhanded compared to some of those other atheists. I think that we should show Christian love toward him even if we don't agree with hisbeliefs rather than resort to insults and mockery. That's the world's job. I find it hard myself to take the higher rd. bt that's what God wants from us. wwjd.
Are these atheists that dumb? Maybe what's good for the world , is for it to experience evil ??? Pain and suffering ? No Pain, No Gain..."Growing pains", a little tension in the strings, a bit of stress. TGIF / Thank God it's friday..Why? Because it's the end of the week..I worked like a mule, I labored, I suffered, now I can actually appreciate the weekend..It's like their brains just don't get it, or don't want to get it.
That comment from the moderator about racism was absurd. The discussion would have been a lot better without a moderator, or at least without one so biased and obnoxious.
Um... I was brought up in a family that took care of me and loved me and I had awesome friends and a very good education, I had pretty much anything I wanted materially, yet I believe in God. I thought I was wealthy, smart, and healthy, but I was really poor, desperate, and blind to spiritual matters. I think God addresses spiritual problems. People do not accept Christ because they are desperate financially, emotionally, or intellectually. People accept him because they need him spiritually.
Um... I was brought up in a family that took care of me and loved me and I had awesome friends and a very good education, I had pretty much anything I wanted materially, yet I believe in God. I thought I was wealthy, smart, and healthy, but I was really poor, desperate, and blind to spiritual matters. I think God addresses spiritual problems. People do not accept Christ because they are desperate financially, emotionally, or intellectually. People accept him because they need him spiritually.
God would not create a human to live in an environment where there is no drinking water.. RIGHT THERE.. so if your worshiping god and asking him to help you your fukin delusional because hes not gonna help that person either.. there is no god..
To say the athiest was arrogant leaves me asking where was he arrogant? Craig is the one with the smirk on his face more times than the athiest. I like Craig he is not your typical believer. But what this athiest is saying I can definatley relate to, His philosophy is common sense if you ask me. His whole argument is common sense. People should stop saying Dawkins should debate him because Dawkins kinda sucks at debating.
When Atheists call themselves "brights", they are implicitly implying that the opposite of Atheists that is Theists or Christians are dumb. Micheal is living proof that not all Atheists are "bright".
Then you have not been paying attention. The man has lost every debate with non-theists so far. And it's only natural, since his arguments don't make any sense whatsoever.
No, he's not. He simply huffs and puffs and DEMANDS to be believed that there is no contradiction, without actually addressing his opponent's arguments. In other words: he's trying to divert the attention from the actual arguments being raised. Craig is very good at tricks like these.
@IBDoyle It would make your eventual talk with him after you die a lot easier and go much more smoothly? I could give you a lot of reasons not to "believe" in him. You can't have sex unless your married.... is there anyone still left? Shit oh well I guess I am done then LOL. This is the problem with atheists is all they do is ask questions they know the answers to. Where did God come from? Probably the same place the big bang did. Why does God permit evil? Why do people permit evil? Children....
I'm sure you know that's not a valid reason, so I won't address that. Your failure to address my question, though, means that the other things you observe are meaningless: why believe in God as first cause when the Universe could far more logically have caused it self. Why believe that God 'permits' evil as part of some divine plan when it makes more sense for humans to be doing it to ourselves.
My mind is open; any reasonable argument for God's existence would be lovely.
man im laughing so much right now hahahhaha ive never seen an atheist get put in his place like this...hahahahahaha!!! what a treat and entertainment =)
I don't think he was really put in his place, he just didn't have the flamboyance of rhetoric of the other two, both of whom were clearly against him.
@IBDoyle Why sacrifice possibility? I am a Christian, and you are an Athiest,most likely. I have a chance to be going to Heaven, ascending into Immortality and Eternal Happiness withmy prime Deity. When you pass, your concious will go into darkness and will forever be lost and you will existno longer, and will see nothing,h ear, taste smell, and you willnto exist. What luxury is there in taking the chance?
Craig's arguments are rational. They are logical. The problem I have is that he allows himself fundamentals that aren't clearly true in any way, shape or form.
That the burden of proof is on atheists? If I say 'John Smith' exists and he is such and such, I have to show you him. This is normally the way something is proved or disproved. He makes an exception in the case of God, by calling it a theory. Then, he assumes nothing can disprove the theory and finds a way that everything proves it.
oh man, will the personal attacks ever give way to logical arguments? it's funny how some people try to make themselves sound intelligent by questioning the very nature of and giving their own definition of logic. the frustration is an atheist dancing around a fundamental requirement for debate, which is a premise and an argument, then support, then conclusion. their whole defense, offense, is nothing more then a bunch of questions with hidden and assumed premises.
It seems to me clear that Craig has the stronger arguments. I would like to say that I enjoyed the atheist though. He was not as well spoken, but he seems sincere and humble - a trait lacking in most atheists I've encountered lately.
WLC says 'materialism, consumerism and wealth could be spiritual impediments to knowing God' I would agree but increasingly, intellectualism could also be deemed as an impediment to knowing God for the self-proclaimed 'great thinkers' and their gullible followers of atheistic beliefs - they're far too intelligent to believe in God. Dawkins said that by agreeing to be on a platform with theists you are giving them status - who is deluded?
Oh yea people in Africa are well educated...just ask the great African philospher....Can anyone name an African philosopher without looking? No, you can't. Coren is on crack.
@ShootNeutrality That one is on the border but okay, how about a philosopher from Africa that isn't 1500 years old.... Dude I obviously meant a somewhat contemporary philosopher.
If I were an atheist watching Payton being decimated before my very eyes, I'd wonder how it could possibly be that this bozo could be selected by SOMEONE to go to battle with Craig.
Taking candy from a baby is a trite colloquialism, but it certainly fits this mis-match. Craig didn't even have to break a sweat to expose Payton as a babbling fool with NOTHING whatsoever to offer. I'm sure Craig had to be embarrassed by his opponent's complete inability to make even ONE cogent point.
He failed to present evidence for his personal belief that Africans are "desperate." More importantly, he commits the genetic logical fallacy, maintaining the fallacious position that because a certain belief may have arisen due to desperation (which has, again, not been established anyway), that the belief is therefore necessarily false.
He has still failed to provide any argument at all in favor of atheist dogma -- he expects the world to accept it just because he says so.
It amazes me that men like Craig seem incapable of seeing that they are arguing the logical consistencies an assertion they haven't proved. I may as well insist you have to provide arguments against my imaginary friend Wifflepow. If you want to claim that Wifflepow can't be All knowing, All powerful, and All good, you have to present an argument that those things are implicitly incompatible. I would be dodging the fact that haven't provided a single reason to believe that Wifflepow exists.
@t3tsuyaguy1 Have there been hundreds of books written about Wifflepow? Have people sacrificed their lives for their love of Wifflepow? Do millions of people on the planet pray and live for Wifflepow??
Are you the guy in the video gettin outclassed in every aspect of the argument, because the comment you just made is as embarrassing as this guys performance on television
@bigspliffs Do you really think there is truth in numbers? That because many people believe a thing, that it is true? How many does it take? Does it need to millions, or will thousands do?
@bigspliffs It isn't an illogical point. I was trying to be humorous for the sake of brevity. Substitute any of the 10 million or so other Gods humans have worshiped. By you're logic, as long as millions of people have sacrificed their lives for something, the burden of proof is on the detractors of that claim. The consequence is that Christians must logically deconstruct every other religion that people believe or believed in, or they are guilty of everything Craig accuses atheists of.
@t3tsuyaguy1 No they don't...if you understood the origin of all the other Gods you would realise its all in relation to the true creator...everything is linked
@bigspliffs That's another claim that depends entirely on your desire to believe what you believe. Others could claim your God is just an amalgamation of the "other Gods". They would have no more proof and no less burden to prove. You can't make a claim about the nature of reality and then declare by fiat that it is true unless others can prove you wrong. Otherwise all such claims are equally valid and unassailable.
@t3tsuyaguy1 It is very easy to prove everyone else wrong...Jesus Christ is the only way. Now in saying that, i'm not judging everyone who isn't christian to eternal hellfire, most Christians have it wrong also. At the end of the day, not everyone follows there desired or forced religion 100% on the everyday daily lives...most people jus live and take the goodness of whatever rules and laws they are to follow and make good of their lives...that is what God wants from us...
@bigspliffs If I claim to you that the sun is a sphere of hydrogen, I can't escape the burden of proof, by saying that you haven't adequately addressed my philosophical constructions based on the sun being a sphere of hydrogen. I have to start by actually demonstrating spectrometry to you and convincing you that it is a valid way to determine the composition of distant objects. Then we can get into the implications that grow from there.
@bigspliffs How do justify taking a swath of God claims and arbitrarily deciding they are all the same God? You have nothing to base that on, besides it's appeal to you (and to me). It is certainly not something claimed by the religions whose Gods you claim are all linked. Abrahamic Monotheism, for example, is explicit in it's claim there is only one true religion. I agree that's narrow minded, but you have nothing concrete to establish your more open minded view as closer to the truth.
@t3tsuyaguy1 The Book of Enoch...The people were separated a long time ago...but still the goodness remains in most, and we try to uphold to the best of our ability, no matter what lies we have been taught. Same can be said for atheists...most still live for good, no matter the lies...
No matter how far one separates themself from God...His presence will always remain.
@bigspliffs If I understand correctly, you are agreeing to disagree. You don't think you can convince me and you are not convinced by me. You would however like to leave the discussion with peaceful words conveying the hope I will one day come around to your perspective. If that or something like it is the case, then back at you. May you find what you are looking for in your own search for truth. :)
These are philosophical issues, hence naturally you would bring philosophical arguments to the table, not scientific arguments. And there was no potshots at Dawkins. He was simply saying Dawkins doesn't make good philosophical arguments and is unsophisticated there (a view that many professional philosophers share). That's hardly offensive "potshot" like statements. Craig is a professional, well respected philosopher, so he's more than qualified to judge Dawkins on his philosophy.
Dawkins has nothing to do with this though. Craig just mentioned him out of the blue for no reason. It was a complete tangent, like his quip about the 'intelligentsia'. Nobody mentioned anything with respect to those, nor are they related to the point of the discussion.
Secondly, he claims scientific and logical foundations for his arguments, so they DO fall under the realm of scientific and logical analysis. On those points, many are more qualified to judge Craig in those realms.
IF ANY proposition asstrays far from Science, then that proposition can rightfully said to be false. You do your Filosophical mumbo Jumbo, the subject matter stands, NO EVIDENCE, NO GOD. Logical ideas might be good in the world of Mathematics but not in the World of the Physical realm, there are many cases in which they are not, do your homework. Craig HAS been proven wrong many x and is indeed delussional. Can you prove a crack pot wrong on his visions? No, to him they're true.
@Mathenaut That's because Dawkins has practically no knowledge or understanding of philosophy or religious history and understanding. Dawkins sees everything in black or white as far as God is concerned and basically says that God doesn't exist simply because if there is a God, then he hasn't done things the way Dawkins thinks he SHOULD have done things! He needs to stay in the lab were he has some credibility. Even when he debated a priest it was found that he cherry picked him!
Uhm...Have you actually looked into what Dawkins said, or are you just running by the fundie take on it? Dawkins never directly asserts that any god cannot exist, as most gods are generally defined to avoid direct scrutiny.
The problem is, christians assert that their specific god exists with no solid reasoning behind it. Then they turn around and assert that other gods don't exist, even though they haven't a leg to stand on to disprove them.
@Mathenaut Potshots? I must have missed those. As a fellow "bright" i find it offensive when we're unable to see the problems with Dr. Dawkins point of view on questions of ultimate origin. He is after all a middling biologist and has no philosophical credentials at all. That being said I agree with Dr. Dawkins conclusions but his reasoning to those conclusion is equally suspect as Dr.'s Craigs. Please don't be a Dawkins sycophant. He's not infallible.
Firstly, Dawkins has nothing to do with this argument. That was an arbitrary tangent that Craig just jumped to that served no point, did not weigh on the position of his opponent, and did not contribute to his own position. It's a cheap bandwagon maneuver.
Speaking of bandwagon, while it's nice and popular to senselessly bash Dawkins to feign some sense of being 'intellectual', there is a difference between legitimate criticism, and popular cheap shots. This is the latter.
@Mathenaut "Speaking of bandwagon, while it's nice and popular to senselessly bash Craig to feign some sense of being 'intellectual', there is a difference between legitimate criticism, and popular cheap shots. This is the latter." Do you see how easy this is? Neither bashing Dawkins or Craig gets us anywhere. Both positions are equally irrational.
Only works if you simply glance over what I said instead of addressing it. My criticism of Craig was not vague and non-specific. Nor am I claiming to be his intellectual superior simply because I disagree with him.
I pointed to very specific instances where Craig's rationale or rhetoric were found wanting. In the most recent case, the fact that he drags his irrelevant opinion of Dawkins out of left field - which contributes nothing to the argument.
@Mathenaut The problem is, atheists assert that no god exists with no solid reasoning behind it. Even though they haven't a leg to stand on to disprove them.
@markp10311969 welcome to youtube where bashing apologists who cant defend themselves from attacks in a youtube video by some hack who cant get a better platform than the internet
This is humorous. Craig doesn't know how to respond to people that don't get railroaded into his strawman of the atheist position. Furthermore, his argument was exposed from the beginning for the weak base that it has.
Disproving a negative isn't a valid position, so no, there isn't a burden of proof on that. Secondly, question isn't an argument...and an argument isn't proof. Craig doesn't establish how is position is most probable or necessary...It's rather dismissable.
Evil and God are not incompatible if it assumed that God wants us to be our own moral agents. Pain, and punishment and cause an effect are perfectly reasonable to accept.
But cancer, tsunamis, volcano eruptions, famine, drought flood... random disaster is incompatible with God. But demonstrably real.
How the fuck does anyone know what God thinks Craig seems to know the inner workings of god's mind? Listen to this crap! Coran is biased - he believes in God and it shows. Belief is cheap! Evidence costs!!!!!!
This is a embarrassment for atheist..Craig did not even have to think to debate this guy!..The atheist is a typical college student..He calls himself a scientist?!..WOW..I want to see Craig vs Dawkins..I would even buy that on Pay-Per-View..This guy was a joke.Dawkins should stop dodging Craig..I think Richard is affraid of Craig.
The atheist debater is a rookie and his statements are all based on his personal opinions without any backing, starting from his blatant assumption that God and suffering cannot co-exist. William Lane Craig's been debating on this topic for years. It's too bad that Michael Coren being such an educated, effective moderator and Dr Craig had to deal with this rookie. I wanted to see a real debate.
I think this was not a debate- a chilled discussion more like. The atheist needs to come down a notch in his attitude. He comes off as very arrogant..!!
I think this was not a debate- a chilled discussion more like. The atheist needs to come down a notch in his attitude. He comes off as very arrogant..!!
Of course, atheism, darwinism, social darwinism, eugenics, "survival of the fittest," fascism, Nazism, and racism all go hand in hand. Each one supports the others, and there is a clear connection between atheistic ideologies and racist ideologies.
Conversely, all of the religions that God reveals are diametrically opposed to all of the above-stated ignorant ideologies.
Christianity is an interesting old mythology whose time has come and gone. Modern society does not need to, nor should it, build a system of morals and ethics based on the writings of ancient sheep-sacrificing hebrew tribesmen.
itsem100 1 month ago
@itsem100 It's time has come and gone? Hm....what is the percentage of Atheists in America? Only 4%?
BlongBlarble 1 month ago
Or maybe a bit oh I don't know.....arrogant?
bodom71 2 months ago
Craig is way to good for this Atheists debating ability.
Jehstfan 2 months ago in playlist More videos from Christianjr4
i would feel bad for the atheist guy...but im sure under his intense belief in survival of the fittest he would approve of this slaughter he is recieving.
Falcondick69 3 months ago
this goes from a tv show to a philosophy 101 class because atheists never start at philosophy and just jump straight into science.
acousticnirvana94 3 months ago
@acousticnirvana94 - Do you think Craig got a little irritated that this clown is his opponent? Any imbecile can clearly see that this is an utter waste of Craig's time right?
I mean this little fella is nothing more than any other atheist, a mere bitter shut in with a junior college understanding of serious issues
mollkatless 2 months ago
@mollkatless Right, all atheists are bitter shut-ins with little understanding of serious issues. If Craig was irritated it was because his opponent didn't accept his arguments. In fact, Craig actually revealed his irritation and insecurity regarding atheists and how "they claim to be brighter". It's not an argument for creation theory, but a window into Craig's insecurity. Nor does Craig ever provide actual evidence for his "five points", but rather goes into his typical circle of illogic.
avenuePad 1 month ago
I wish the title would say "michael coren vs michael payton". That would be more realistic.
Ahamill8577 4 months ago
"preeple" - 2:40
Ahamill8577 4 months ago
this little guy is blabbling crap!!..Dr Craig Wins!!
erubians1 4 months ago
How do you know god's plan?
MrHoolits 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK (DONATED) FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
It's interesting that, when Michael Payton made the point about Africans being destitute, the presenter and also William Lane Craig twisted it into an issue of race.
That's what happens when you know you don't have a decent enough answer...resort to cheap shots and side stepping.
fistpounder 6 months ago
When it comes to Craig's religious beliefs, they can be easily refuted due to lack of evidence, but his strength comes from his argument for Gods existence, which is mainly due to his ability at exploiting what is scientifically unknown and filling in the gaps with a supposedly loving, all power creator which is conveniently exclusive to his world view. Atheists do NOT have the burden of proof to prove the existence of something which just isn't there. And yes, personal experiences do not count.
upliftzippy 6 months ago
@upliftzippy What proof do you have?
WSSIIWarlordII 4 months ago
@WSSIIWarlordII Proof of what?
upliftzippy 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@upliftzippy Exactly :) Thank's for proving my point :)
WSSIIWarlordII 4 months ago
lol Filosopher...
MrJagnz 6 months ago
the atheist was a lightweight yes, but too say the burden of proof is on atheists proving god doesn't exist is nonsenical ,a bit like disproving every other god , fairies,unicorns,santa . We cannot see any logical or reasonable evidence and WLC hasn't given a shred of physical or hard evidence for his christian god's existence ,just is own "I'm right you atheists are wrong" because he badly wants it too be true so he can eternally praise his god for infinite .(Sounds like hell to me).Grow up sir
vashna3799 7 months ago
Ok, I will say this one last time. WLC Arguments are DESITIC Arguments, all of the rest of nonsense he likes to talk on the Teistic subject matter cannot be considered propperly an argument. A personal God is nonsensical and he knows it, so he leans on the Desitic approach, to inadvertedly for many derive TEISTIC implications from those. Agreed most Teistic claims cannot be proven wrong, but DOES NOT make THEM RIGHT. WLC is I stand corrected a SAD EXCUSE for wishful thinking, just do your hwork.
DrErkencho 7 months ago
Racism? Where the hell did they get that from? This whole show has been loaded against the scientist.
unifiedreality 7 months ago
@unifiedreality I agree. I'm on the side of the Christian, but I thought that came out of left field. I would have been like, 'What the heck are you guys talking about?'
slash20062006 7 months ago
The literacy rate is proportional to the GDP pro capite in nearly the whole world.
saintpine 8 months ago in playlist William Lane Craig on The Michael Coren Show
People are thumbing up WLC? I feel the internet getting more stupid by the second.
lambofpaul 8 months ago
In the West, especially the US, those who are "educated" ARE those who have constantly been told something until they adopted the accepted view. In short, a university degree may prove political savvy, but it is hardly a trustworthy measure of intellectual ability or cognitive strenuousness, as one might presuppose.
OKandNOWwhat 8 months ago
wow, michael coren is so unbiased. :D (sarcasm)
Drgamedood 8 months ago
it like matching a high school soccer team against a national soccer team......a waste of time
danny3571 9 months ago
@danny3571
Well, Craig is such a douche bag that it is a real shame that atheist dude had so few argumentation skills. I'd like to see Dawkins, Dan Dennet or Hitchens, or even Harris debate this piece of bologni called William Lane Craig, just to see how he melts on his chari like a candle under a plasma gun. If he wants some cosmology he could talk to Laurence Krauss on the subject.
DrErkencho 8 months ago
@DrErkencho They did debate Craig and Craig owned them all.
Mustdang 7 months ago
@Mustdang
------ ehem ------ Sais who???
Have a link, a book, a magazine article? if not, well I guess you just got your word for it, and I' affraid I -and many others- will have some problems with that.
DrErkencho 7 months ago
Comment removed
DrErkencho 7 months ago
@Mustdang
Maybe this is a good point to start.?
watch?v=x9NlRKJBKt4&feature=related
DrErkencho 7 months ago
@Mustdang
Watch Craig be debunked by some REAL BRIGHT.
watch?v=o9DLcTfYBcQ&NR=1
DrErkencho 7 months ago
@DrErkencho
Orrr... what a bout this one...
profile?user=Th1sWasATriumph&annotation_id=annotation_268360&feature=iv#p/c/AB30996C56C8AD7A/0/veB1uUOv6Vg
DrErkencho 7 months ago
@DrErkencho He already debated Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens..He won both debates by wide margins..Lol @ debating Dawkins though.Everyone knows about Mr.Dawkin's staunch refusal to debate Dr.Craig..Dawkins,doesn't offer a rational argument against God..His entire book(God delusion)which i read,was refuted(Torn down)by another book.I'm not sure if Dr.Craig has faced Mr.Dennet..I haven't heard any of Mr.Dennet's arguments,so i'm not in the best position to make any judgement there.
MsOluwatoyin 7 months ago
@MsOluwatoyin
Well I don't agree he "won" the debates. Here's why; WLC arguments are pro DEISM, and he used them PRO TEISM. I don't think Dawkins would want to debate DEISM. There is a huge leap from one to the other which WLC maliciously attemps to ignore. You can see what I mean if you investigate on Spinoza´s DEISM which was used by many known ATHEISTS to express their most hopeful thoughts about the logic in the universe. An its a known FACT WLC is at best dishonest in its logical? argues..
DrErkencho 7 months ago
@DrErkencho Whether or not he won,is not predicated on if you agree..WLC does not argue/defend deism.He argues for a personal Go.A deist,doesn't believe in a personal God,and would never use Jesus in his or her arguments.Dawkin's excuse for turning down offers to debate Dr.Craig,was that he's only willing to debate a priest,a cardinal,a bishop or a pope.(None of Mr Dawkin's past opponents,prior Dr Craig's invitation were either of those)I don't have enough room to reply to your last part.
MsOluwatoyin 7 months ago
@MsOluwatoyin
"He won both debates by wide margins"
Only if you define see getting your ass kicked squarewise and being put in the corner like a petulant child as "winning". My main problem is that most people are way too polite with Craig and let him ramble on for too long, enabling him to build his brick walls of sophistry. They should shoot him down as soon as he starts talking nonsense, which is usually very early in the debate.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer I define winning as reigning victorious,in a competition.Overcoming one's competitor or rival.Winning,is winning(No matter how one wishes to define it)Dr Craig doesn't ramble on any longer than his competitors.(They each are allotted the same amount of time)If Dr.Craig's arguments are non-sense,then any intellect,worth his name,should be able to point that out said flaws,and tear them down.No matter how tall he builds the wall.No excuses..
MsOluwatoyin 6 months ago
@MsOluwatoyin
"Winning,is winning"
So, and would be the end effect of Craig "winning" a debate? In the end his god is just as non-existent as before.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Well,do you have any arguments that lead up to that conclusioin?Or is this just a wild guess?if you're able to demonstrate that God,does not exist,i'll listen/read to whatever arguments you have..
MsOluwatoyin 6 months ago
@MsOluwatoyin
"Well,do you have any arguments that lead up to that conclusioin?"
Not arguments, but evidence. Or better: the total lack of evidence for the existence of gods, despite centuries of efforts by theists.
"if you're able to demonstrate that God,does not exist"
I don't need to provide evidence for a negative. And what the heck is that comma doing between the words "God" and "does"? Please learn how to use commas correctly.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer LOL..You're hilarious..You try so hard,that your own claims,contradict each other.WOW!!Yes,you do,need to provide arguments.evidences,for any assertion you make(Be it,negative or affirmative)who teaches you,that you need not an argument for a negative position?In my secondary school,we had forensics class(Debate class)We had two sides,taking 2 positions,in each debate.(The negative and the affirmative)So,if it was really the case,that the opponent,
MsOluwatoyin 6 months ago
Comment removed
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MsOluwatoyin
@MsOluwatoyin
"?In my secondary school,we had forensics class(Debate class)We had two sides,taking 2 positions,in each debate.(The negative and the affirmative)"
So you had a crappy education. I already guessed that by the way you write.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer taking the position of the negative,didn't need to have arguments/evidences,then,there would be no purpose of the opponent,asserting the negative,to be in the debate..Infact,if a negative,need not be proven,then the negative,wins by default..(in any given scenario)We know,this is not the case..P.S:Commas,are punctation marks,that are used to indicate a pause(Among other uses)
MsOluwatoyin 6 months ago
@MsOluwatoyin
"Infact,if a negative,need not be proven,then the negative,wins by default"
Yes, the negative IS the default position. We're getting somewhere.
"Commas,are punctation marks,that are used to indicate a pause"
So where the heck are the pauses in those fragments? There's one trick to see if you apply your commas correctly: read it aloud. As it is right now your sentences are nearly unreadable.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer I didn't say,that a negative need not be proven.(Your words,not mine)I argue,that the negative,is not a default position..People,make negative assertions everyday(That need proving)For instance,a defendant in a court case,has to prove he/she,is not guilty of the crime they're being accused of.(I didn't do it)Is the negative position.(It does not,simply win by default)If this were true,there would be no arrests made at all,because,everyone would claim innocence.
MsOluwatoyin 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Also,if the nagative,wins by default,there would be no reason for the side holding the affirmative position,to even state his or her argument..(Because the negative already won)I can go on and on all day,with illustrations(but why?)And,with respect to teh last part of your comment(Which i had every intention of ignoring initially)but,i could not resist..Lol..The pauses,are where you see my commas.(Remember?)Read it aloud?I say it,as i type it(Simultaneously)
MsOluwatoyin 6 months ago
@MsOluwatoyin
"If the nagative,wins by default,there would be no reason for the side holding the affirmative position"
I am not saying the negative side wins. I say it's the default position, UNLESS the opposing side has convincing evidence. Atheism is the default. The burden of proof is on the theists to show their god(s) exist.
"The pauses,are where you see my commas."
There is no pause between "pause" and "are". If you really talk that way, you'd better see a speech therapist.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer However,you say it,it's not a default position..No allegation(be it negative,or affirmative)is a default position..They both,are in need of being argued..(E.G: A case,for both of the positions,are necessary)You can't just say,'well,no God does not exist' and then everyone,just goes home(Because case closed)Lol..I don't know why i'm so surprised to read this coming from anyone.
MsOluwatoyin 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Incorrect, the default position is Agnostic... we were looking for Agnostic. Thanks for playing.
IfUrGivingIn 5 months ago
@IfUrGivingIn
"the default position is Agnostic"
No, default position is atheistic. Agnosticism is a conscious stance on the existence of gods. Persons don't form the belief by themselves that there is an invisible man in the sky watching them. That concept has to be taught .
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer LMAO!!!!!! And how did the first person come up with the concept that there is a God? He was taught by?????
IfUrGivingIn 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IfUrGivingIn
"And how did the first person come up with the concept that there is a God?"
Because he found out that he could scare people into submission by telling them his god would punish them. People have likely been spinning stories since they could talk, and new religions have been created until fairly recently (Mormonism, Scientology), so it's not so hard to imagine.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer No tricks involved..I do this,effortlessly.
MsOluwatoyin 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MsOluwatoyin
"No tricks involved..I do this,effortlessly."
Yes, stupidity usually comes effortlessly for the ones afflicted with it.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer They simply,usually lack tenable arguments,for their positions..We've heard the arguments for theism already..Where are the ones for atheism?I could not remain an atheist,because it was a position of which,i was unable to sustain the burden of proof for..I'll go back to atheism,however,if someone shows me a strong case for it..
MsOluwatoyin 6 months ago
@MsOluwatoyin
".Where are the ones for atheism?"
The only arguments the atheist needs to espouse is: "I don't believe you". The burden of proof is squarely on the theists. So far, they have never shown any evidence that their claims hold water.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MomoTheBellyDancer lol..no,it's not the only argument the atheist needs.that assertion,is a perfect example of intellectual laziness.The atheist,makes the assertion that God does not exist..That's a position..A position that begs some justification.Lol @'squarely on the theists' An argument is 2 sided.If the atheist has no obligation here,i don't see why s/he would show up at these talks..
MsOluwatoyin 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer P.s: 'i don't believe you' is not an argument..Lol..and atheism,isn't simply doubt or disbelief..It's an assertion..A claim to knowledge..
MsOluwatoyin 6 months ago
Comment removed
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MsOluwatoyin
"'i don't believe you' is not an argument"
Yes. It basically means: "I find your arguments unconvincing without evidence to back them up".
"A claim to knowledge"
Nope. Theists are the ones who claim they know stuff that is somehow unavailable to others.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Stating that you find someone's arguments unconvincing,is still not an argument.Saying 'I disagree' is not an arguement..Your job in a debate,is to tear down the opposition's argument,and erect one of your own,in it's place.I hav'nt saw any of Dr.Craig's opponents,do this to date.(With respect to his case for the existence of God)Atheists,claim they know stuff too..They 'know' for instance,that God,does not exist.
MsOluwatoyin 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer P.S:Theist,don't claim to know anything that is unavailable to non-theists..If this were the case,then there would be no reason for missionaries and evangelists,to go out and spread the gospel..
MsOluwatoyin 6 months ago
Intellect doesn't have with this to do. It's people arrogance or megalomania. Those people aren't down to earth. You can be very intelligent and be a Christian. You can be very intelligent and be an atheist.
Atheists can't stand the fact that there is someone or something that will judge them. They want to live their own lives which they think they can accomplish very well by themselves.
If you can get a good life without Christ, think about how good of a life you could have gotten with Christ.
PirateXzibit 9 months ago
that poor atheist...
sprat123456 9 months ago 7
lol you have to feel sorry for the Uni kid on here, he is virtually trembling throughout the show! He knows how far out of his depth he is
relarerfhjk 10 months ago
Also we are free to create a lot of suffering as you can see all around!!
VDMpeniel 10 months ago
God has never been proven to exist, so how does the burden of proof rely on the athiest side?? Craig speaks in absolutes. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In my opinion religion is a fallacy.
gabbogabbo 10 months ago
Wow, Craig really shows his idiocy in this segment (especially in the first 2 minutes). I wish the atheist stood up for himself more.
daswann14 10 months ago
To bad Coren couldnt have had Hitchens on, then this would have been a real debate!
gabbogabbo 10 months ago
@gabbogabbo actually Hitchens debated with him and by his own words he loose the debate!
VDMpeniel 10 months ago
@VDMpeniel You win some, you lose some. You have to give credit where credits due, and even though I dont agree with him, he is a powerhouse! I still think his arguments are flawed and based on assumptions, circular reasoning and Informal fallacies. I think the burden of proof to the question"is there a god"must lie with the theist position, because god has not been proven to exist or not to exist. But with exceptional claims being put forward, need to be proven as true, just as science does.
gabbogabbo 10 months ago
Even though I don't agree with the atheist's opinion I thought he was very respectful and evenhanded compared to some of those other atheists. I think that we should show Christian love toward him even if we don't agree with hisbeliefs rather than resort to insults and mockery. That's the world's job. I find it hard myself to take the higher rd. bt that's what God wants from us. wwjd.
ChristianPainter 10 months ago
This is like watching pee-wee herman fight mike tyson. Its funny, but also sort of sad.
dwilmer7 11 months ago
This kid had no idea what he was getting in to. I felt bad for him actually.
DPIX24 11 months ago 11
Are these atheists that dumb? Maybe what's good for the world , is for it to experience evil ??? Pain and suffering ? No Pain, No Gain..."Growing pains", a little tension in the strings, a bit of stress. TGIF / Thank God it's friday..Why? Because it's the end of the week..I worked like a mule, I labored, I suffered, now I can actually appreciate the weekend..It's like their brains just don't get it, or don't want to get it.
EsencianSociety 11 months ago
That comment from the moderator about racism was absurd. The discussion would have been a lot better without a moderator, or at least without one so biased and obnoxious.
bevan306 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Um... I was brought up in a family that took care of me and loved me and I had awesome friends and a very good education, I had pretty much anything I wanted materially, yet I believe in God. I thought I was wealthy, smart, and healthy, but I was really poor, desperate, and blind to spiritual matters. I think God addresses spiritual problems. People do not accept Christ because they are desperate financially, emotionally, or intellectually. People accept him because they need him spiritually.
FatalKnight 1 year ago
Um... I was brought up in a family that took care of me and loved me and I had awesome friends and a very good education, I had pretty much anything I wanted materially, yet I believe in God. I thought I was wealthy, smart, and healthy, but I was really poor, desperate, and blind to spiritual matters. I think God addresses spiritual problems. People do not accept Christ because they are desperate financially, emotionally, or intellectually. People accept him because they need him spiritually.
FatalKnight 1 year ago
Comment removed
stanfan27 1 year ago
The moderator was totally inappropriate calling that guy a racist. It was absurd and derailed the discussion.
cryptickripke 1 year ago
1:44 lol
padis 1 year ago
God would not create a human to live in an environment where there is no drinking water.. RIGHT THERE.. so if your worshiping god and asking him to help you your fukin delusional because hes not gonna help that person either.. there is no god..
warLock21X 1 year ago
"Asking a question isn't an argument, michael" LOL, bad boy!
6thwing 1 year ago
I can´t take anymore of this BS.....
rokkvi1 1 year ago
To say the athiest was arrogant leaves me asking where was he arrogant? Craig is the one with the smirk on his face more times than the athiest. I like Craig he is not your typical believer. But what this athiest is saying I can definatley relate to, His philosophy is common sense if you ask me. His whole argument is common sense. People should stop saying Dawkins should debate him because Dawkins kinda sucks at debating.
Micscience 1 year ago
When Atheists call themselves "brights", they are implicitly implying that the opposite of Atheists that is Theists or Christians are dumb. Micheal is living proof that not all Atheists are "bright".
Zaphenath4 1 year ago
Comment removed
Zaphenath4 1 year ago
That was a major strawman at 4:00
ballaballaballen 1 year ago
I think the real Michael Payton couldn't show up so they paid this kid-man to blabber from a Dawkins teleprompter.
"Right?"
DanPrinMan 1 year ago
I haven't seen Dr. Craig Proven wrong.
koolio669 1 year ago 29
This has been flagged as spam show
@koolio669
"I haven't seen Dr. Craig Proven wrong"
Then you have not been paying attention. The man has lost every debate with non-theists so far. And it's only natural, since his arguments don't make any sense whatsoever.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@koolio669 me neither. Just youtube trolls who think they've done it.
RobinApprentice 1 year ago
@koolio669
Oh, you haven't seen someone disprove God? That's proof then!...
IBDoyle 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@koolio669
"I haven't seen Dr. Craig Proven wrong."
Watch this: /watch?v=veB1uUOv6Vg
Then point out what is wrong with Th1sWasATriumph's reasoning. Be as precise as you possibly can..
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@koolio669 watch his debate against victor stenger, or shelly kagan
94jmcorrea 5 months ago
Where did they find this dip shit "scientist"?
dustindpdp 1 year ago
He's sitting across the table from a PhD Theologian who I assume is pretty wealthy and he is a Christian...Your destitute argument is trumped.
ChristianTheology101 1 year ago
from 1:47 - 2:02 WLC Schooled him
RaytownSoClassof2010 1 year ago 11
Comment removed
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RaytownSoClassof2010
"from 1:47 - 2:02 WLC Schooled him"
No, he's not. He simply huffs and puffs and DEMANDS to be believed that there is no contradiction, without actually addressing his opponent's arguments. In other words: he's trying to divert the attention from the actual arguments being raised. Craig is very good at tricks like these.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
Comment removed
scar504 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you dont need to prove something doesnt exist.. you need to prove something does... simple.
Tugeagon 1 year ago
Always amused by the equation: education= intellect and ability to think clearly
arktheball 1 year ago
@IBDoyle It would make your eventual talk with him after you die a lot easier and go much more smoothly? I could give you a lot of reasons not to "believe" in him. You can't have sex unless your married.... is there anyone still left? Shit oh well I guess I am done then LOL. This is the problem with atheists is all they do is ask questions they know the answers to. Where did God come from? Probably the same place the big bang did. Why does God permit evil? Why do people permit evil? Children....
promossage 1 year ago
@promossage
I'm sure you know that's not a valid reason, so I won't address that. Your failure to address my question, though, means that the other things you observe are meaningless: why believe in God as first cause when the Universe could far more logically have caused it self. Why believe that God 'permits' evil as part of some divine plan when it makes more sense for humans to be doing it to ourselves.
My mind is open; any reasonable argument for God's existence would be lovely.
IBDoyle 1 year ago
Perhaps you could disprove the existence of Zeus so I could get some pointers as how to approach this.
daymyth 1 year ago
man im laughing so much right now hahahhaha ive never seen an atheist get put in his place like this...hahahahahaha!!! what a treat and entertainment =)
ServantOfJesus 1 year ago
@ServantOfJesus
I don't think he was really put in his place, he just didn't have the flamboyance of rhetoric of the other two, both of whom were clearly against him.
Care to give me a reason to believe in God?
IBDoyle 1 year ago
@IBDoyle Why sacrifice possibility? I am a Christian, and you are an Athiest,most likely. I have a chance to be going to Heaven, ascending into Immortality and Eternal Happiness withmy prime Deity. When you pass, your concious will go into darkness and will forever be lost and you will existno longer, and will see nothing,h ear, taste smell, and you willnto exist. What luxury is there in taking the chance?
koolio669 1 year ago
Craig is expressing his ideas and he's also helping the scientist with his :))))))))))
sergiusal 1 year ago 4
Craig's arguments are rational. They are logical. The problem I have is that he allows himself fundamentals that aren't clearly true in any way, shape or form.
That the burden of proof is on atheists? If I say 'John Smith' exists and he is such and such, I have to show you him. This is normally the way something is proved or disproved. He makes an exception in the case of God, by calling it a theory. Then, he assumes nothing can disprove the theory and finds a way that everything proves it.
countertreason 1 year ago
oh man, will the personal attacks ever give way to logical arguments? it's funny how some people try to make themselves sound intelligent by questioning the very nature of and giving their own definition of logic. the frustration is an atheist dancing around a fundamental requirement for debate, which is a premise and an argument, then support, then conclusion. their whole defense, offense, is nothing more then a bunch of questions with hidden and assumed premises.
trubornagain 1 year ago
It seems to me clear that Craig has the stronger arguments. I would like to say that I enjoyed the atheist though. He was not as well spoken, but he seems sincere and humble - a trait lacking in most atheists I've encountered lately.
matthewfradd 1 year ago
WLC says 'materialism, consumerism and wealth could be spiritual impediments to knowing God' I would agree but increasingly, intellectualism could also be deemed as an impediment to knowing God for the self-proclaimed 'great thinkers' and their gullible followers of atheistic beliefs - they're far too intelligent to believe in God. Dawkins said that by agreeing to be on a platform with theists you are giving them status - who is deluded?
height76 1 year ago
Oh yea people in Africa are well educated...just ask the great African philospher....Can anyone name an African philosopher without looking? No, you can't. Coren is on crack.
larkingclogger 1 year ago
@larkingclogger Augustine of Hippo. Canonical philosopher. Born and worked in Africa.
ShootNeutrality 1 year ago
@ShootNeutrality That one is on the border but okay, how about a philosopher from Africa that isn't 1500 years old.... Dude I obviously meant a somewhat contemporary philosopher.
larkingclogger 1 year ago
0:15 you can hear Dr. Craig laugh, makes me lol every time
RobinApprentice 1 year ago
If I were an atheist watching Payton being decimated before my very eyes, I'd wonder how it could possibly be that this bozo could be selected by SOMEONE to go to battle with Craig.
Taking candy from a baby is a trite colloquialism, but it certainly fits this mis-match. Craig didn't even have to break a sweat to expose Payton as a babbling fool with NOTHING whatsoever to offer. I'm sure Craig had to be embarrassed by his opponent's complete inability to make even ONE cogent point.
tigerlilly66 1 year ago 2
fucking hell craig... dennett made up brights... he called people who believed in the supernatural, supers!
lukeism2 1 year ago
He failed to present evidence for his personal belief that Africans are "desperate." More importantly, he commits the genetic logical fallacy, maintaining the fallacious position that because a certain belief may have arisen due to desperation (which has, again, not been established anyway), that the belief is therefore necessarily false.
He has still failed to provide any argument at all in favor of atheist dogma -- he expects the world to accept it just because he says so.
atheist total fail
Ravloma 1 year ago
LOL Craig is way too smart for this guy. Poor atheists just present the same old nonsense.
7tylerjb 1 year ago
dr. craig did great
6800891 1 year ago
It amazes me that men like Craig seem incapable of seeing that they are arguing the logical consistencies an assertion they haven't proved. I may as well insist you have to provide arguments against my imaginary friend Wifflepow. If you want to claim that Wifflepow can't be All knowing, All powerful, and All good, you have to present an argument that those things are implicitly incompatible. I would be dodging the fact that haven't provided a single reason to believe that Wifflepow exists.
t3tsuyaguy1 1 year ago
@t3tsuyaguy1 Have there been hundreds of books written about Wifflepow? Have people sacrificed their lives for their love of Wifflepow? Do millions of people on the planet pray and live for Wifflepow??
Are you the guy in the video gettin outclassed in every aspect of the argument, because the comment you just made is as embarrassing as this guys performance on television
bigspliffs 1 year ago
@bigspliffs Do you really think there is truth in numbers? That because many people believe a thing, that it is true? How many does it take? Does it need to millions, or will thousands do?
t3tsuyaguy1 1 year ago
@t3tsuyaguy1 Thats beside the point..i was making a mockery of your comment to show how illogical it truly was
bigspliffs 1 year ago
@bigspliffs It isn't an illogical point. I was trying to be humorous for the sake of brevity. Substitute any of the 10 million or so other Gods humans have worshiped. By you're logic, as long as millions of people have sacrificed their lives for something, the burden of proof is on the detractors of that claim. The consequence is that Christians must logically deconstruct every other religion that people believe or believed in, or they are guilty of everything Craig accuses atheists of.
t3tsuyaguy1 1 year ago
@t3tsuyaguy1 No they don't...if you understood the origin of all the other Gods you would realise its all in relation to the true creator...everything is linked
bigspliffs 1 year ago
@bigspliffs That's another claim that depends entirely on your desire to believe what you believe. Others could claim your God is just an amalgamation of the "other Gods". They would have no more proof and no less burden to prove. You can't make a claim about the nature of reality and then declare by fiat that it is true unless others can prove you wrong. Otherwise all such claims are equally valid and unassailable.
t3tsuyaguy1 1 year ago
@t3tsuyaguy1 It is very easy to prove everyone else wrong...Jesus Christ is the only way. Now in saying that, i'm not judging everyone who isn't christian to eternal hellfire, most Christians have it wrong also. At the end of the day, not everyone follows there desired or forced religion 100% on the everyday daily lives...most people jus live and take the goodness of whatever rules and laws they are to follow and make good of their lives...that is what God wants from us...
bigspliffs 1 year ago
@bigspliffs If I claim to you that the sun is a sphere of hydrogen, I can't escape the burden of proof, by saying that you haven't adequately addressed my philosophical constructions based on the sun being a sphere of hydrogen. I have to start by actually demonstrating spectrometry to you and convincing you that it is a valid way to determine the composition of distant objects. Then we can get into the implications that grow from there.
t3tsuyaguy1 1 year ago
@t3tsuyaguy1 ...none of this narrow mindedness of 'only one religion is correct, and everyone ese is going to suffer bullshit.'
Again i state...If you understood the origin of all the other 'Gods' you would realise its all in relation to the true creator...everything is linked
bigspliffs 1 year ago
@bigspliffs How do justify taking a swath of God claims and arbitrarily deciding they are all the same God? You have nothing to base that on, besides it's appeal to you (and to me). It is certainly not something claimed by the religions whose Gods you claim are all linked. Abrahamic Monotheism, for example, is explicit in it's claim there is only one true religion. I agree that's narrow minded, but you have nothing concrete to establish your more open minded view as closer to the truth.
t3tsuyaguy1 1 year ago
@t3tsuyaguy1 The Book of Enoch...The people were separated a long time ago...but still the goodness remains in most, and we try to uphold to the best of our ability, no matter what lies we have been taught. Same can be said for atheists...most still live for good, no matter the lies...
No matter how far one separates themself from God...His presence will always remain.
Peace and God Bless
:)
bigspliffs 1 year ago
@bigspliffs If I understand correctly, you are agreeing to disagree. You don't think you can convince me and you are not convinced by me. You would however like to leave the discussion with peaceful words conveying the hope I will one day come around to your perspective. If that or something like it is the case, then back at you. May you find what you are looking for in your own search for truth. :)
t3tsuyaguy1 1 year ago
@t3tsuyaguy1 Agreed. Thank you! :)
bigspliffs 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Secondly, where is this sense of anything scientific in Craig's arguments? His arguments are rational, yes.
Logical? Not really, he often misuses the term. Logic has far stricter requirements than would be allowed for the arguments he makes.
Scientific? Oh goodness no. Craig often says that Dawkins as a scientist makes a poor philosopher. Craig, as a philosopher makes a poor scientist.
Lastly, Craig seems desperate to take potshots at Dawkins out of the blue for some reason.
Mathenaut 1 year ago
@Mathenaut
These are philosophical issues, hence naturally you would bring philosophical arguments to the table, not scientific arguments. And there was no potshots at Dawkins. He was simply saying Dawkins doesn't make good philosophical arguments and is unsophisticated there (a view that many professional philosophers share). That's hardly offensive "potshot" like statements. Craig is a professional, well respected philosopher, so he's more than qualified to judge Dawkins on his philosophy.
Christianjr4 1 year ago 41
@Christianjr4
Dawkins has nothing to do with this though. Craig just mentioned him out of the blue for no reason. It was a complete tangent, like his quip about the 'intelligentsia'. Nobody mentioned anything with respect to those, nor are they related to the point of the discussion.
Secondly, he claims scientific and logical foundations for his arguments, so they DO fall under the realm of scientific and logical analysis. On those points, many are more qualified to judge Craig in those realms.
Mathenaut 1 year ago
@Christianjr4
IF ANY proposition asstrays far from Science, then that proposition can rightfully said to be false. You do your Filosophical mumbo Jumbo, the subject matter stands, NO EVIDENCE, NO GOD. Logical ideas might be good in the world of Mathematics but not in the World of the Physical realm, there are many cases in which they are not, do your homework. Craig HAS been proven wrong many x and is indeed delussional. Can you prove a crack pot wrong on his visions? No, to him they're true.
DrErkencho 8 months ago
-- Craig Falacies 1.01
He said "if___ is not compatible with God, then that person must explain why..."
No sir. Any good Filosopher (which you are not) would tell you that you must first prove why "God"? The same could be constructed as follows;
"if___is not compatible with Unicorns, then that person must explain why."
Clearly an idea of moral behaviour does not need to be contrary to that of Unicorns for Unicorns to be false. Shame on you Mr Tie, errr, Craig.
DrErkencho 8 months ago
@Mathenaut hey einstein craig is a philosopher not a scientist.
gunner23 1 year ago
@gunner23
Tell that to people who think Craig knows more than a scientist about science.
Mathenaut 1 year ago
@Mathenaut That's because Dawkins has practically no knowledge or understanding of philosophy or religious history and understanding. Dawkins sees everything in black or white as far as God is concerned and basically says that God doesn't exist simply because if there is a God, then he hasn't done things the way Dawkins thinks he SHOULD have done things! He needs to stay in the lab were he has some credibility. Even when he debated a priest it was found that he cherry picked him!
BloodOfRayne 1 year ago
@BloodOfRayne
Uhm...Have you actually looked into what Dawkins said, or are you just running by the fundie take on it? Dawkins never directly asserts that any god cannot exist, as most gods are generally defined to avoid direct scrutiny.
The problem is, christians assert that their specific god exists with no solid reasoning behind it. Then they turn around and assert that other gods don't exist, even though they haven't a leg to stand on to disprove them.
It's comical irony.
Mathenaut 1 year ago
@Mathenaut Potshots? I must have missed those. As a fellow "bright" i find it offensive when we're unable to see the problems with Dr. Dawkins point of view on questions of ultimate origin. He is after all a middling biologist and has no philosophical credentials at all. That being said I agree with Dr. Dawkins conclusions but his reasoning to those conclusion is equally suspect as Dr.'s Craigs. Please don't be a Dawkins sycophant. He's not infallible.
markp10311969 1 year ago
@markp10311969
Firstly, Dawkins has nothing to do with this argument. That was an arbitrary tangent that Craig just jumped to that served no point, did not weigh on the position of his opponent, and did not contribute to his own position. It's a cheap bandwagon maneuver.
Speaking of bandwagon, while it's nice and popular to senselessly bash Dawkins to feign some sense of being 'intellectual', there is a difference between legitimate criticism, and popular cheap shots. This is the latter.
Mathenaut 1 year ago
@Mathenaut "Speaking of bandwagon, while it's nice and popular to senselessly bash Craig to feign some sense of being 'intellectual', there is a difference between legitimate criticism, and popular cheap shots. This is the latter." Do you see how easy this is? Neither bashing Dawkins or Craig gets us anywhere. Both positions are equally irrational.
markp10311969 1 year ago
@markp10311969
Only works if you simply glance over what I said instead of addressing it. My criticism of Craig was not vague and non-specific. Nor am I claiming to be his intellectual superior simply because I disagree with him.
I pointed to very specific instances where Craig's rationale or rhetoric were found wanting. In the most recent case, the fact that he drags his irrelevant opinion of Dawkins out of left field - which contributes nothing to the argument.
Try again.
Mathenaut 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mathenaut The problem is, atheists assert that no god exists with no solid reasoning behind it. Even though they haven't a leg to stand on to disprove them.
It's comical irony.
Sorry for the plagiarism. :)
markp10311969 1 year ago
@markp10311969 welcome to youtube where bashing apologists who cant defend themselves from attacks in a youtube video by some hack who cant get a better platform than the internet
DeJay14 1 year ago
This is humorous. Craig doesn't know how to respond to people that don't get railroaded into his strawman of the atheist position. Furthermore, his argument was exposed from the beginning for the weak base that it has.
Disproving a negative isn't a valid position, so no, there isn't a burden of proof on that. Secondly, question isn't an argument...and an argument isn't proof. Craig doesn't establish how is position is most probable or necessary...It's rather dismissable.
Mathenaut 1 year ago
Evil and God are not incompatible if it assumed that God wants us to be our own moral agents. Pain, and punishment and cause an effect are perfectly reasonable to accept.
But cancer, tsunamis, volcano eruptions, famine, drought flood... random disaster is incompatible with God. But demonstrably real.
Allallt 1 year ago
Coren and Craig (Lane Craig?) against Payton?! This is absurd. Not a serious investigation of the issue.
pablo4115 1 year ago
Payton is not a racist. He never mentioned race, only Africa. It was the moderator that equated Africa with black people. Africa is not all black.
buddhasknowbest 1 year ago
How the fuck does anyone know what God thinks Craig seems to know the inner workings of god's mind? Listen to this crap! Coran is biased - he believes in God and it shows. Belief is cheap! Evidence costs!!!!!!
bigguitar22 1 year ago
This is a embarrassment for atheist..Craig did not even have to think to debate this guy!..The atheist is a typical college student..He calls himself a scientist?!..WOW..I want to see Craig vs Dawkins..I would even buy that on Pay-Per-View..This guy was a joke.Dawkins should stop dodging Craig..I think Richard is affraid of Craig.
rollinglibs101 1 year ago
the atheist debator here was so bad that the god actually won!
jasveenpuri 1 year ago
The atheist debater is a rookie and his statements are all based on his personal opinions without any backing, starting from his blatant assumption that God and suffering cannot co-exist. William Lane Craig's been debating on this topic for years. It's too bad that Michael Coren being such an educated, effective moderator and Dr Craig had to deal with this rookie. I wanted to see a real debate.
kiman2 1 year ago
I think this was not a debate- a chilled discussion more like. The atheist needs to come down a notch in his attitude. He comes off as very arrogant..!!
redrocker79 1 year ago
I think this was not a debate- a chilled discussion more like. The atheist needs to come down a notch in his attitude. He comes off as very arrogant..!!
redrocker79 1 year ago
Great moderator
vikingtrail 1 year ago
a very smart moderator
dinkolino2 1 year ago 3
this young atheist is extremely racist
MalleusMaleficarum01 1 year ago 2
You are correct.
Of course, atheism, darwinism, social darwinism, eugenics, "survival of the fittest," fascism, Nazism, and racism all go hand in hand. Each one supports the others, and there is a clear connection between atheistic ideologies and racist ideologies.
Conversely, all of the religions that God reveals are diametrically opposed to all of the above-stated ignorant ideologies.
Purushadasa 1 year ago 2