if something exists, it probably acts. and in acting, there are mechanics, whether we understand them or not. the ATTEMPTING to understand, then, would not out of necessity be a pseudo science, even if you could prove that ALL of it's theories and evidences were false. and in the most basic sense, we know that light acts as quanta, so then quantum mechanics follows naturally. it's illogical to say it is a pseudo science....
@MrP4rker I believe John Lennox elserwhere on the youtube that told about east german christians that they knew their bibles well but little else because they were prevented from higher learning by the communist state. The bible is enough but we live in abundance and freedom and I am very grateful for it.
with all due respect dr shook strikes me as a 13year old in a adults body.. when he argues a point he has that small inclination of immaturity about him.. ive seen dr craig debate atheists who are far better.
@ 45:20 Dr. Craig's position boils down to : "I want to be special, and without God I'm not special." Well, boo-frickin'-hoo. What if I tell him he's special? Why isn't that good enough? I do think he's special...Out of the trillions of beings who have existed on earth over the last few billion years, WE ARE ALL THE LUCKY ONES WHO HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF BEING ALIVE RIGHT NOW! If he can't see that as something special, in and of itself, then I can't hope to make him smarter than he chooses to be.
exactly. Craig is simply shifting the burden of proof. Craig asks, "is there something beyond the natural world" answer.........there is no evidence for it at this time, it is unknown, so no. Then the burden would be on Craig to prove his position.
according to craig,because shook did not prove supernaturalism false, means that is it true? How can someone prove supernaturalism false? it is impossible, in the same way one cannot prove that leprechauns false. What we can do, is look at our evidence. There is not one shred of evidence that anything supernatural has ever took place. Nothing. Zip. Zilch. It's absolutely absurd that he considers this an "argument" and is considered the "best" apologist.
@FellOnSoundGarden "according to craig,because shook did not prove supernaturalism false, means that is it true?" Not at all. Again. Did you listen to the debate?
What Dr. Craig says (and just about every epistemologists around), In order for you to hold that something is true you've got to have some positive evidence for that position. Shook provided none. So at best he is left with agnosticism as to whether naturalism is true or not. It's just logic man.
also, we have stories of the resurection of jesus. These stories are well known to be written decades after their supposed occurrence. Given who these stories were written by(bronze age peasants who thought disease was caused by demons, thought weather was gods way of acting angry, thought the earth was flat,etc), given that such an event would break all known laws of physics, chemistry, and biology, given that there were literally hundreds others gods
cont...) who also resurrected into heaven before and after jesus, etc, craig actually says that jesus actually rising from the dead is the most "reasonable" explanation from these stories. REALLY? the most reasonable? Not, say: his body was stolen, they went to the wrong tomb, they found jesus dead after the third day and kept him while claiming he resurrected? or maybe they just made the whole thing up? I mean how dishonest can craig be?
@FellOnSoundGarden Absolutely. Given the facts surrounding the resurrection. I don't care what era the eyewitnesses were from I willing to bet good money the knew people don't naturally come back from the dead. The conspiracy theory is completely abandoned by historians becuase the only thing these men got from proclaiming the Resurrection of Jesus is persecution and martyrdom. Nobody dies for something they know is a lie.
@FellOnSoundGarden The wrong tomb theory.. also abandoned. It is a uncontroversial fact that Jesus wall buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea a member of the Sanhedrin. If that's true then the tomb's location would be well known. And even I granted you that the women went to the wrong tomb. Certainly the Sanherdian would have squelched this rising Jewish cult that proclaimed the Resurrection of their messiah have by pointing them to the real tomb.
Also his use of the kalam cosmological argument, which is the "first" cause argument which is illogical for a number of reasons. First, not all things have causes, in quantum physics, particles are known to just spring into existence out of nowhere. Secondly, if craig requires everything having a cause/creator, then who/what created the creator? If everything needs a creator, then why doesn't god? It's called special pleading
@FellOnSoundGarden *Sigh* I can't tell you how many times I've heard thisand each time it surprises me anyone would hold such view. Something cannot come from nothing. That is a fundamental philosophical principle in science. The quantum vacuum isn't nothing. It is a sea of fluctuating energy. Thus particles don't come from nothing without a cause.
@FellOnSoundGarden *sigh* Secondly Dr. Craig and the theists doesn't believe everything has a cause. A necessary beings don't need an external cause. Your clearly parroting atheist rhetoric becuase if you'd actually read the argument you would have known the KCA says that everything that has a beginning has a cause. God has no beginning and therefor needs no (external) cause.
Finally, the use of the cosmological argument, even if accepted as valid(which it is not) does not in any way shape or form "prove" the existence of a personal god like the god of christianity, which is what craig belongs to. He claims that all other religions are wrong, that christianity is the "true" religion, and uses the bible to back these claims up. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? all religions have scriptures, and holy books.
@FellOnSoundGarden KCA proves what it intendeds to prove. That a Powerful, atemporal, immaterial personal creator exists. Certainly that leaves no room for atheism. Then you supplement the KCA with other arguments thus making a cumulative case.
He is a proponent of "divine command theory" which states that everything god commands is intrinsically good. When confronted which the genocide, rape, torture, racism, supporting of slavery, child abuse, etc, he tries to rationalize in a truly horrid way. For instance, craig defended god's command to slaughter ALL of the canaanites because the adult canannites "deserved" it, and the children canaanites were taken right up into heaven, anyway. So it was all worth it.
@FellOnSoundGarden That's a misrepresentation of Craig's position. That's not how his interpretation DCT works. The good is God's nature and his commands flow from that. No where in the bible does it say that God commanded the "slaughter" of the Canaanites. You've gotta deal with his actual positions. Plus none of this comments on the central question "Does God exist?"
Basically, what craig believes is absurd in the highest degree. It is an offense to human intelligence and science that he is even taken seriously. I will say, however, that he is a very good debater, considering what it is he is actually defending. He is known for throwing so much shit on the table in a short period of time, then when his opponent doesn't respond to EVERYTHING, he immediately claims victory. He is disingenuous at best.
The problem with the whole god is good because his nature is good doesn't answer the dilemma, in fact it makes euthyphro even harder to escape. Is God's character the way it is because it is good or is God's character good simply because it is God's character? Not to mention the nature argument is circular - god is good because god is good
I think there is a misconception what the Qantumvacuum is. It is a sea of energy, consisting out of pure energy, where the fluctuatuon takes place. Like an Ocean with waves and suddenly some small drops of water jumping of and condensate to virtual particles.
@eddybrox "I think there is a misconception what the Qantumvacuum is. It is a sea of energy, consisting out of pure energy, where the fluctuatuon takes place."
Absolutely false, incorrect and plain not true. This is the same thing Dr. Craig says and has been proven wrong on several occasions. The energy IS the quantum fluctuations popping in and out of existence, they come from nothing. You seem to know just as much as Dr. Craig does on the subject, ironically, nothing.
@eddybrox Right when you said "sea of energy" I knew you had no clue what you were talking about. You just regurgitated the same uneducated argument as Dr. Craig.
craig said that shook had said nothing to prove his naturalistic view is true. it's simple.. we know nature is real because we see it and we see NO evidence for something supernatural of any kind. craig is the one who has to prove things not shook or any other atheist. the burden of proof is on the beleiver.
I would be very curious to get a look at shook's undergrad grades, I wonder if the university of buffalo, the prestigous university that it is, gives out doctorates every other friday or something?
@ImGladImBrad - So, was shook a last minute replacement for a good atheist debater that cancelled late?
I mean, we would both have to agree this guy is a minor leaguer with no real grasp of the arguments, wouldn't we? In this one debate he's done what I thought was impossible, he actually makes hitchens debates appear cogent, focussed, and strictly on point-I mean hitchens pointless digressions (which always go back to anger at the catholic church right?) seem enlightened compared to shook
@infinityand0 so if someone disagrees with a view you have then citing any of their work is a fail? what if they make a point that you see as actually supporting your view rather than theirs? i think that is what craig is doing.
@matrixman609 Well, I wasn't really clear. I wasn't speaking of the general disagreement. I was talking about what Craig is actually attempting to cite. Hawking actually argues that the universe does not need a cause, so in referring to Hawking as an authority on the particular point of how the universe came into being, yes, that is a FAIL.
@infinityand0 The Universe doesn't need a cause though, at the sub-atomic level particles pop in and out of existence all the time uncaused. If the Singularity of The Big Bang could be measured, it would be at the sub-atomic level. There are no good reasons to believe the Universe had a cause, because cause and effect only applies when matter exists. Can - 0 temperature and water cause ice to form if there is no a - 0 temp and water? No, this would be impossible. Dr. Craig fails.
@theBartone9119 Even more importantly, Cause and effect are time dependent. Also, their definitions kind of require one another, so the idea of an uncaused cause that created all subsequent effects is fairly incoherent.
The subatomic vacuumenergy is a ocean full of energy applied to space with nothing in it.By breaking symmetrie (through an electrons charge e.g.) virtual particles pop into being and disappear.So if you have no spacetime,you have no subatomic level.You have NOTHING.Nothing has no properties.If you have space,you have to obay the law of cause-effect.Are you saying a singularity is nothing?Are you saying vacuumenergy is nothing?Singularies do exist,we can proove them.You FAIL!
@eddybrox Quantum Fluctuations take place within the quantum vacuum at scales below Planck scales for area, volume and duration. Below Planck those values have no meaning hence space-time has no meaning. Ergo fluctuations in a quantum vacuum exist outside space-time. Space-time is written upon the quantum vacuum in the form of discrete Planck-size units. This means that Quantum Fluctuations don't need space or time to exist in. So it seems the one failing is you.
The fact,that we're not able to measure below planckscale,due to the uncertainty principle,does not conclude,that what u'r measuring is out of spacetime.At least u can say it's there.Furthermore u suggest,it is so small,that time and space has no meaning=nothing.So everything has no meaning and is nothing?Nothing has no properties.But the quantumvacuum is something not nothing.Nothing means even the absense of quantumvacuum.So it must have a beginning.U'r logic is not coherent.
@eddybrox Your logic is non existent (like God). Let me explain:
Quantum Vacuum = Nothing + Quantum Fluctuations
This means the Quantum Fluctuations happening all have a beginning, but what they happen in "nothing" doesn't. Nothing can't have a beginning lol You make no sense.
@eddybrox All the particles pop into existence, meaning they all have beginnings. What they occur in, is nothing. It's the nothing + the fluctuations that = Vacuum
......How many times do I really have to explain it?
@theBartone9119 No! The Quantumvacuum is something. The logical consequence of your statement is, that we should experience something pop into being out of nothing in our life - maybe an elefant in u'r livingroom or other curiosities. That does not happen, so following must be true. Nothing comes from nothing. The Quantumvacuum is not nothing. It is something consisting out of energy. That energy had a beginning in the big bang.B4 that (if this term can be used) was nothing, but GOD the creator.
@eddybrox You are absolutely illogical. How many times have I explained it, the quantum vacuum is virtual particles popping in and out of existence, but all the particles have a beginning. If the particles didn't pop in and out, there would be nothing, this means they come from nothing. Also we have never experienced something existing without a beginning. So if you claim that God didn't have a beginning, he cannot exist.
@theBartone9119 I think even a black hole is something. I think we should redefine Nothingness here.
Everything that begins to exist has a cause. And that is a proven logic in our life. Even if we do not know the cause of the virtual particles, the do not come from nothing.
@eddybrox Things do pop into existence from nothing in our every day lives. There are virtual particles popping in and out of existence all the time you just can't see it, because it's at the sub-atomic level. If the singularity could be measured at The Big Bang, it would be at the sub-atomic level, meaning the universe is uncaused.
@eddybrox So I have the upper hand, because we know that Quantum Fluctuations begin to exist uncaused, most physicists agree. However, you can't prove that things can exist without beginnings. Meaning the edge goes to me.
@theBartone9119 I think u have the upperhand with inconsistent logic. We do know, that virtual particles com into existance. The cause is unknown.The theory is that small electrical charges like electrons disturbing the symmetry of the quantumvacuum. When things start to interact e.g. two charges, subatomic particles pop into being as catalysator for interaction. And again, they come from the quantumvacuum, which is not nothing but a fluctuating ocean of energy.
@eddybrox Wrong. Most physicists agree they are uncaused and from nothing. You are just making stuff up to make your argument work. Read up on the subject, they don't believe the cause is unknown they believe at the sub-atomic level things are allowed to occur uncaused. You clearly have done no research on the subject, your ignorance shows.
@theBartone9119 Only because we are not able to measure without uncertainty at subatomic level does not give any proof or any logical coherence to that kind of logic.
@eddybrox Most physicists agree they are uncaused, this has nothing to do with logic it has to do with scientific experimentation. Also, if you can say God exists because everything that begins to exist has a cause, I can say that God doesn't exist because everything that exists has a beginning.
@eddybrox Cause is only something we observe in the universe AFTER the universe started to exist. This means the origin of the universe logically cannot have a cause, causes didn't even exist until after The Big Bang.
@theBartone9119 This is nothing to prove. It is just a new perception of what the quantumvacuum could be and it sounds good. It will not convince you or me to come to any other believe.
@eddybrox I'm just saying, read up on Quantum Theory. The theory is that uncaused events happen at the sub-atomic level. If you want to re-write the theory then please, make millions, and do it.
@theBartone9119 It is said, that the one who claims he has understood the quantumtheory has probably not. I do not claim i do understand. But why should the laws of cause-effect not be present here, even at the subatomic level? Cause nobody can say for sure. The reason is, that you can not measure with quite enough precision and can not find a cause for something happening here. Time will show, if we will find a hypothesis wich can be mathematicaly proven.
@eddybrox I agree "I don't know" much more honest that someone who claims absolute knowledge. My whole point is that there must be uncaused events or else every event/ cause would rest upon an infinite regress of preceding causes. If you go back in time far enough the causes have to stop a the singularity. So it's only logical to me the universe is an uncaused event, especially considering cause and effect is only something observed in the universe AFTER it exists.
@theBartone9119 Finally we are at the end. It was a nice debate. At the end one must decide of what he wanted to believe. I believe in God and that the universe must have a cause. You do not. And that is ok. We agree, that the universe had a beginning. There was no infinit regress (otherwhise we would not yet talking about that). I hope some day one of us will be proven wrong. As long as there is no evidence one must stick with his believing. Happy New Year.
@eddybrox Nothing cannot have a beginning, but the particles that pop into existence from nothing, do. This just solidifies my point that everything that exists, has a beginning.
I would prefer to say, we have'nt the ability to describe those seemingly spontanious occuring, virtual, subatomic particles.U'r logic is not coherent:
The Vacuum = Nothing + quantumflucture = Not Nothing. So the virtual particels are a result of that fluctuation and do not come from nothing.It is known,that fields or charges e.g. electrons disturbing the symmetrie of that qunatumvacuum leading to pop virtual particles into being from that quantumvacuum.They do not come into being from nothing.
@infinityand0 You can't just magically will something to existence, you can't paint a picture without paint and a brush. So if God existed before anything, what did he use to create the universe with? Exactly, the idea of God makes no sense.
"its not enough just to show that absence of evidence is evidence of apsence, and I think thats enough to refute naturalism tonight." but that is exactlly evidence for apsence in case of beliving in god, not valid at all statement without evidence that he exists, that puts in same category like santa claus. Aldo I agree 100% with Shook, I much prefer listening to Craig I love the way he say things and his sentences like "and I think thats enough to refute naturalism tonight" I had good laugh.
@kly45 ...which again, goes to prove my point and everything I've said this far. I'm gonna report your spamming crap here because the attack on MJ is uncalled for, aswell as your creepy gay stalking of my commenting (obvious desperate loser is obvious). You're trying to make up some fake reconstruction of "how our convo has been going" to feel better about yourself cuz your arguments have run out and it's getting difficult to pretend anymore. I like it, keep make shit up.
@kly45 [I DON'T WANT TO GO FOR A BATH IT'S ONLY 7:30!!!]
You're being more retarded than neccessary. Don't make yourself look more retarded than you already are with this cartoonish stuff.
[i admit I am wrong but only because you missed out a word in your statement]
First you assume I'm a christian, then you excuse your assumption due to something extremely fucking vague, and now you're at it again and call me a christian. You're flip flopping by the wind cuz you're an atheist retard.
@kly45 Seems like you are masturbating to this. In your head you make yourself up as the good guy, just a pity that you don't got any argument, you don't got any honesty, all you got is accusing me of stuff I'm not responsible for and making up excuses for your own bullshit behavior. You are now insisting that I'm a christian. And the ad hominem level increases because of this, and now you spam up the page with it. Oh how calm and rational you are.
@MoonwalkerWorshiper no i'm just bored with you, you're either trolling or an idiot. Since both are possible I thought i'd just drop it to your level. Here's a tip in life, don't play the victim card after being an asshole, go and report me to the cyber police, THEY'LL BACK TRACE IT!!!
@kly45 You don't have any arguments, no. You accused Craig for a non sequitur but couldn't motivate it.
[you said the wrong thing] I never said anything "wrong" you idiotic tosser. You are the tosspot who interpreted it wrong because you assume such shit!
[By that, it was reasonable to assume, but not AFTER that]
Get your fucking time comprehension right. You made an assumption without evidence, and doing that is retarded, and I said spare me your excuses.
@BankHeistVideos His argument ISN'T "You can't be moral without God"...rather it's "Truly Objective Morals don't EXIST without God". Of course you can be a moral Atheist...but without God it's hard to see how morals aren't just subjective.
@kly45 [YOU fucked your own grammar which made it look like you were saying "obviously god is the christian god"]
Ya ya blame it on me and my grammar, sure, and it's not as if other atheist cunts are acting JUST like you were doing. The problem with you is that you jump to moronic conclusions because you are a preconceptive whining anti-theist, and now you are only making excuses for it. Fuck off.
@MoonwalkerWorshiper i'm not an anti-theist at all, where are you getting all these assumptions from? See, it's very reasonable that I made a wrong assumption in your case, because you said "the christian god IS god", but instead you meant to write "the christian god, IS A go". Going by your original comment I am completely justified in making the assumption that you are christian. We both made assumption, the difference is, I was justified, you are not, you keep making up more bullshit about
[it's very reasonable that I made a wrong assumption]
It's never fucking "reasonable" to make wrong assumptions you complete ass. Making wrong assumptions is never reasonable. It is reasonable NOT to make assumptions without evidence, and it's reasonable not to be wrong. You did both, so you can shove your excuses up your anus.
["the christian god IS god"]
Yeah, in the context of this debate a christian god is god.
@MoonwalkerWorshiper abiut atheists and claiming that I am an anti-theist, which I certainly am not. The other difference is that I am man enough to admit my assumption was wrong, you just moan and bitch like a kitchen sink realist character. also , it doesn't matter if other atheists at as though I act, go bitch to them and grow the fuck up, i did nothing to make you act like a little bitch about this conversation
@kly45 [claiming that I am an anti-theist, which I certainly am not.]
Feel free to flat out lie to me and say you're not an atheist and that you don't criticize theists. Let's hear it then, what kind of theist are you? You obviously don't agree with Craig so you can't be a christian. You obviously fail to make sense so you aren't intelligent either. Atheist is the most plausible answer given Occam's razor.
@MoonwalkerWorshiper That's laughable logic, i'm obviously not a christian because I don't agree with craig? Does that OBVIOUSLY make a protestant not a christian because they don't agree with the pope? Tell you what, why don't you tell me first what you are? I asked first, actually, and if we're being honest how will this further our debate? If I say I am a christian you will call me a liar because I don't agree with craig. If I say I'm an atheist then I will immediately be told that I believe
@kly45 [i'm obviously not a christian because I don't agree with craig? ]
YEAH YOU FUCKING IDIOT, THIS IS A DEBATE ON THE EXISTANCE OF GOD AND IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH CRAIGS ARGUMENT HERE, THEN YOU OBVIOUSLY ARE AN ATHEIST!! WILL YOU FUCKING GET YOUR LOGIC STRAIGHT! THINK FOR ONCE IN YOUR GODDAMN LIFE!
[you have a bigoted and unfair hatred of atheists]
Not unfair, but anyway hatred of atheists is justified when atheists are complete retards and christians aren't the only religious people.
It's astounding that Dr. Shook had the audacity to suggest that discussing terminology was banal or juvenile, and then proceed to ridicule the art of discourse by speaking in southern accents and making jokes the entire discussion. I find it extremely ironic, because throughout the duration of the debate i found myself continuously distracted with Dr. Shook's sophomoric attitude towards the questions.
He explained that it's only logical to not believe in something, and claim it isn't true, because you don't know that it's true or not. Yes, that is logic... *Sarcasm*
@scar504 I'm pretty tired of people asserting that atheism means a belief that no god exists because that's an old definition and "people tried to change the meaning to a lack of belief in the 70s".
It's fine to use words in new ways if society understands what's being said. What you should be listening to is what people MEAN, not archaic definitions.
(atheism was originally a roman word for the early christian heretics! obviously WLC is okay with changing definitions or he'd be an atheist too)
@lovellespice lol! well it's true that those that lack belief in gods share that with animals and inanimate objects, but you're trying to imply that they are hence as smart as inanimate objects?
lol that was like when people who reject evolution are like "I'm no dirty animal!"
Trying to influence people to take a disrespectful attitude towards something isn't an argument. You can't convince an African he isn't black by talking bad about blacks.
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke so what then is the real definition of atheism.. and while your at it.. what is positive knowledge claim does atheism have? what makes it true?
@lovellespice well that was it, 'people who lack a belief in a god or gods' are atheists, and so atheism is 'the mental state of disbelieving god claims'.
It makes no positive knowledge claims at all, it is a position of being unconvinced about a single claim, that gods exist, and so it's impossible for it to be 'true' in any sense.
Since I know I don't believe in gods, atheism is 'true', but 'real' would be a better word.
It's like asking what makes skepticism true - it doesn't work like that
The "fine-tuned argument" is a complete fallacy. It implies that ONE constant changes, while everything else stays the same. It's most likely that all values in are universe are relative, like in universes with different constants
The funniest thing is that alot of Atheists don't even know what the definition of Atheism is... John Shook needs to research the definitions of certain terminology before going into a debate like this. How embarrassing!
WLC: "But has anybody offered in tonight's debate the claim that because you can't show supernaturalism to be false, therefore you should believe in supernaturalism? Who argued that tonight?" John Shook: "Well.." , looking at WLC and disqualifying himself as a good debater or at least as a good listener.
"I don't understand Dr. Craig's argument...so I'm just going to call him a name or make a general statement like 'he had nothing good to say' and move on." - Average Youtube User
Man the chick from 39:40 is stupid. Craig is a christian apologetic so he will argue for a christian God, and that IS a debate on the existance of God. And don't stand there and expect applauds you stupid c**t, and then be unable to get to the question.
@kly45 Stupid cunts like that chick deserves no respect. She expected herself applauds for asking that superficial moronic question. "Ya it should've been a debate about God, but not the CHRISTIAN God." Idiot! The Christian God is God!
@MoonwalkerWorshiper First of all, saying that the christian god is god is begging the question and fallacious logic, even WLC would laugh at you for saying that. Secondly just because you deem yourself more intelligent than her doesn't mean she is a cunt, it just means that you are a very arrogant person with an anger problem. I'm going to go out on a limb here and ask, I assume that you're a christian due to your comment? Doesn't christ teach to love your neighbour and your enemy?
@kly45 [saying that the christian god is god is begging the question]
Well well, seems that you are another fucktard assuming this is a discussion. It's not a discussion, I'm not ARGUEING with you. The SUBJECT is does God exist, and OBVIOUSLY a christian apologetic will argue for the CHRISTIAN God and you say Craig will laugh at me for this? Maybe he'll laugh at you.
Apperantly I'm using "fallacious logic" because I'm saying the christian God is a God. I.D.I.O.T.
@MoonwalkerWorshiperno you''re not saying god is a god, you're saying "the christian god is god" that IS begging the question, you can dress it up whatever way you like, it's still a fallacious and sad way to be opposed to her point. Your childish comments really say more about you than I ever could. For future reference btw, don't bother leaving comments if you can't accept people wanting to discuss/argue/disagree with you. Do you live in a glass house?
@MoonwalkerWorshiper (repost) you''re not saying god is a god, you're saying "the christian god is god" that IS begging the question, you can dress it up whatever way you like, it's still a fallacious and sad way to be opposed to her point. Your childish comments really say more about you than I ever could. For future reference btw, don't bother leaving comments if you can't accept people wanting to discuss/argue/disagree with you. Do you live in a glass house?
@kly45 All atheists always assume people are christians when they criticize some atheistic point. That's how I knew you were an atheist. Because all fucking atheists always ask "are you a christian". I call it preconceptive bigrotry.
[you''re not saying god is a god]
I SAID THE CHRISTIAN GOD IS A GOD, MORON!
Or are you denying that Jahve from the Bible is a god? What is he suppose to fucking be then?
@MoonwalkerWorshiper 1. You STILL do not know whether I am an atheist or a theist, I'm curious, which are you?
2. Where is the bigotry? I was asking you a friggen question and then admitted I was wrong. Does it make me a bigot to ask someone what politician they vote for? I didn't ask you what your religion was to call you stupid, I did it just to see if you were obeying the rules christ teaches.
3. You seriously don't see the irony of you accusing all atheists of being bigots?
@MoonwalkerWorshiper 4. I never criticised you for making an "atheistic point", I'm not sure if that phrase even makes sense. I criticised you because you were (or at least your text inferred) that you were using circular logic.
5. Here is a direct quote from your original comment, "The Christian God is God!", which concludes a different message than "I SAID THE CHRISTIAN GOD IS A GOD". You obviously have shit grammar and I was unable to detect that, that doesn't make me a moron does it?
@kly45 No all atheists always assume people are christians when people criticize some atheistic point, like I did. Since you most likely are an atheist, and you find me criticizing some atheist chick being stupid in this video, you immediately assume I'm a christian or asking me about it, as if it was relevant. That's what annoys me, you can't freaking say anything on these videos that is anti-atheistic without having you nutjobs saying "you are a Bible-thumping creationist ya?"
@MoonwalkerWorshiper up to make it look like you were making a different point. As I have said twice, I admit I was wrong, but only because you made a mistake. CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? "Since you most likely are an atheist", you're such a tool, you call me a bigot yet don't realise the bigotry-shit you spew from your own pie hole. Please direct me to the comment where I called you a bible-thumping creationist, you won't find it, as I said, I made a wrong assumption. I am man enough to admit it
@kly45 And moreover, we another display of lame attitude at 41:20. And, we have you displaying biased attitude because you can't even talk about Craig without saying "he asserts this and that."
Can I ask you something you fucktard, what's wrong with paying attention to the debate? I get it, you are a preconceptive atheist who thinks all christians are always wrong, but why not PAY ATTENTION when a christian gives arguments? That way you would know he ain't making "assertions".
@MoonwalkerWorshiper no, that is not biased at all, it would be biased to admit that he was right and for me to overlook his assertions. I for one find craig a skilled debater, he was good in this one and he whooped hitchens imo, but that's all, debates are largely meaningless in regards to the actual TRUTH. "I get it, you are a preconceptive atheist who thinks all christians are always wrong" Why not yourself, PAY ATTENTION to what I have said fucktard, i have never said that christians are
@kly45 [I am man enough to admit my assumption was wrong, you just moan and bitch like a kitchen sink realist character]
Oh so I guess your argument here mounts at best to showing that you are a great person and I'm a bad person? I knew you would, because sandbox level is what I expect from atheists from the very start.
[i did nothing to make you act like a little bitch about this conversation]
Except accusing me of begging the question and being a christian and then excuse yourself from it.
@MoonwalkerWorshiper Yes and I also apologized for being wrong several times, but you need to admit (others have flagged your comments as spam) that I can be excused for my mistake. Stop acting like such a little bitch and grow up, moan moan moan. You called someone a stupid "cunt" which automatically infers that you are smarter than her (if you call someone stupid, you are not also calling yourself stupid, hence you must, by default be calling yourself smarter than them). Yet as soon as someone
@kly45 [If I say I'm an atheist then I will immediately be told that I believe or said things that I never did, because you are a bigot.]
Congrats asshole atheist kly45 there's another retarded assumption about me without didley dick of evidence. You don't know fuck all what I will say if you're an atheist. I already know you're an atheist, because atheists always assume shit and attack strawmen. Instead of saying "I'm an atheist" you say "YOU are a biggot" which is implicitly the same thing.
@MoonwalkerWorshiper can outsmart your playground swearing competition you jump to the other side of the table and then accuse people of thinking they are better than you because they don't use retarded reasons to be angry at people. TBH I have much better things to do than repeat my point over 100 times. Either tell me if you're christian or atheist and we can continue to chat. Otherwise i suggest you go out and bang someone, I used to be an angry person when I was a 15 yo virgin too
@kly45 [can outsmart your playground swearing competition you jump to the other side of the table and then accuse people of thinking they are better than you because they don't use retarded reasons to be angry at people.]
You drivel alot of crap here, but you aren't making sense whatsoever. I suspect what you're trying to tell me, is what a bad person I am for defending what I think is right and give me doubts or whatever. Do you have any argument? No? Shut up then.
@kly45 [debates are largely meaningless in regards to the actual TRUTH.]
And finally, we get to your preconceptiveness and lack of intellect. You say the debates are meaningless, well why the fuck are you watching them then?! Who decides what TRUTH is? Obviously not the debaters according to you. No, truth is defined by YOU, the great atheist, who is always right because he's an atheist and his assumptions are always reasonable.
@MoonwalkerWorshiper wrong, I am simply pointing out the bad connection he makes between deism and christianity arguments. and if you knew anything about biblical scholars, the "facts" craig mentions are not facts. Facts imply that there is no dispute, but if you knew anything about theology there is, indeed much dispute over some of craig's "facts' of christ.
if something exists, it probably acts. and in acting, there are mechanics, whether we understand them or not. the ATTEMPTING to understand, then, would not out of necessity be a pseudo science, even if you could prove that ALL of it's theories and evidences were false. and in the most basic sense, we know that light acts as quanta, so then quantum mechanics follows naturally. it's illogical to say it is a pseudo science....
ohitsnat 6 days ago
but quantum mechanics is a still a pseudo science that no-one has any evidence for!
BloodOfRayne 1 week ago
I don't need more books! I have the BIBLE! It's good enough.
MrP4rker 2 weeks ago
@MrP4rker I believe John Lennox elserwhere on the youtube that told about east german christians that they knew their bibles well but little else because they were prevented from higher learning by the communist state. The bible is enough but we live in abundance and freedom and I am very grateful for it.
CJFCarlsson 1 week ago
with all due respect dr shook strikes me as a 13year old in a adults body.. when he argues a point he has that small inclination of immaturity about him.. ive seen dr craig debate atheists who are far better.
MrXMerchant 2 weeks ago
@ 45:20 Dr. Craig's position boils down to : "I want to be special, and without God I'm not special." Well, boo-frickin'-hoo. What if I tell him he's special? Why isn't that good enough? I do think he's special...Out of the trillions of beings who have existed on earth over the last few billion years, WE ARE ALL THE LUCKY ONES WHO HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF BEING ALIVE RIGHT NOW! If he can't see that as something special, in and of itself, then I can't hope to make him smarter than he chooses to be.
leahcim776 3 weeks ago
@leahcim776 Yes, but the alternative does not make much sense. Otherwise religion would have already died.
martiandog89 2 weeks ago
Dr John Shook is terrible, ignorant debater
strongyang 4 weeks ago
@strongyang No he made strong points, Dr Craig pretty much made game of words
agustinbs 3 weeks ago
Does God Exist?
I don't know!
End of debate.
shimwah 1 month ago
@shimwah
exactly. Craig is simply shifting the burden of proof. Craig asks, "is there something beyond the natural world" answer.........there is no evidence for it at this time, it is unknown, so no. Then the burden would be on Craig to prove his position.
benaberry 3 weeks ago
Dr. Shook lost this debate period!
myladyschild 1 month ago in playlist More videos from centerforinquiry
Craig's points are so childish in substance. This is the best theists have? I feel sorry for them...almost
FellOnSoundGarden 1 month ago
@FellOnSoundGarden Wow. Did you even listen to the arguments?
Dr Craig = Logical arguments
Dr. Shook = rhetoric
KBrimstone 1 month ago
@KBrimstone
according to craig,because shook did not prove supernaturalism false, means that is it true? How can someone prove supernaturalism false? it is impossible, in the same way one cannot prove that leprechauns false. What we can do, is look at our evidence. There is not one shred of evidence that anything supernatural has ever took place. Nothing. Zip. Zilch. It's absolutely absurd that he considers this an "argument" and is considered the "best" apologist.
FellOnSoundGarden 1 month ago
@FellOnSoundGarden "according to craig,because shook did not prove supernaturalism false, means that is it true?" Not at all. Again. Did you listen to the debate?
What Dr. Craig says (and just about every epistemologists around), In order for you to hold that something is true you've got to have some positive evidence for that position. Shook provided none. So at best he is left with agnosticism as to whether naturalism is true or not. It's just logic man.
KBrimstone 1 month ago
@KBrimstone
also, we have stories of the resurection of jesus. These stories are well known to be written decades after their supposed occurrence. Given who these stories were written by(bronze age peasants who thought disease was caused by demons, thought weather was gods way of acting angry, thought the earth was flat,etc), given that such an event would break all known laws of physics, chemistry, and biology, given that there were literally hundreds others gods
FellOnSoundGarden 1 month ago
@KBrimstone
cont...) who also resurrected into heaven before and after jesus, etc, craig actually says that jesus actually rising from the dead is the most "reasonable" explanation from these stories. REALLY? the most reasonable? Not, say: his body was stolen, they went to the wrong tomb, they found jesus dead after the third day and kept him while claiming he resurrected? or maybe they just made the whole thing up? I mean how dishonest can craig be?
FellOnSoundGarden 1 month ago
@FellOnSoundGarden Absolutely. Given the facts surrounding the resurrection. I don't care what era the eyewitnesses were from I willing to bet good money the knew people don't naturally come back from the dead. The conspiracy theory is completely abandoned by historians becuase the only thing these men got from proclaiming the Resurrection of Jesus is persecution and martyrdom. Nobody dies for something they know is a lie.
KBrimstone 1 month ago
@FellOnSoundGarden The wrong tomb theory.. also abandoned. It is a uncontroversial fact that Jesus wall buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea a member of the Sanhedrin. If that's true then the tomb's location would be well known. And even I granted you that the women went to the wrong tomb. Certainly the Sanherdian would have squelched this rising Jewish cult that proclaimed the Resurrection of their messiah have by pointing them to the real tomb.
KBrimstone 1 month ago
@KBrimstone
Also his use of the kalam cosmological argument, which is the "first" cause argument which is illogical for a number of reasons. First, not all things have causes, in quantum physics, particles are known to just spring into existence out of nowhere. Secondly, if craig requires everything having a cause/creator, then who/what created the creator? If everything needs a creator, then why doesn't god? It's called special pleading
FellOnSoundGarden 1 month ago
@FellOnSoundGarden *Sigh* I can't tell you how many times I've heard thisand each time it surprises me anyone would hold such view. Something cannot come from nothing. That is a fundamental philosophical principle in science. The quantum vacuum isn't nothing. It is a sea of fluctuating energy. Thus particles don't come from nothing without a cause.
KBrimstone 1 month ago
@FellOnSoundGarden *sigh* Secondly Dr. Craig and the theists doesn't believe everything has a cause. A necessary beings don't need an external cause. Your clearly parroting atheist rhetoric becuase if you'd actually read the argument you would have known the KCA says that everything that has a beginning has a cause. God has no beginning and therefor needs no (external) cause.
KBrimstone 1 month ago
@KBrimstone
Finally, the use of the cosmological argument, even if accepted as valid(which it is not) does not in any way shape or form "prove" the existence of a personal god like the god of christianity, which is what craig belongs to. He claims that all other religions are wrong, that christianity is the "true" religion, and uses the bible to back these claims up. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? all religions have scriptures, and holy books.
FellOnSoundGarden 1 month ago
@FellOnSoundGarden KCA proves what it intendeds to prove. That a Powerful, atemporal, immaterial personal creator exists. Certainly that leaves no room for atheism. Then you supplement the KCA with other arguments thus making a cumulative case.
KBrimstone 1 month ago
@KBrimstone
He is a proponent of "divine command theory" which states that everything god commands is intrinsically good. When confronted which the genocide, rape, torture, racism, supporting of slavery, child abuse, etc, he tries to rationalize in a truly horrid way. For instance, craig defended god's command to slaughter ALL of the canaanites because the adult canannites "deserved" it, and the children canaanites were taken right up into heaven, anyway. So it was all worth it.
FellOnSoundGarden 1 month ago
@FellOnSoundGarden That's a misrepresentation of Craig's position. That's not how his interpretation DCT works. The good is God's nature and his commands flow from that. No where in the bible does it say that God commanded the "slaughter" of the Canaanites. You've gotta deal with his actual positions. Plus none of this comments on the central question "Does God exist?"
KBrimstone 1 month ago
@KBrimstone
Basically, what craig believes is absurd in the highest degree. It is an offense to human intelligence and science that he is even taken seriously. I will say, however, that he is a very good debater, considering what it is he is actually defending. He is known for throwing so much shit on the table in a short period of time, then when his opponent doesn't respond to EVERYTHING, he immediately claims victory. He is disingenuous at best.
FellOnSoundGarden 1 month ago
@FellOnSoundGarden
No religion is required in the understanding that intelligence is the only designer/creator. It's Atheism vs. Intelligence, not religion.
You're a fanatical Atheist. On what do you base your faith that inanimate matter is your creator?
onefodderunit 1 month ago
@FellOnSoundGarden Uh-huh... sigh. So you don't have any substantive objections? Deal with the arguments.
KBrimstone 1 month ago
The problem with the whole god is good because his nature is good doesn't answer the dilemma, in fact it makes euthyphro even harder to escape. Is God's character the way it is because it is good or is God's character good simply because it is God's character? Not to mention the nature argument is circular - god is good because god is good
Requiemxtoxinnocence 1 month ago
I think there is a misconception what the Qantumvacuum is. It is a sea of energy, consisting out of pure energy, where the fluctuatuon takes place. Like an Ocean with waves and suddenly some small drops of water jumping of and condensate to virtual particles.
eddybrox 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@eddybrox "I think there is a misconception what the Qantumvacuum is. It is a sea of energy, consisting out of pure energy, where the fluctuatuon takes place."
Absolutely false, incorrect and plain not true. This is the same thing Dr. Craig says and has been proven wrong on several occasions. The energy IS the quantum fluctuations popping in and out of existence, they come from nothing. You seem to know just as much as Dr. Craig does on the subject, ironically, nothing.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
@eddybrox Right when you said "sea of energy" I knew you had no clue what you were talking about. You just regurgitated the same uneducated argument as Dr. Craig.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
@theBartone9119 Lets get to pm those limted types of latters making me go crazy
eddybrox 1 month ago
Comment removed
eddybrox 1 month ago
craig on morals
we must appeal to god's objective moral standard to justify our morals, but we don't know if our morals are in line with god's standard.
craig always seems to run around the tough questions. obfuscation is his tool of trade
mebe84 2 months ago
craig said that shook had said nothing to prove his naturalistic view is true. it's simple.. we know nature is real because we see it and we see NO evidence for something supernatural of any kind. craig is the one who has to prove things not shook or any other atheist. the burden of proof is on the beleiver.
1919dpg 2 months ago
@1919dpg
Oh man that was so deep. Are you a philosophy major?
CorneliusFractogram 2 months ago
William Lane Craig won! He made the most sense.
ThisMemory 2 months ago in playlist More videos from centerforinquiry
william craig is a real joke he adapts into modern sience in order to defend the number one enemy of sience...religion. i can only laugh
PolitismenosAgrikos 2 months ago
it might be better to include 'people' in the definition
"people who lack a belief in a god or gods"
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 2 months ago
Craig is arguing against a straw man throughout this entire video. The naturalist gets to define naturalism Dr. Craig, not you.
TheResidentSkeptic 3 months ago
I would be very curious to get a look at shook's undergrad grades, I wonder if the university of buffalo, the prestigous university that it is, gives out doctorates every other friday or something?
mollkatless 3 months ago
@ImGladImBrad - So, was shook a last minute replacement for a good atheist debater that cancelled late?
I mean, we would both have to agree this guy is a minor leaguer with no real grasp of the arguments, wouldn't we? In this one debate he's done what I thought was impossible, he actually makes hitchens debates appear cogent, focussed, and strictly on point-I mean hitchens pointless digressions (which always go back to anger at the catholic church right?) seem enlightened compared to shook
mollkatless 3 months ago
Interesting that Craig cites Hawking who completely disagrees with him. I'd say that is a FAIL.
infinityand0 3 months ago
@infinityand0 so if someone disagrees with a view you have then citing any of their work is a fail? what if they make a point that you see as actually supporting your view rather than theirs? i think that is what craig is doing.
matrixman609 3 months ago
@matrixman609 Well, I wasn't really clear. I wasn't speaking of the general disagreement. I was talking about what Craig is actually attempting to cite. Hawking actually argues that the universe does not need a cause, so in referring to Hawking as an authority on the particular point of how the universe came into being, yes, that is a FAIL.
infinityand0 3 months ago 2
@infinityand0 The Universe doesn't need a cause though, at the sub-atomic level particles pop in and out of existence all the time uncaused. If the Singularity of The Big Bang could be measured, it would be at the sub-atomic level. There are no good reasons to believe the Universe had a cause, because cause and effect only applies when matter exists. Can - 0 temperature and water cause ice to form if there is no a - 0 temp and water? No, this would be impossible. Dr. Craig fails.
theBartone9119 2 months ago
@theBartone9119 Even more importantly, Cause and effect are time dependent. Also, their definitions kind of require one another, so the idea of an uncaused cause that created all subsequent effects is fairly incoherent.
infinityand0 2 months ago
The subatomic vacuumenergy is a ocean full of energy applied to space with nothing in it.By breaking symmetrie (through an electrons charge e.g.) virtual particles pop into being and disappear.So if you have no spacetime,you have no subatomic level.You have NOTHING.Nothing has no properties.If you have space,you have to obay the law of cause-effect.Are you saying a singularity is nothing?Are you saying vacuumenergy is nothing?Singularies do exist,we can proove them.You FAIL!
eddybrox 1 month ago
@eddybrox Quantum Fluctuations take place within the quantum vacuum at scales below Planck scales for area, volume and duration. Below Planck those values have no meaning hence space-time has no meaning. Ergo fluctuations in a quantum vacuum exist outside space-time. Space-time is written upon the quantum vacuum in the form of discrete Planck-size units. This means that Quantum Fluctuations don't need space or time to exist in. So it seems the one failing is you.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
The fact,that we're not able to measure below planckscale,due to the uncertainty principle,does not conclude,that what u'r measuring is out of spacetime.At least u can say it's there.Furthermore u suggest,it is so small,that time and space has no meaning=nothing.So everything has no meaning and is nothing?Nothing has no properties.But the quantumvacuum is something not nothing.Nothing means even the absense of quantumvacuum.So it must have a beginning.U'r logic is not coherent.
eddybrox 1 month ago
@eddybrox Your logic is non existent (like God). Let me explain:
Quantum Vacuum = Nothing + Quantum Fluctuations
This means the Quantum Fluctuations happening all have a beginning, but what they happen in "nothing" doesn't. Nothing can't have a beginning lol You make no sense.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
@theBartone9119 With "beginning" i meant the beginning of the existance of the quantumvacuum. I did not meant nothing. U've got me wrong.
eddybrox 1 month ago
@eddybrox All the particles pop into existence, meaning they all have beginnings. What they occur in, is nothing. It's the nothing + the fluctuations that = Vacuum
......How many times do I really have to explain it?
theBartone9119 1 month ago
@theBartone9119 No! The Quantumvacuum is something. The logical consequence of your statement is, that we should experience something pop into being out of nothing in our life - maybe an elefant in u'r livingroom or other curiosities. That does not happen, so following must be true. Nothing comes from nothing. The Quantumvacuum is not nothing. It is something consisting out of energy. That energy had a beginning in the big bang.B4 that (if this term can be used) was nothing, but GOD the creator.
eddybrox 1 month ago
@eddybrox You are absolutely illogical. How many times have I explained it, the quantum vacuum is virtual particles popping in and out of existence, but all the particles have a beginning. If the particles didn't pop in and out, there would be nothing, this means they come from nothing. Also we have never experienced something existing without a beginning. So if you claim that God didn't have a beginning, he cannot exist.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theBartone9119 I think even a black hole is something. I think we should redefine Nothingness here.
Everything that begins to exist has a cause. And that is a proven logic in our life. Even if we do not know the cause of the virtual particles, the do not come from nothing.
eddybrox 1 month ago
@eddybrox Things do pop into existence from nothing in our every day lives. There are virtual particles popping in and out of existence all the time you just can't see it, because it's at the sub-atomic level. If the singularity could be measured at The Big Bang, it would be at the sub-atomic level, meaning the universe is uncaused.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
Comment removed
eddybrox 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@eddybrox "Everything that begins to exist has a cause"
Except virtual particles, these are uncaused.
Also here's logic we know to be true:
"Everything that exists, has a beginning"
So if God cannot exist if he is defined as having no beginning.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@eddybrox "Everything that begins to exist has a cause"
Except virtual particles, these are uncaused.
Also here's logic we know to be true:
"Everything that exists, has a beginning"
So iGod cannot exist if he is defined as having no beginning.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
@eddybrox So I have the upper hand, because we know that Quantum Fluctuations begin to exist uncaused, most physicists agree. However, you can't prove that things can exist without beginnings. Meaning the edge goes to me.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
@theBartone9119 I think u have the upperhand with inconsistent logic. We do know, that virtual particles com into existance. The cause is unknown.The theory is that small electrical charges like electrons disturbing the symmetry of the quantumvacuum. When things start to interact e.g. two charges, subatomic particles pop into being as catalysator for interaction. And again, they come from the quantumvacuum, which is not nothing but a fluctuating ocean of energy.
eddybrox 1 month ago
@eddybrox Wrong. Most physicists agree they are uncaused and from nothing. You are just making stuff up to make your argument work. Read up on the subject, they don't believe the cause is unknown they believe at the sub-atomic level things are allowed to occur uncaused. You clearly have done no research on the subject, your ignorance shows.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
@theBartone9119 No, thy do not. I think u not have a PH.D, neither i do. But i think the one who should do some research is you: /watch?v=gO6BHTQ7YFU
eddybrox 1 month ago
@theBartone9119 Only because we are not able to measure without uncertainty at subatomic level does not give any proof or any logical coherence to that kind of logic.
eddybrox 1 month ago
@eddybrox Most physicists agree they are uncaused, this has nothing to do with logic it has to do with scientific experimentation. Also, if you can say God exists because everything that begins to exist has a cause, I can say that God doesn't exist because everything that exists has a beginning.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
@theBartone9119 And here is the explanation: "God is out of time and space" He is almighty, so an entity with that attributes does not need a cause.
eddybrox 1 month ago
@eddybrox Ok so if things that exist outside of space and time don't need a cause, that means the universe didn't need one.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
@theBartone9119 Is the universe without time and cause? No! There is no outside. Cause there is no alternate space.
eddybrox 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@eddybrox "Cause there is no alternate space."
So there is no space for your God to exist in then. Thank you, I rest my case.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
@eddybrox Cause is only something we observe in the universe AFTER the universe started to exist. This means the origin of the universe logically cannot have a cause, causes didn't even exist until after The Big Bang.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
@theBartone9119 I know. Nothing existed. Neither the quantumvacuum.
eddybrox 1 month ago
@theBartone9119 But the universe must have had a cause ^^
eddybrox 1 month ago
@eddybrox I can post videos indicating the universe didn't need a cause, so I don't think video posting back and forth is going to prove anything..
theBartone9119 1 month ago
@theBartone9119 This is nothing to prove. It is just a new perception of what the quantumvacuum could be and it sounds good. It will not convince you or me to come to any other believe.
eddybrox 1 month ago
@theBartone9119 /watch?v=gO6BHTQ7YFU
eddybrox 1 month ago
@eddybrox God is a fairy tale like Santa and the Easter Bunny. Maybe you should grow out of this childish phase.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
@theBartone9119 I do not insult you, cause of your believing. Please stay objective.
eddybrox 1 month ago
@eddybrox I'm just saying, read up on Quantum Theory. The theory is that uncaused events happen at the sub-atomic level. If you want to re-write the theory then please, make millions, and do it.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
@theBartone9119 It is said, that the one who claims he has understood the quantumtheory has probably not. I do not claim i do understand. But why should the laws of cause-effect not be present here, even at the subatomic level? Cause nobody can say for sure. The reason is, that you can not measure with quite enough precision and can not find a cause for something happening here. Time will show, if we will find a hypothesis wich can be mathematicaly proven.
eddybrox 1 month ago
@eddybrox I agree "I don't know" much more honest that someone who claims absolute knowledge. My whole point is that there must be uncaused events or else every event/ cause would rest upon an infinite regress of preceding causes. If you go back in time far enough the causes have to stop a the singularity. So it's only logical to me the universe is an uncaused event, especially considering cause and effect is only something observed in the universe AFTER it exists.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
@theBartone9119 Finally we are at the end. It was a nice debate. At the end one must decide of what he wanted to believe. I believe in God and that the universe must have a cause. You do not. And that is ok. We agree, that the universe had a beginning. There was no infinit regress (otherwhise we would not yet talking about that). I hope some day one of us will be proven wrong. As long as there is no evidence one must stick with his believing. Happy New Year.
eddybrox 1 month ago
@eddybrox Happy new year to you too my friend.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
@theBartone9119 Thanks. God bless you.
eddybrox 1 month ago
@eddybrox You just had to slip the "God bless you" in there didn't you....lol
theBartone9119 1 month ago
@theBartone9119 :-)
eddybrox 1 month ago
@eddybrox Nothing cannot have a beginning, but the particles that pop into existence from nothing, do. This just solidifies my point that everything that exists, has a beginning.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
@eddybrox It's well known that fluctuations occur uncaused from nothing.
The Vacuum = Nothing + Quantum Fluctuations
theBartone9119 1 month ago
I would prefer to say, we have'nt the ability to describe those seemingly spontanious occuring, virtual, subatomic particles.U'r logic is not coherent:
The Vacuum = Nothing + quantumflucture = Not Nothing. So the virtual particels are a result of that fluctuation and do not come from nothing.It is known,that fields or charges e.g. electrons disturbing the symmetrie of that qunatumvacuum leading to pop virtual particles into being from that quantumvacuum.They do not come into being from nothing.
eddybrox 1 month ago
@eddybrox "The Vacuum = Nothing + quantumflucture = Not Nothing."
Correct, X + Y does not = X. It = XY
The point is Y happens in X, meaning the particles (Y) occur from nothing (X). Get it now?
theBartone9119 1 month ago
@infinityand0 You can't just magically will something to existence, you can't paint a picture without paint and a brush. So if God existed before anything, what did he use to create the universe with? Exactly, the idea of God makes no sense.
theBartone9119 2 months ago
Oops, I meant to say Craig, not Shook. :/
mwolf254 3 months ago
Shook, with his ridiculous arguments, has convinced me that there is no God.
mwolf254 3 months ago
"its not enough just to show that absence of evidence is evidence of apsence, and I think thats enough to refute naturalism tonight." but that is exactlly evidence for apsence in case of beliving in god, not valid at all statement without evidence that he exists, that puts in same category like santa claus. Aldo I agree 100% with Shook, I much prefer listening to Craig I love the way he say things and his sentences like "and I think thats enough to refute naturalism tonight" I had good laugh.
zigifrojd 4 months ago
@marioantagorda2469 John Shook = Wanker
BloodOfRayne 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you want evidence that God exists, or are interested in 9/11 search Jonathan Cahn 1 - Harbinger the Warning, on youtube here.
IwillhonorGod 5 months ago
before universe is created, there was only God, Satan and angels. Why there is God, Satan and angels rather than nothing?
MrGluepower 5 months ago
spaghetti is physical
Jondadon2006 5 months ago
Comment removed
sfyr 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Very good debate.
thomasconnor97 5 months ago
John Shook. More like John Smug.
DopeJedi 5 months ago
@DopeJedi I suspect you're mistaking logic for smugness.
COEXISTential 5 months ago
@COEXISTential No... that's deffinitely smugness! You only need to be logical to see it. ; )
BloodOfRayne 4 months ago
@BloodOfRayne Logical and he knows it ;)
COEXISTential 4 months ago
"OK, students, you gotta listen here now! Now THAT's smug ;)
COEXISTential 4 months ago
@COEXISTential But only the logical will listen. ;)
BloodOfRayne 4 months ago
@kly45 ...which again, goes to prove my point and everything I've said this far. I'm gonna report your spamming crap here because the attack on MJ is uncalled for, aswell as your creepy gay stalking of my commenting (obvious desperate loser is obvious). You're trying to make up some fake reconstruction of "how our convo has been going" to feel better about yourself cuz your arguments have run out and it's getting difficult to pretend anymore. I like it, keep make shit up.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 6 months ago
@kly45 [I DON'T WANT TO GO FOR A BATH IT'S ONLY 7:30!!!]
You're being more retarded than neccessary. Don't make yourself look more retarded than you already are with this cartoonish stuff.
[i admit I am wrong but only because you missed out a word in your statement]
First you assume I'm a christian, then you excuse your assumption due to something extremely fucking vague, and now you're at it again and call me a christian. You're flip flopping by the wind cuz you're an atheist retard.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 6 months ago
@kly45 Seems like you are masturbating to this. In your head you make yourself up as the good guy, just a pity that you don't got any argument, you don't got any honesty, all you got is accusing me of stuff I'm not responsible for and making up excuses for your own bullshit behavior. You are now insisting that I'm a christian. And the ad hominem level increases because of this, and now you spam up the page with it. Oh how calm and rational you are.
[your comments on TF's video] What's TF?
MoonwalkerWorshiper 6 months ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper no i'm just bored with you, you're either trolling or an idiot. Since both are possible I thought i'd just drop it to your level. Here's a tip in life, don't play the victim card after being an asshole, go and report me to the cyber police, THEY'LL BACK TRACE IT!!!
kly45 6 months ago
@kly45 [drop it to your level] Where did I ever say "FUK U"? You're lying to yourself.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 6 months ago
@kly45 You don't have any arguments, no. You accused Craig for a non sequitur but couldn't motivate it.
[you said the wrong thing] I never said anything "wrong" you idiotic tosser. You are the tosspot who interpreted it wrong because you assume such shit!
[By that, it was reasonable to assume, but not AFTER that]
Get your fucking time comprehension right. You made an assumption without evidence, and doing that is retarded, and I said spare me your excuses.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 6 months ago
@BankHeistVideos His argument ISN'T "You can't be moral without God"...rather it's "Truly Objective Morals don't EXIST without God". Of course you can be a moral Atheist...but without God it's hard to see how morals aren't just subjective.
janterrirocks 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kly45 [YOU fucked your own grammar which made it look like you were saying "obviously god is the christian god"]
Ya ya blame it on me and my grammar, sure, and it's not as if other atheist cunts are acting JUST like you were doing. The problem with you is that you jump to moronic conclusions because you are a preconceptive whining anti-theist, and now you are only making excuses for it. Fuck off.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 6 months ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper i'm not an anti-theist at all, where are you getting all these assumptions from? See, it's very reasonable that I made a wrong assumption in your case, because you said "the christian god IS god", but instead you meant to write "the christian god, IS A go". Going by your original comment I am completely justified in making the assumption that you are christian. We both made assumption, the difference is, I was justified, you are not, you keep making up more bullshit about
kly45 6 months ago
@kly45
[it's very reasonable that I made a wrong assumption]
It's never fucking "reasonable" to make wrong assumptions you complete ass. Making wrong assumptions is never reasonable. It is reasonable NOT to make assumptions without evidence, and it's reasonable not to be wrong. You did both, so you can shove your excuses up your anus.
["the christian god IS god"]
Yeah, in the context of this debate a christian god is god.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 6 months ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper abiut atheists and claiming that I am an anti-theist, which I certainly am not. The other difference is that I am man enough to admit my assumption was wrong, you just moan and bitch like a kitchen sink realist character. also , it doesn't matter if other atheists at as though I act, go bitch to them and grow the fuck up, i did nothing to make you act like a little bitch about this conversation
kly45 6 months ago
@kly45 [claiming that I am an anti-theist, which I certainly am not.]
Feel free to flat out lie to me and say you're not an atheist and that you don't criticize theists. Let's hear it then, what kind of theist are you? You obviously don't agree with Craig so you can't be a christian. You obviously fail to make sense so you aren't intelligent either. Atheist is the most plausible answer given Occam's razor.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 6 months ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper That's laughable logic, i'm obviously not a christian because I don't agree with craig? Does that OBVIOUSLY make a protestant not a christian because they don't agree with the pope? Tell you what, why don't you tell me first what you are? I asked first, actually, and if we're being honest how will this further our debate? If I say I am a christian you will call me a liar because I don't agree with craig. If I say I'm an atheist then I will immediately be told that I believe
kly45 6 months ago
@kly45 [i'm obviously not a christian because I don't agree with craig? ]
YEAH YOU FUCKING IDIOT, THIS IS A DEBATE ON THE EXISTANCE OF GOD AND IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH CRAIGS ARGUMENT HERE, THEN YOU OBVIOUSLY ARE AN ATHEIST!! WILL YOU FUCKING GET YOUR LOGIC STRAIGHT! THINK FOR ONCE IN YOUR GODDAMN LIFE!
[you have a bigoted and unfair hatred of atheists]
Not unfair, but anyway hatred of atheists is justified when atheists are complete retards and christians aren't the only religious people.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 6 months ago
46:50 what a slut. Stop talking and unbutton that shirt a little more
scar504 6 months ago
It's astounding that Dr. Shook had the audacity to suggest that discussing terminology was banal or juvenile, and then proceed to ridicule the art of discourse by speaking in southern accents and making jokes the entire discussion. I find it extremely ironic, because throughout the duration of the debate i found myself continuously distracted with Dr. Shook's sophomoric attitude towards the questions.
scar504 6 months ago 17
@scar504 Good comment.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 6 months ago
@scar504 Shook explained his point over and over, Craig didn't get it or chose to ignore it. Shook got frustrated and therefore resorted to humour.
BigCarso 4 months ago
@BigCarso
He explained that it's only logical to not believe in something, and claim it isn't true, because you don't know that it's true or not. Yes, that is logic... *Sarcasm*
bbryant0620 3 months ago
@scar504 I'm pretty tired of people asserting that atheism means a belief that no god exists because that's an old definition and "people tried to change the meaning to a lack of belief in the 70s".
It's fine to use words in new ways if society understands what's being said. What you should be listening to is what people MEAN, not archaic definitions.
(atheism was originally a roman word for the early christian heretics! obviously WLC is okay with changing definitions or he'd be an atheist too)
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 3 months ago
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke so if atheism is just lack of belief in a god, that would make atheists the same as brocollis and pencils..
lovellespice 2 months ago
@lovellespice lol! well it's true that those that lack belief in gods share that with animals and inanimate objects, but you're trying to imply that they are hence as smart as inanimate objects?
lol that was like when people who reject evolution are like "I'm no dirty animal!"
Trying to influence people to take a disrespectful attitude towards something isn't an argument. You can't convince an African he isn't black by talking bad about blacks.
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 2 months ago
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke so what then is the real definition of atheism.. and while your at it.. what is positive knowledge claim does atheism have? what makes it true?
lovellespice 2 months ago
@lovellespice well that was it, 'people who lack a belief in a god or gods' are atheists, and so atheism is 'the mental state of disbelieving god claims'.
It makes no positive knowledge claims at all, it is a position of being unconvinced about a single claim, that gods exist, and so it's impossible for it to be 'true' in any sense.
Since I know I don't believe in gods, atheism is 'true', but 'real' would be a better word.
It's like asking what makes skepticism true - it doesn't work like that
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 2 months ago
The "fine-tuned argument" is a complete fallacy. It implies that ONE constant changes, while everything else stays the same. It's most likely that all values in are universe are relative, like in universes with different constants
kly45 6 months ago
John Shook is truly a man out of his depth.
BlueTusk1 6 months ago
The funniest thing is that alot of Atheists don't even know what the definition of Atheism is... John Shook needs to research the definitions of certain terminology before going into a debate like this. How embarrassing!
IfUrGivingIn 6 months ago
WLC: "But has anybody offered in tonight's debate the claim that because you can't show supernaturalism to be false, therefore you should believe in supernaturalism? Who argued that tonight?" John Shook: "Well.." , looking at WLC and disqualifying himself as a good debater or at least as a good listener.
31Uriel 6 months ago
"I don't understand Dr. Craig's argument...so I'm just going to call him a name or make a general statement like 'he had nothing good to say' and move on." - Average Youtube User
janterrirocks 6 months ago
dr craig as usual had nothing .. sad!
jujumen 6 months ago
@jujumen Did you listen to the entire argument? I sure did, and heard plenty.
MrRichard991 6 months ago
Dr Shook is out of his depth - more like a student really.
dannydeflower 6 months ago
Man the chick from 39:40 is stupid. Craig is a christian apologetic so he will argue for a christian God, and that IS a debate on the existance of God. And don't stand there and expect applauds you stupid c**t, and then be unable to get to the question.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 6 months ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper man calm down. show some respect for people
kly45 6 months ago
@kly45 Stupid cunts like that chick deserves no respect. She expected herself applauds for asking that superficial moronic question. "Ya it should've been a debate about God, but not the CHRISTIAN God." Idiot! The Christian God is God!
MoonwalkerWorshiper 6 months ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper First of all, saying that the christian god is god is begging the question and fallacious logic, even WLC would laugh at you for saying that. Secondly just because you deem yourself more intelligent than her doesn't mean she is a cunt, it just means that you are a very arrogant person with an anger problem. I'm going to go out on a limb here and ask, I assume that you're a christian due to your comment? Doesn't christ teach to love your neighbour and your enemy?
kly45 6 months ago
@kly45 [saying that the christian god is god is begging the question]
Well well, seems that you are another fucktard assuming this is a discussion. It's not a discussion, I'm not ARGUEING with you. The SUBJECT is does God exist, and OBVIOUSLY a christian apologetic will argue for the CHRISTIAN God and you say Craig will laugh at me for this? Maybe he'll laugh at you.
Apperantly I'm using "fallacious logic" because I'm saying the christian God is a God. I.D.I.O.T.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 6 months ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiperno you''re not saying god is a god, you're saying "the christian god is god" that IS begging the question, you can dress it up whatever way you like, it's still a fallacious and sad way to be opposed to her point. Your childish comments really say more about you than I ever could. For future reference btw, don't bother leaving comments if you can't accept people wanting to discuss/argue/disagree with you. Do you live in a glass house?
kly45 6 months ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper (repost) you''re not saying god is a god, you're saying "the christian god is god" that IS begging the question, you can dress it up whatever way you like, it's still a fallacious and sad way to be opposed to her point. Your childish comments really say more about you than I ever could. For future reference btw, don't bother leaving comments if you can't accept people wanting to discuss/argue/disagree with you. Do you live in a glass house?
kly45 6 months ago
@kly45 All atheists always assume people are christians when they criticize some atheistic point. That's how I knew you were an atheist. Because all fucking atheists always ask "are you a christian". I call it preconceptive bigrotry.
[you''re not saying god is a god]
I SAID THE CHRISTIAN GOD IS A GOD, MORON!
Or are you denying that Jahve from the Bible is a god? What is he suppose to fucking be then?
MoonwalkerWorshiper 6 months ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper 1. You STILL do not know whether I am an atheist or a theist, I'm curious, which are you?
2. Where is the bigotry? I was asking you a friggen question and then admitted I was wrong. Does it make me a bigot to ask someone what politician they vote for? I didn't ask you what your religion was to call you stupid, I did it just to see if you were obeying the rules christ teaches.
3. You seriously don't see the irony of you accusing all atheists of being bigots?
kly45 6 months ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper 4. I never criticised you for making an "atheistic point", I'm not sure if that phrase even makes sense. I criticised you because you were (or at least your text inferred) that you were using circular logic.
5. Here is a direct quote from your original comment, "The Christian God is God!", which concludes a different message than "I SAID THE CHRISTIAN GOD IS A GOD". You obviously have shit grammar and I was unable to detect that, that doesn't make me a moron does it?
kly45 6 months ago
@kly45 No all atheists always assume people are christians when people criticize some atheistic point, like I did. Since you most likely are an atheist, and you find me criticizing some atheist chick being stupid in this video, you immediately assume I'm a christian or asking me about it, as if it was relevant. That's what annoys me, you can't freaking say anything on these videos that is anti-atheistic without having you nutjobs saying "you are a Bible-thumping creationist ya?"
MoonwalkerWorshiper 6 months ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper up to make it look like you were making a different point. As I have said twice, I admit I was wrong, but only because you made a mistake. CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? "Since you most likely are an atheist", you're such a tool, you call me a bigot yet don't realise the bigotry-shit you spew from your own pie hole. Please direct me to the comment where I called you a bible-thumping creationist, you won't find it, as I said, I made a wrong assumption. I am man enough to admit it
kly45 6 months ago
@kly45 And moreover, we another display of lame attitude at 41:20. And, we have you displaying biased attitude because you can't even talk about Craig without saying "he asserts this and that."
Can I ask you something you fucktard, what's wrong with paying attention to the debate? I get it, you are a preconceptive atheist who thinks all christians are always wrong, but why not PAY ATTENTION when a christian gives arguments? That way you would know he ain't making "assertions".
MoonwalkerWorshiper 6 months ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper no, that is not biased at all, it would be biased to admit that he was right and for me to overlook his assertions. I for one find craig a skilled debater, he was good in this one and he whooped hitchens imo, but that's all, debates are largely meaningless in regards to the actual TRUTH. "I get it, you are a preconceptive atheist who thinks all christians are always wrong" Why not yourself, PAY ATTENTION to what I have said fucktard, i have never said that christians are
kly45 6 months ago
@kly45 [I am man enough to admit my assumption was wrong, you just moan and bitch like a kitchen sink realist character]
Oh so I guess your argument here mounts at best to showing that you are a great person and I'm a bad person? I knew you would, because sandbox level is what I expect from atheists from the very start.
[i did nothing to make you act like a little bitch about this conversation]
Except accusing me of begging the question and being a christian and then excuse yourself from it.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 6 months ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper Yes and I also apologized for being wrong several times, but you need to admit (others have flagged your comments as spam) that I can be excused for my mistake. Stop acting like such a little bitch and grow up, moan moan moan. You called someone a stupid "cunt" which automatically infers that you are smarter than her (if you call someone stupid, you are not also calling yourself stupid, hence you must, by default be calling yourself smarter than them). Yet as soon as someone
kly45 6 months ago
@kly45 [If I say I'm an atheist then I will immediately be told that I believe or said things that I never did, because you are a bigot.]
Congrats asshole atheist kly45 there's another retarded assumption about me without didley dick of evidence. You don't know fuck all what I will say if you're an atheist. I already know you're an atheist, because atheists always assume shit and attack strawmen. Instead of saying "I'm an atheist" you say "YOU are a biggot" which is implicitly the same thing.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 6 months ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper can outsmart your playground swearing competition you jump to the other side of the table and then accuse people of thinking they are better than you because they don't use retarded reasons to be angry at people. TBH I have much better things to do than repeat my point over 100 times. Either tell me if you're christian or atheist and we can continue to chat. Otherwise i suggest you go out and bang someone, I used to be an angry person when I was a 15 yo virgin too
kly45 6 months ago
@kly45 [can outsmart your playground swearing competition you jump to the other side of the table and then accuse people of thinking they are better than you because they don't use retarded reasons to be angry at people.]
You drivel alot of crap here, but you aren't making sense whatsoever. I suspect what you're trying to tell me, is what a bad person I am for defending what I think is right and give me doubts or whatever. Do you have any argument? No? Shut up then.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kly45 [debates are largely meaningless in regards to the actual TRUTH.]
And finally, we get to your preconceptiveness and lack of intellect. You say the debates are meaningless, well why the fuck are you watching them then?! Who decides what TRUTH is? Obviously not the debaters according to you. No, truth is defined by YOU, the great atheist, who is always right because he's an atheist and his assumptions are always reasonable.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 6 months ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper wrong, I am simply pointing out the bad connection he makes between deism and christianity arguments. and if you knew anything about biblical scholars, the "facts" craig mentions are not facts. Facts imply that there is no dispute, but if you knew anything about theology there is, indeed much dispute over some of craig's "facts' of christ.
kly45 6 months ago