We are multi disciplinary Scientists. Means. Science survived based on "Repeatable Proven System", Experiment of gravity is repeatable ..right ? Momentum is repeatable ? and so on, at any point of time and place on Earth it is repeatable..that's Logical FLESH and BLOOD. Conclusion is made based on the compulsory point of view Repeatable Proven System..do you all really know what Science is all about ? to create "Human" from Primate is also repeatable, read the website in flesh: godsurety . org
Ah, it's mr "2 citations Craig". There's a video up now where somebody calls WLC an "academic midget" and says that he's mostly ignored by philosophers. Good video, I just watched it.:)
@emailpobox666 Don't think they can you know...I might have an answer for an Atheist though - "He wants to make creationism sound intelligent whilst trying to belittle science".
@austinjames666 I agree. I just lie spanking obnoxious Theists. They parade Craig around with his ridiculous claims and say see we actually have logical reasons to believe in the Supernatural
@emailpobox666 Yeah, maybe they'll come up with some 'evidence' for Santa or the Tooth Fairy, but I think we all know that the Easter Bunny's real. ;)
So many of you Bum Dawkins soo much! Flip sake if he is that good then he should just debate Craig and flatten him! Then all this crap is over and done with! The fact he doesnt is not down to Craigs arguments are rubbish thats just stupid if there so bad he would get it over an done with!
@timmyprestidge exactly. why do you think he was so eager to discuss god with weak opponents like pastor ted haggard? or why was his only real opponent also his last? (John Lennox)
@synal Im glad there is other people with sence here! i dont understand why athiest spend so long denying the fact Dawkins is scared of craig! anyone can see it!
@timmyprestidge Scared isn't the right word. As someone who has debated many a time with religious people I hate certain people because they hold one argument (which you can destroy) and cling to it like a leech. As far as im aware Craig just says the same arguments which are already weak and doesn't care if you show its stupidity that is why he won't debate. He is simply to stupid and ignorant.
@TheSkeletalBaron Haha you are another i see! You are quite wrong im afraid he says the same argurments because no body has proved them wrong! Not one person! i have seen debates he has had with atheist and none have prooved him wrong some have come up with the own very good arguments and they have debate well! But there is know shadow of a dout that dawkins wont debate craig because he cannot proove craig wrong and he knows he will be humiliated!
@timmyprestidge Well it would be like talking to a brick wall. Sometimes you cannot directly disprove something you have to go around the basis and have a look at how these things add up. For example one cannot disprove god directly but you can show exactly why your religious god in all likely hood does not exist. You should use no instead of know because A) incorrect usage, B) You obviously know none of the true facts and choose to believe a one sided argument.
@timmyprestidge He wouldn't be humility sometimes peoples arguments are so stupid they destroy themselves on their own and their isn't anything to say to them because they are so stupid and based on idiotic ideas.
When Dawkins debated Craig back in 2010 do you REALLY think he looked scared? Be serious.
I suppose you can convince yourself of anything but who is actually fooled by such taunting? You sound like a boxing promoter.
Yes, of course Craig would love another chance to share the stage with the more famous Dawkins - anything to advance his ministry. But anyone who saw the previous debate already knows EXACTLY what these 2 think. The rest is all enterainment and promotion.
@WeAreTheGods1 Typical cowardly response. Sure he doesn't "need" to, but if there is such a HUGE invitation to debate someone you clearly think he can demolish easily, why not just do it?
Talk about arguments making sense, the argument of avoiding makes far more sense in this situation than him "not needing to", which is one of the worst excuses I have ever read.
@doodums19 You're probably right on that Dawkins doesn't want to debate Craig either. Craig is good at debating, I think he could "win" debates on many topics no matter, which side he was defending, including the atheism side (if he wanted to do that). That doesn't mean the side he's debating is "right" or true.
@WeAreTheGods1 So then I pose the question, how much does truth actually effect arguments? Sure winning arguments doesn't purely rely on who is right, but normally that is the case when the person you are arguing doesn't understand the topic whole heartedly. I could argue that 1+1=4, but people with knowledge of that will see around it.
If he really is wrong, someone should eventually see through it, but he has been using the same arguments for years already. That says something.
@doodums19 I see through it: philosophical completely irrelevant mumbo jumbo. I am highly skeptical of anyone who claims to know something about the universe that really can not be known. I'll tell you this: I believe that anyone, absolutely ANYONE who says that "this happens after you die and I know it". Or "X is why life exists" is bullshitting. Ridiculous claims. I'm sort of fine with defending god's existence (whatever, might as well believe in magic), but defending religion is ridiculous.
@bobcatallstar7 Did you read the debate . Not the BS reasonablefaith website because I can understand Craig wanting to avoid talking about his admission
@bobcatallstar7 He says that causality prior to the universe is incoherent. therefore claiming god cause the universe prior to the universe existing is incoherent.
@bobcatallstar7 God's causing the universe cannot be analyzed in terms of current philosophical definitions of causality, then so much the worse for those theories
@emailpobox666 I skimmed through all of his statements. All craig does is presents his arguments and defends them like he always does while debating someone. He never discredits any of his arguments in this debate.
@emailpobox666 Why am i a liar? Answer: Because we are all sinners (Yes Christians included.) Sorry i can't be picture perfect like Jesus is, but mankind was never appointed to be perfect like the Lord. If my moral behavior is weak, then your's is to because you are no better then me. Part 1/2
@emailpobox666 just because there are no definitions for the sentence of "before the universe existed " for philosophy or science, doesn't mean it can't be explained through these 2 subjects. Also, i did read your 2 comments and WLC supposed quoted words does not say that.
@bobcatallstar7 Answer me this. Why are all theists such as yourself Liars?Your weak excuse for moral behavior is always failing you. Lie cheat steal then ask for forgiveness.
@emailpobox666 "lie cheat steal then ask for forgiveness" what you are referring to is called a religious hypocrite. Jesus said "if you love me then you will keep my commandments" so no, you cant just do anything you want then just ask for forgiveness later. Christianity doesn't teach such a thing. Real Christians like myself try our hardest not to break the commandments.
@bobcatallstar7 You are lying about the quote. I have run into theists over and over who lie deceive edit censor to defend their nonsense god. You are guilty of the lying saying that The quote I posted was not made by Craig> If anyone cares to look it up Google Quentin Smith vs Craig 1996 Its the first result
@emailpobox666 If you run into people like that, then they are doing nothing more then lying to you. If you really believe and love God then you won't break his commandments. Those people you refer to are called false religious hypocrites. You are doing nothing more then putting words into Dr. Craig's mouth I have watched some of his debates and he never discredits his own argument.
@bobcatallstar7 "You are doing nothing more then putting words into Dr. Craig's mouth I have watched some of his debates and he never discredits his own argument. Be Intellectually lazy and dishonest OR ACTUALLY READ THE DEBATE. It's your Choice.
@bobcatallstar7 If the claim that God caused the Big Bang cannot be analyzed in terms of extant definitions of causality, then God cannot have caused the Big Bang.
@bobcatallstar7 What he does say is Intuition should be substituted for logic . Funny thing is he's touting this as a logical argument for god. You see nothing wrong with this???
@bobcatallstar7William Lane Craig " If the claim that God caused the Big Bang cannot be analyzed in terms of extant definitions of causality, then God cannot have caused the Big Bang. I see no reason to think that this premise is true. In general, arguments to the effect that some intuitively intelligible notion can't be analyzed in terms of certain philosophical theories should make us suspect the adequacy of those theories rather than reject the common sense notion.
@bobcatallstar7 WLC Continued "The idea that God caused the universe is intuitively intelligible. A cause is, loosely speaking, something which produces something else and in terms of which the thing that is produced can be explained. This notion certainly applies to God's causing the universe. If God's causing the universe cannot be analyzed in terms of current philosophical definitions of causality, then so much the worse for those theories!
@emailpobox666 When i said that i meant there is no evidence for Craig actually saying that. I have watched debates of his, and he doesn't say those quoted words anywhere.
@emailpobox666 he is basically saying that the only way this argument couldn't work is if God creating the universe can't be explained from a philosopihical stand point. But it can be explained through philosophy so therefore, the argument is still considered to be a good one.
@bobcatallstar7 No there are no definitions philosophical or scientific that make causality coherent "before" the universe existed. If you actually read it he said COMMON SENSE and INTUITION were substitutes for Logic and Reason. LOL
Richard Dawkins only trapped himself in a corner with the reasons why he wont debate William Lane Craig. He simply shot himself in the foot with that one lol
"Richard Dawkins only trapped himself in a corner with the reasons why he wont debate William Lane Craig. He simply shot himself in the foot with that one"
How so? Obviously Dawkins never said he'd debate ONLY clergy. But he did say he can't be bothered with creationists - and Craig certainly is one.
If anything, Dawkins contradicted himself in this way: He DID eventually debate Craig. That's the irony of this video.
"Dawkins said intelligent design is a form of creationism, yet he debated proponents of that"
Yup. Including Craig.
Still, there's a pretty big difference between someone who thinks intelligent design is a plausible (if unfalsifiable) hypothesis (Lennox, Mcgrath etc.) and someone for whom creationism is a religious dogma and who, as a matter of doctrine, rejects any science inconsistent with God's revealed Truth in Scripture. That would be Craig.
@emailpobox666 first off craig didn't use any of his own personal arguments when he refuted dawkins. Secondly i suggest you show this supposed rebuttal that goes against Craigs arguments to WLC himself, i am sure he can back up his arguments and explain to you why your rebuttal doesn't work.
@bobcatallstar7 WLC "If the claim that God caused the Big Bang cannot be analyzed in terms of extant definitions of causality, then God cannot have caused the Big Bang. I see no reason to think that this premise is true. In general, arguments to the effect that some intuitively intelligible notion can't be analyzed in terms of certain philosophical theories should make us suspect the adequacy of those theories rather than reject the common sense notion.
@bobcatallstar7 WLC Continued "The idea that God caused the universe is intuitively intelligible. A cause is, loosely speaking, something which produces something else and in terms of which the thing that is produced can be explained. This notion certainly applies to God's causing the universe. If God's causing the universe cannot be analyzed in terms of current philosophical definitions of causality, then so much the worse for those theories!Quentin Smth Vs Craig 1996
Dawkins doesn't debate Craig because WLC has already refuted every argument dawkins gives in his book "The God Delusion." So even if they did debate dawkins wouldn't have anything to say against the existence of God because all of his arguments have already been well refuted.
@bobcatallstar7 Fine tuning begs the question and assumes the universe has a purpose Moral objective argument circular reasoning. Ontological incoherent definition of maximal greatness, cosmological causality is incapable of being discussed prior to the universe. The most interesting of them is the Cosmological Craig admitted that the argument fails but still uses it.
This is typical of just abot all the Craig videos I've seen. They show Craig in all his glory; his opponents are shown in highly edited grainy clips, so Craig can easily demolish his strawmen opponents. He also constantly misstates his opponents words. I've only seen one actual unedited debate of his with Sam Harris, who more than held his own. Also if you say anything critical about Craig you are banned from future comments. I only wish George Carlin were still alive. He would destroy Craig!
@Birdieupon Oh golly gee, maybe I am, ignorant too, don't know what a sod is - is that like the old sod ? In any case help me out and give me a link to just one of those videos. And I do know whynDawkins' refuses to debate Craig. As he says it's like asking a geologist to debate a flat earth proponent, or an obstetrician to debate someone who believes that babies are delivered by storks. It's a travesty for one who doesn't believe in evolution to actually have "Dr." in front of his name.
William Craig is a PhD in non existing topics, specializing in invisible creatures on the sky. Dawkinks on the other side is a respected scientist and educator, he has nothing in common with Craig. Dawkins is also a likely future Nobel Prize winner for his contributions to science and Craig, well he hopefully finds better logical arguments then a priori ones. Mr Craig posses a fine intellect though, I hope somebody will give him a book with introduction to Quantum Mechanic.
Philosophy is a non existent topic? Tell that to AC Grayling, Daniel Dennett and Peter Singer, lol.
"Dawkinks on the other side is a respected scientist and educator"
Please name a significant scientific discovery Dawkins has made? You'll find at most he's published articles about baby chicks and memes - the latter of which failed and its journal shut down in 2005.
@Birdieupon And what of Craig. Please don't say he has more published works because his combined publications are only a small fraction of the sales from one of Dawkins books. it is also my understanding that Craig's work is extremely rarely cited in other publications. citation is a objective gauge of an author's works depth and significance
He's got more scholarly material published. You are aware Dawkins is a popularizer, aren't you? The hint is in the title PUBLIC Understanding of Science.
So you say "What significant scientific discovery did he make" and then you say "Don't mention the significant scientific discovery he made, which is the idea of Meme's and the study of which is called Memetics" :-)
Please tell me you're joking. Memetics is a dead horse. There is no science to it at all. Either that or you've caught the idiot meme, in which case I take that back ;-)
You don't get science. Memetics is certainly not a dead horse. If anything it made people think about how culture comes to be and is passed on in a very interesting way which could lead, to new even more interesting ideas. Which could then lead to ... E=MC2. Think of Science as Brain Storming. Think of Newton, Einstein, Hawkings ... Witten. No Newton, No E=MC2. Yet Newton's findings were clearly 'unfinished'.
Now the Bible : the book that still makes SOME people say the Earth is the center of everything. That STILL makes people date 'creation' of Earth back to about 6 to 10 Centuries ago. The book that STILL makes people feel superior to all other creatures on this gathering of Sun-dust AND superior to everybody of a different opinion. Now that's THE Dead Horse. And it's the poor Dead Horse WLC is riding on. WLC is a Faith Healer. Except, nobody is getting better from it. Except him.
@Birdieupon What was his phd topic? The faculty was philosophy but what was his subject matter?
Given that Dawkins did debate William Lane Craig at Ciudad del Ideas and given the pathetic hissy fit that Craig threw at the end where he blamed the audience for his own failure; what is your point?
@steveinchelsea you do realize that around the world, ancient records show that there was a missing day right? just thought you might wanna research that on your spare time..
@naturalordermage Have you ever read Dawkins (I mean his books, not just watched his videos)? Dawkins is a very poor thinking. He appeals to the friendly audience but cannot hold his own with heavy-weight opposition. Please forgive me, but what has Dawkins discovered that would be worthy of a nobel prize? If you reject a priori then you can not know anything without experience (ie, Hume). This creates grave issues. How do you "experience" logic? Re: "quantum mechanics"- no unification, etc.
@BarryGCarpenter Craig is poor thinking .Fine tuning begs the question and assumes the universe has a purpose objective Moral argument circular reasoning. Ontological incoherent definition of maximal greatness, cosmological causality is incapable of being discussed prior to the universe. The most interesting of them is the Cosmological Craig admitted that the argument fails but still uses it.
@BarryGCarpenter Craig is poor thinking .Fine tuning begs the question and assumes the universe has a purpose objective Moral argument circular reasoning. Ontological incoherent definition of maximal greatness, cosmological causality is incapable of being discussed prior to the universe. The most interesting of them is the Cosmological Craig admitted that the argument fails but still uses it.
@BarryGCarpenter Craig is poor thinking .Fine tuning begs the question and assumes the universe has a purpose objective Moral argument circular reasoning. Ontological incoherent definition of maximal greatness, cosmological causality is incapable of being discussed prior to the universe. The most interesting of them is the Cosmological Craig admitted that the argument fails but still uses it.
Oh this video proves everything WLC says is correct. Dawkins is a coward, and all of WLC arguements are true and rock solid with no flaws whatsoever. Christianity is the one true religion. He has fancy degrees, so he must be correct, there can be no way most of what he is saying is utter nonsense. If someone can't debate him at his level, then that makes him correct. Praise the Lord, I am converted, I am now a sheep, Bahh bahh bahh bahh bahh!!!
@ivar3145 - sorry if you missed the sarcasm. I was joking in that post. I think WLC may be a skilled debater, but it does not make any of what he takes about any less BS. Personally, he annoys the hell out of me, with his smug smile when he talks and his canned use of articulations in his voice and pre-packaged sound to his thoughts. He sounds very canned to me, like a big sales pitch, it does not feel genuine at all.
Erm, actually, the point of his showing his qualifications is to disprove Dawkins' claim that he's merely a "professional debater". Ironically, it is Dawkins who's using a reverse appeal to authority by claiming Craig is not qualified enough.
Some say sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, but I wouldn't even claim your remarks to be wit of any kind.
@Birdieupon - Before I start with you, I would like to know a few things. I usually assume that ppl who defend craig are christians, am I correct? Do you agree with his beliefs? The other defenders are usually ppl who are working toward some sort of degree or PhD. Which one if any are you? if not, then what is your stance?
As for the wit thing, get over yourself. I was having fun. Sarcasm can be a great tool to show how idiotic some ppls beliefs can be. I'll happily dance though, if you like.
@Birdieupon - Ok fine, but all this arguing, debating is almost futile. Either what WLC is proposing is true or not. My main point I make which ppl can't seem to get in these threads is this. If what WLC believes is untrue, then almost all of what he says is a load of BS. It would not matter how well he could contruct his arguements, or what degrees he has. I am on the side that I think it is untrue, and that he is like a dog chasing his tail, going nowhere.
@Birdieupon - BTW, why are you defending him? and yes beliefs do matter, when ppl believe crazy shit, they do crazy things, and other people can suffer for it. examples-
911, crusades, honour killing, sacrificing virgins to gods, inquisitions, sharia law, and on and on and on... WLC is a Christian, and he does what he does in defense of it. Therefore, I need to believe that, I am a sinner and need to repent, Jesus was born of a virgin, rose from the dead, theres a heaven and hell, cont......
@Birdieupon - cont... that I need to be saved (Whatever that means) that Christianity is the only way, etc.. etc... Again if all this is untrue, then I do not care what degrees he has, how well he can contruct his arguements. It would not prove anything. He is entitled to his beliefs, that is fine, but I can't stand all the ppl on here worshiping him like he is some genius. If I am wrong (which I believe is highly unlikely) then I will gladly admit it.
I maintain that God is getting weaker and therefore must be subject to the same laws of entropy that the rest of the universe is subject to, ergo he is not onmipotent and as such should not be considered a God. Look at the evidence - 6500 yrs ago he was able to to create the universe. 2000 yrs ago he could raise people from the dead, walk on water and turn water into wine. Today he is forming some clouds and tortilla chips into images of himself and his son Jesus Christ.
to make wine. He raised the dead by sucking their dicks and and they rose up. But since they were zombies with no blood flowing, went limp. Ever since then he has tried to rise again but alas to no avail. Maybe next year.
@jontibloom Wrong, you mean 6500 years ago God created the Universe and in the garage had the pyramids which were 8500 years old. (thats why their 15,000 years old) so he placed them around his creation. Whiteants were put in a cloud because Noah couldn't take them on his boat. God then froze the lakes so he could walk on it. He then suspended the laws of physics and pulled compounds, potassium sorbet, chemicals C6H12O6 → 2C2H5OH + 2CO2, sugar molecules and enzymes out of his ass
William Craigs Arguments are completely flawed in that he always assumes that God creating the universe is more likely then without him. All of his arguments are based on this.
@Genechanger It would be a waste of time in converting him, but not in the lay person, which is what the audience largely is. Therefore, the argument should go on, not to convince the debater, but the viewers, making the discussion easily worthwhile.
@metalnecromancer i'm not affirming P1 to be false. i'm simply saying that craig's arguments do not demonstrate it to be true. for you to demonstrate P1 (as you have just stated it) to be true, you must *demonstrate* that everything that is actual (and once was not actual) was caused to be actual by some actuality, not simply *assert* it, and claim that it is obvious. related - can you give me an example of something that is actual that was caused by an actuality?
the bible puts god in such a low place. god the father get's jealous, angry, happy, sad, etc., he sound very human. the jesus myth is somewhat a copy of the buddah meets solar dieties...
Dawkins basicaly says I will only take on Catholic high ranking clergy lol. Clergy don't exactly always make good philosophers, their main job is governing the workings of the church. Dawkins is hiding from people who would destroy his arguments.
@emailpobox666 Craig has some great arguments, discounting everything he says as "nonesense" only shows your inability to even look at anything that disagrees with whatever your personal belief or lack of belief system is. People are so quick to get offensive and be offended on such debates that could be done with a much friendlier mood. There are brilliant minds on both sides.
@JeremiahPTTN Fine tuning begs the question and assumes the universe has a purpose Moral objective argument circular reasoning. Ontological incoherent definition of maximal greatness, cosmological causality is incapable of being discussed prior to the universe. The most interesting of them is the Cosmological Craig admitted that the argument fails but still uses it.
Not really. Of course whenever somebody calmly and rationally points out the very obvious flaws and fallacies in Craig's arguments, they are, at best, ignored (as we see on this very page). More often these critics of Craig are blasted as closed-minded or motivated by their preconceived notions of naturalism or, (Craig's own favorite) their desire to sin. It's as if no ad hominem is off limits.
Here's 2 examples. In nearly every debate, Craig argues that resurrection of Jesus is an argument for God's existence. Putting aside Craig's dodgy handling of what constitutes historical fact, even if we assume that a man DID come back from the dead, that would simply be evidence for a miracle, perhaps a supernatural realm. It's not an argument for the God of Christianity any more than it's an argument for a sorcerer's trick. Logically speaking, it's a non-sequitur.
@citizenghosttown well surely IF one agrees Jesus was resurrected then it IS a good piece of evidence for Christianity, therefore God...not 'conclusive' you're right but persuasive to many people. i've never seen him rely on those kind of things though, only when people press him on it. i've only watched him debating, i guess he talks more about specific points of Christianity in his other vids but that's fair isn't it? he's multi-faceted like all of us
"IF one agrees Jesus was resurrected then it IS a good piece of evidence for Christianity, therefore God"
I don't think so. It might be persuasive because of the cultural force of the narrative but it's not at all logical - and Craig claims to be making an argument from formal logic. Let's suppose there's historical evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. Would being raised from the dead mean that you are divine? that what you say is truthful? or moral? Not at all.
Then there's the moral argument. 1) without God, objective morals can't exist. 2) Objective morals DO exist - therefore God exists. Putting aside Craig's failure to provide a basis for either one of those premises, the argument is essentially circular. What does objective morality mean? Craig insists that to be objective moral duties and values HAVE to come from a transcendent higher power. Because God exists we have morality. Because morality exists we have God. Very tidy.
@citizenghosttown he doesn't 'insist' imo, that's his argument--i'm sure he'd be prepared to listen to another explanation for the source of objective morality, such as the theory of forms. which is what i believe btw, so i agree--he's not necessarily correct in everything he says, but we'd have to try to argue that...those aren't logical fallacies, Sam Harris for example doesn't believe in theory of forms (i expect) + he DOES believe in obj.morality, so it's ok to ask how imo?
I agree that one should ask Sam harris his basis for believing in objective morality. He does provide one - but perhaps it's not persuasive. But then, any thinking person subscribes to some moral theory. And to be fair, you can probably find problems with any moral theory. But the one theory that explains absolutely nothing is to say that morality comes from God because it doesn't tell us the first thing about what makes one thing right and another thing wrong.
@citizenghosttown i knew that, it's in Euthyphro isn't it--or you might know it from elsewhere, but it is. however it'd be interesting, if that were the case anyhow, independent from whether it told us how to live or not. & it's a reasonable conclusion though there are possible others of course such as Sam Harris' which was quite weak or mine which i think is better. but WLC puts his case well imo, maybe he is right...who can say. don't you think that's correct?
I'm not sure how I feel about the Sam Harris case - I saw the debate but didn't read his book. His moral theory seems a variation of consequentialism which is always unsatisfying, But he may be onto something. Afterall, we don't need a supernatural being to make objective statements about human health. Why not morality?
Sure, Craig might be right but I don't think his arguments are any good. For me, a moral theory that can't tell us what morality is, isn't worth anything.
@citizenghosttown i haven't read Sam Harris book either but there's about one million books i'll read before that! i think he's got it all wrong unless he just 100% fluffed the debate. i'm shocked though, how can you say it's of no use to know even if there was a 'proof' of the existence of a God? you can't call yourself a philosopher and say that...are you sure you're being fair-minded?,--i suggest perhaps not, tell me what you think
What have I said that isn't fair-minded? I'm simply sharing my view.
A moral theory that can't tell us what morality is, is indeed worthless. Harris struggles with this- that's clear. But Craig, while a smooth enough speaker, does far worse precisely because he DOESN'T struggle with this. He offers nothing more than a crude divine command theory. It's like a parent who instructs a child: "This is good because I say so." It's the one theory that explains absolutely nothing.
@citizenghosttown nope imo, if you don't mind me saying so that's ridiculous--this is not a theory of morality in that sense; he doesn't say "therefore don't murder for example, or we should follow Christianity etc." he's using the fact that [A.] most people believe in moral absolutes of some sort & [B.] no-one can convincingly say how they arise+are binding in materialist philosophy, to propose that [C.] 1 explanation=that arises from a God--big news if true, worth considering
Sure it's worth considering. That's what we're doing.
From your post, A is true and B is true. My point is that not only does C not follow - C doesn't tell us a thing about morality.
Craig claims to offer a basis for objective morality. Yes? But he only argues for what might make something "objective" (a transcendent Being). But he can't tell us what makes it moral or what morality is. And If you can't do that, you haven't provided any basis for objective morality.
@citizenghosttown it's becoming a bit semantical isn't it--i don't know precisely what he said he was going to do or what he meant by it, i take your word for it but to me a 'basis' could mean any nombre de things...let me ask you this then, who do you think is the better philosopher--WLC or Richard Dawkins?
@JeremiahPTTN Fine tuning begs the question and assumes the universe has a purpose Moral objective argument circular reasoning. Ontological incoherent definition of maximal greatness, cosmological causality is incapable of being discussed prior to the universe. The most interesting of them is the Cosmological Craig admitted that the argument fails but still uses it.
@JeremiahPTTN Exactly. Whatever his qualifications are as a Biologist, he is a piss-poor philosopher. Any college student who has taken an introductory logic course could dismantle his arguments.
This has been flagged as spam show
We are multi disciplinary Scientists. Means. Science survived based on "Repeatable Proven System", Experiment of gravity is repeatable ..right ? Momentum is repeatable ? and so on, at any point of time and place on Earth it is repeatable..that's Logical FLESH and BLOOD. Conclusion is made based on the compulsory point of view Repeatable Proven System..do you all really know what Science is all about ? to create "Human" from Primate is also repeatable, read the website in flesh: godsurety . org
Ordeal1000 10 hours ago in playlist The Richard Dawkins v William Lane Craig Saga (past-present)
i watch this clip twice a day everyday
RBMarkus 2 days ago
emailpobox666. You couldn't spank your mama! But she might like it.
jpmortician 5 days ago
that is what i call creative cut, fox should hire you
dnch 6 days ago
Ah, it's mr "2 citations Craig". There's a video up now where somebody calls WLC an "academic midget" and says that he's mostly ignored by philosophers. Good video, I just watched it.:)
winterstellar 1 week ago
"The magic man in the sky done it!" Craig's argument in a nutshell....
Alun53 1 week ago
WLC still QQing? lol.
l337pwnage 1 week ago
Can Any Theist please tell me why Dr Craig still uses the Cosmological Argument when he himself admitted it to be incoherent?
emailpobox666 2 weeks ago
@emailpobox666 Don't think they can you know...I might have an answer for an Atheist though - "He wants to make creationism sound intelligent whilst trying to belittle science".
austinjames666 6 days ago
@austinjames666 I agree. I just lie spanking obnoxious Theists. They parade Craig around with his ridiculous claims and say see we actually have logical reasons to believe in the Supernatural
emailpobox666 6 days ago
@emailpobox666 Yeah, maybe they'll come up with some 'evidence' for Santa or the Tooth Fairy, but I think we all know that the Easter Bunny's real. ;)
austinjames666 6 days ago
Comment removed
AMERICASMANRONPAUL 2 days ago
Comment removed
citizenghosttown 2 weeks ago
So many of you Bum Dawkins soo much! Flip sake if he is that good then he should just debate Craig and flatten him! Then all this crap is over and done with! The fact he doesnt is not down to Craigs arguments are rubbish thats just stupid if there so bad he would get it over an done with!
timmyprestidge 2 weeks ago
@timmyprestidge exactly. why do you think he was so eager to discuss god with weak opponents like pastor ted haggard? or why was his only real opponent also his last? (John Lennox)
synal 2 weeks ago
@synal Im glad there is other people with sence here! i dont understand why athiest spend so long denying the fact Dawkins is scared of craig! anyone can see it!
timmyprestidge 2 weeks ago
@timmyprestidge Scared isn't the right word. As someone who has debated many a time with religious people I hate certain people because they hold one argument (which you can destroy) and cling to it like a leech. As far as im aware Craig just says the same arguments which are already weak and doesn't care if you show its stupidity that is why he won't debate. He is simply to stupid and ignorant.
TheSkeletalBaron 2 weeks ago
@TheSkeletalBaron Haha you are another i see! You are quite wrong im afraid he says the same argurments because no body has proved them wrong! Not one person! i have seen debates he has had with atheist and none have prooved him wrong some have come up with the own very good arguments and they have debate well! But there is know shadow of a dout that dawkins wont debate craig because he cannot proove craig wrong and he knows he will be humiliated!
timmyprestidge 2 weeks ago
@timmyprestidge Well it would be like talking to a brick wall. Sometimes you cannot directly disprove something you have to go around the basis and have a look at how these things add up. For example one cannot disprove god directly but you can show exactly why your religious god in all likely hood does not exist. You should use no instead of know because A) incorrect usage, B) You obviously know none of the true facts and choose to believe a one sided argument.
TheSkeletalBaron 2 weeks ago
@timmyprestidge He wouldn't be humility sometimes peoples arguments are so stupid they destroy themselves on their own and their isn't anything to say to them because they are so stupid and based on idiotic ideas.
TheSkeletalBaron 2 weeks ago
@timmyprestidge
When Dawkins debated Craig back in 2010 do you REALLY think he looked scared? Be serious.
I suppose you can convince yourself of anything but who is actually fooled by such taunting? You sound like a boxing promoter.
Yes, of course Craig would love another chance to share the stage with the more famous Dawkins - anything to advance his ministry. But anyone who saw the previous debate already knows EXACTLY what these 2 think. The rest is all enterainment and promotion.
citizenghosttown 2 weeks ago
@citizenghosttown /nod
ishikawaml 1 week ago
how about craig accepts john loftus' challenge to a debate. and maybe then he can challenge dawkins like a real man.
DoctorFreed 2 weeks ago
Dear Prof. Dawkins, why don't you debate William Lane Craig ?
Dawkins: "The why question is just a silly question!"
Jesrael1986M 2 weeks ago
Dawkins doesn't need to debate Craig. Dawkins' arguments make sense, Craig's don't. End of discussion.
WeAreTheGods1 3 weeks ago
@WeAreTheGods1
Have you read any of Craig's books?
Pe0ads 3 weeks ago
@WeAreTheGods1 Typical cowardly response. Sure he doesn't "need" to, but if there is such a HUGE invitation to debate someone you clearly think he can demolish easily, why not just do it?
Talk about arguments making sense, the argument of avoiding makes far more sense in this situation than him "not needing to", which is one of the worst excuses I have ever read.
doodums19 3 weeks ago
@doodums19 You're probably right on that Dawkins doesn't want to debate Craig either. Craig is good at debating, I think he could "win" debates on many topics no matter, which side he was defending, including the atheism side (if he wanted to do that). That doesn't mean the side he's debating is "right" or true.
WeAreTheGods1 2 weeks ago
@WeAreTheGods1 So then I pose the question, how much does truth actually effect arguments? Sure winning arguments doesn't purely rely on who is right, but normally that is the case when the person you are arguing doesn't understand the topic whole heartedly. I could argue that 1+1=4, but people with knowledge of that will see around it.
If he really is wrong, someone should eventually see through it, but he has been using the same arguments for years already. That says something.
doodums19 2 weeks ago
@doodums19 I see through it: philosophical completely irrelevant mumbo jumbo. I am highly skeptical of anyone who claims to know something about the universe that really can not be known. I'll tell you this: I believe that anyone, absolutely ANYONE who says that "this happens after you die and I know it". Or "X is why life exists" is bullshitting. Ridiculous claims. I'm sort of fine with defending god's existence (whatever, might as well believe in magic), but defending religion is ridiculous.
WeAreTheGods1 2 weeks ago
@doodums19
"if there is such a HUGE invitation to debate someone you clearly think he can demolish easily, why not just do it?"
For the same reason most historians don't bother with Holocaust deniers..
citizenghosttown 2 weeks ago
@WeAreTheGods1
So logically invalid arguments make sense to you?
Birdieupon 2 weeks ago
@Birdieupon No, Craig's invalid arguments don't make sense. He is good for the first 3 statments then he goes outside of space and time.
gregrutz 2 weeks ago
@Birdieupon please give an example rather than spewing baseless claims.
chanrichard911 2 weeks ago
@Birdieupon Many regard Craig as 'the world's leading defender of christian faith'. Define 'many'.
The Oxford don who raised the issue of 'cowardice' didn't accuse Dawkins of it, according to your vid. Re-play it again and listen to it.
guwest2 2 weeks ago
@Birdieupon
And what "logically invalid arguments" do you refer to ?
tellnet 2 weeks ago
@Birdieupon The question coming from the person defending Craig? Hahahaha.
bbammel0003 1 week ago
@WeAreTheGods1 and you are a god
albusai 2 weeks ago
@albusai Why, yes. Yes I am.
WeAreTheGods1 2 weeks ago
@WeAreTheGods1 you're a great example of someone who hasn't done their homework.
jaredgriff92 1 week ago
@jaredgriff92 So sorry to disappoint you.
WeAreTheGods1 1 week ago
@WeAreTheGods1 For you, perhaps.
ishikawaml 1 week ago
@WeAreTheGods1 This is a useless remark. Good day sir.
nathanandnicoleuk 12 hours ago
@emailpobox666 just because they can't be explained by philosophical definitions doesn't mean these arguments fail to prove God.
bobcatallstar7 3 weeks ago
@bobcatallstar7 It makes the argument as a proof of god INCOHERENT and therefore USELESS
emailpobox666 3 weeks ago
@emailpobox666 this is a lie, i read the website and he doesn't discreidt his own argument.
bobcatallstar7 3 weeks ago
@bobcatallstar7 Did you read the debate . Not the BS reasonablefaith website because I can understand Craig wanting to avoid talking about his admission
emailpobox666 3 weeks ago
@emailpobox666 i ALREADY READ the website HE DOESN'T say that.
bobcatallstar7 3 weeks ago
@bobcatallstar7 He says that causality prior to the universe is incoherent. therefore claiming god cause the universe prior to the universe existing is incoherent.
emailpobox666 3 weeks ago
@bobcatallstar7 God's causing the universe cannot be analyzed in terms of current philosophical definitions of causality, then so much the worse for those theories
emailpobox666 3 weeks ago
@bobcatallstar7 He says exactly what i posted 5 hours ago
emailpobox666 3 weeks ago
@emailpobox666 I skimmed through all of his statements. All craig does is presents his arguments and defends them like he always does while debating someone. He never discredits any of his arguments in this debate.
bobcatallstar7 3 weeks ago
@bobcatallstar7 I'll post it AGAIN
emailpobox666 3 weeks ago
The editing in these videos is always awesome in the highest degree, the holy spirit has most certainly blessed you Birdieupon in fantastic ways.
H0tkebab 3 weeks ago
@emailpobox666 Why am i a liar? Answer: Because we are all sinners (Yes Christians included.) Sorry i can't be picture perfect like Jesus is, but mankind was never appointed to be perfect like the Lord. If my moral behavior is weak, then your's is to because you are no better then me. Part 1/2
bobcatallstar7 3 weeks ago
@emailpobox666 oh no it doesn't and you still have yet to provide any evidence he (WLC himself) said that.
bobcatallstar7 3 weeks ago
@emailpobox666 just because there are no definitions for the sentence of "before the universe existed " for philosophy or science, doesn't mean it can't be explained through these 2 subjects. Also, i did read your 2 comments and WLC supposed quoted words does not say that.
bobcatallstar7 3 weeks ago
@bobcatallstar7 How do you make a LOGICAL argument with an incoherent element????
emailpobox666 3 weeks ago
@bobcatallstar7 "WLC supposed quoted words does not say that." Ohh yes it does
emailpobox666 3 weeks ago
@bobcatallstar7 Answer me this. Why are all theists such as yourself Liars?Your weak excuse for moral behavior is always failing you. Lie cheat steal then ask for forgiveness.
emailpobox666 3 weeks ago
@emailpobox666 "lie cheat steal then ask for forgiveness" what you are referring to is called a religious hypocrite. Jesus said "if you love me then you will keep my commandments" so no, you cant just do anything you want then just ask for forgiveness later. Christianity doesn't teach such a thing. Real Christians like myself try our hardest not to break the commandments.
bobcatallstar7 3 weeks ago
@bobcatallstar7 You are lying about the quote. I have run into theists over and over who lie deceive edit censor to defend their nonsense god. You are guilty of the lying saying that The quote I posted was not made by Craig> If anyone cares to look it up Google Quentin Smith vs Craig 1996 Its the first result
emailpobox666 3 weeks ago
@emailpobox666 If you run into people like that, then they are doing nothing more then lying to you. If you really believe and love God then you won't break his commandments. Those people you refer to are called false religious hypocrites. You are doing nothing more then putting words into Dr. Craig's mouth I have watched some of his debates and he never discredits his own argument.
bobcatallstar7 3 weeks ago
@bobcatallstar7 "You are doing nothing more then putting words into Dr. Craig's mouth I have watched some of his debates and he never discredits his own argument. Be Intellectually lazy and dishonest OR ACTUALLY READ THE DEBATE. It's your Choice.
emailpobox666 3 weeks ago
@emailpobox666 actually I HAVE READ THE DEBATE and he backs up his arguments. HE DOESN'T DISCREDIT THEM.
bobcatallstar7 3 weeks ago
@bobcatallstar7 If the claim that God caused the Big Bang cannot be analyzed in terms of extant definitions of causality, then God cannot have caused the Big Bang.
emailpobox666 3 weeks ago
@bobcatallstar7 Do I have to repost Craig s response again?
emailpobox666 3 weeks ago
@bobcatallstar7 He says that there are no definitions of causality that make the statement that god caused/ created the universe
emailpobox666 3 weeks ago
@bobcatallstar7 What he does say is Intuition should be substituted for logic . Funny thing is he's touting this as a logical argument for god. You see nothing wrong with this???
emailpobox666 3 weeks ago
@bobcatallstar7William Lane Craig " If the claim that God caused the Big Bang cannot be analyzed in terms of extant definitions of causality, then God cannot have caused the Big Bang. I see no reason to think that this premise is true. In general, arguments to the effect that some intuitively intelligible notion can't be analyzed in terms of certain philosophical theories should make us suspect the adequacy of those theories rather than reject the common sense notion.
emailpobox666 3 weeks ago
@bobcatallstar7 WLC Continued "The idea that God caused the universe is intuitively intelligible. A cause is, loosely speaking, something which produces something else and in terms of which the thing that is produced can be explained. This notion certainly applies to God's causing the universe. If God's causing the universe cannot be analyzed in terms of current philosophical definitions of causality, then so much the worse for those theories!
emailpobox666 3 weeks ago
@bobcatallstar7 You Said "WLC supposed quoted words does not say that.' THIS IS A LIE
emailpobox666 3 weeks ago
@emailpobox666 When i said that i meant there is no evidence for Craig actually saying that. I have watched debates of his, and he doesn't say those quoted words anywhere.
bobcatallstar7 3 weeks ago
@bobcatallstar7 And I said GOOGLE Quentin Smith vs Craig 1996. You actually have to READ the debate
emailpobox666 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bobcatallstar7 It's the first result . then look at The Atheistic Point-of-View Dr. Craig's Rebuttal part of the debate
emailpobox666 3 weeks ago
What a childish video.
AntitheticMe 3 weeks ago
@emailpobox666 he is basically saying that the only way this argument couldn't work is if God creating the universe can't be explained from a philosopihical stand point. But it can be explained through philosophy so therefore, the argument is still considered to be a good one.
bobcatallstar7 3 weeks ago
@bobcatallstar7 No there are no definitions philosophical or scientific that make causality coherent "before" the universe existed. If you actually read it he said COMMON SENSE and INTUITION were substitutes for Logic and Reason. LOL
emailpobox666 3 weeks ago
Richard Dawkins only trapped himself in a corner with the reasons why he wont debate William Lane Craig. He simply shot himself in the foot with that one lol
marineboy090 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@marineboy090
"Richard Dawkins only trapped himself in a corner with the reasons why he wont debate William Lane Craig. He simply shot himself in the foot with that one"
How so? Obviously Dawkins never said he'd debate ONLY clergy. But he did say he can't be bothered with creationists - and Craig certainly is one.
If anything, Dawkins contradicted himself in this way: He DID eventually debate Craig. That's the irony of this video.
citizenghosttown 3 weeks ago
@citizenghosttown
"But he did say he can't be bothered with creationists - and Craig certainly is one."
Dawkins said intelligent design is a form of creationism, yet he debated proponents of that.
UncannyRicardo 2 weeks ago
@UncannyRicardo
"Dawkins said intelligent design is a form of creationism, yet he debated proponents of that"
Yup. Including Craig.
Still, there's a pretty big difference between someone who thinks intelligent design is a plausible (if unfalsifiable) hypothesis (Lennox, Mcgrath etc.) and someone for whom creationism is a religious dogma and who, as a matter of doctrine, rejects any science inconsistent with God's revealed Truth in Scripture. That would be Craig.
citizenghosttown 2 weeks ago
@citizenghosttown
Well then maybe that distinction should be made by Dawkins cause until then it seems like he did go against his word if he doesn't correct that.
UncannyRicardo 2 weeks ago
@UncannyRicardo
Dawkins DID go against his word - when he debated Craig. That's the irony here.
citizenghosttown 2 weeks ago
@emailpobox666 first off craig didn't use any of his own personal arguments when he refuted dawkins. Secondly i suggest you show this supposed rebuttal that goes against Craigs arguments to WLC himself, i am sure he can back up his arguments and explain to you why your rebuttal doesn't work.
bobcatallstar7 3 weeks ago
@bobcatallstar7 WLC "If the claim that God caused the Big Bang cannot be analyzed in terms of extant definitions of causality, then God cannot have caused the Big Bang. I see no reason to think that this premise is true. In general, arguments to the effect that some intuitively intelligible notion can't be analyzed in terms of certain philosophical theories should make us suspect the adequacy of those theories rather than reject the common sense notion.
emailpobox666 3 weeks ago
@bobcatallstar7 WLC Continued "The idea that God caused the universe is intuitively intelligible. A cause is, loosely speaking, something which produces something else and in terms of which the thing that is produced can be explained. This notion certainly applies to God's causing the universe. If God's causing the universe cannot be analyzed in terms of current philosophical definitions of causality, then so much the worse for those theories!Quentin Smth Vs Craig 1996
emailpobox666 3 weeks ago
Dawkins doesn't debate Craig because WLC has already refuted every argument dawkins gives in his book "The God Delusion." So even if they did debate dawkins wouldn't have anything to say against the existence of God because all of his arguments have already been well refuted.
bobcatallstar7 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bobcatallstar7 Fine tuning begs the question and assumes the universe has a purpose Moral objective argument circular reasoning. Ontological incoherent definition of maximal greatness, cosmological causality is incapable of being discussed prior to the universe. The most interesting of them is the Cosmological Craig admitted that the argument fails but still uses it.
emailpobox666 3 weeks ago
@bobcatallstar7 What do you call a man you admits an argument is incoherent yet still parades it around as a Logical argument for God's existence?
emailpobox666 3 weeks ago
@bobcatallstar7 What do you cal a man who said that evidence against his religion should be ignored in favor of the witness of the holy spirit?
emailpobox666 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"one what ever begins to exists has a cause", except god.
WLC is an asshole, "the Canaanite deserved it", next lets proceed to atheists not being able to disprove god therefore he exists....
pandorachild 3 weeks ago in playlist The Richard Dawkins v William Lane Craig Saga (past-present)
This is typical of just abot all the Craig videos I've seen. They show Craig in all his glory; his opponents are shown in highly edited grainy clips, so Craig can easily demolish his strawmen opponents. He also constantly misstates his opponents words. I've only seen one actual unedited debate of his with Sam Harris, who more than held his own. Also if you say anything critical about Craig you are banned from future comments. I only wish George Carlin were still alive. He would destroy Craig!
steveinchelsea 1 month ago
@steveinchelsea
"I've only seen one actual unedited debate of his with Sam Harris, who more than held his own."
Bit of a lazy sod then aren't you? There's HUNDREDS of full videos out there.
Birdieupon 3 weeks ago in playlist william lane craig
@Birdieupon Oh golly gee, maybe I am, ignorant too, don't know what a sod is - is that like the old sod ? In any case help me out and give me a link to just one of those videos. And I do know whynDawkins' refuses to debate Craig. As he says it's like asking a geologist to debate a flat earth proponent, or an obstetrician to debate someone who believes that babies are delivered by storks. It's a travesty for one who doesn't believe in evolution to actually have "Dr." in front of his name.
steveinchelsea 3 weeks ago
@steveinchelsea thumbs up
clearviewuk 3 weeks ago
William Craig is a PhD in non existing topics, specializing in invisible creatures on the sky. Dawkinks on the other side is a respected scientist and educator, he has nothing in common with Craig. Dawkins is also a likely future Nobel Prize winner for his contributions to science and Craig, well he hopefully finds better logical arguments then a priori ones. Mr Craig posses a fine intellect though, I hope somebody will give him a book with introduction to Quantum Mechanic.
naturalordermage 1 month ago
@naturalordermage
"William Craig is a PhD in non existing topics"
Philosophy is a non existent topic? Tell that to AC Grayling, Daniel Dennett and Peter Singer, lol.
"Dawkinks on the other side is a respected scientist and educator"
Please name a significant scientific discovery Dawkins has made? You'll find at most he's published articles about baby chicks and memes - the latter of which failed and its journal shut down in 2005.
Birdieupon 1 month ago
@Birdieupon And what of Craig. Please don't say he has more published works because his combined publications are only a small fraction of the sales from one of Dawkins books. it is also my understanding that Craig's work is extremely rarely cited in other publications. citation is a objective gauge of an author's works depth and significance
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666
He's got more scholarly material published. You are aware Dawkins is a popularizer, aren't you? The hint is in the title PUBLIC Understanding of Science.
Birdieupon 3 weeks ago in playlist william lane craig
@Birdieupon He's a hack. regurgitating old ideas
emailpobox666 3 weeks ago
@Birdieupon Did you check out the debate with Quentin Smith?
emailpobox666 3 weeks ago
@Birdieupon
So you say "What significant scientific discovery did he make" and then you say "Don't mention the significant scientific discovery he made, which is the idea of Meme's and the study of which is called Memetics" :-)
kleykenb 4 weeks ago
@kleykenb
Please tell me you're joking. Memetics is a dead horse. There is no science to it at all. Either that or you've caught the idiot meme, in which case I take that back ;-)
Birdieupon 3 weeks ago in playlist william lane craig
You don't get science. Memetics is certainly not a dead horse. If anything it made people think about how culture comes to be and is passed on in a very interesting way which could lead, to new even more interesting ideas. Which could then lead to ... E=MC2. Think of Science as Brain Storming. Think of Newton, Einstein, Hawkings ... Witten. No Newton, No E=MC2. Yet Newton's findings were clearly 'unfinished'.
kleykenb 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
kleykenb 3 weeks ago
Now the Bible : the book that still makes SOME people say the Earth is the center of everything. That STILL makes people date 'creation' of Earth back to about 6 to 10 Centuries ago. The book that STILL makes people feel superior to all other creatures on this gathering of Sun-dust AND superior to everybody of a different opinion. Now that's THE Dead Horse. And it's the poor Dead Horse WLC is riding on. WLC is a Faith Healer. Except, nobody is getting better from it. Except him.
kleykenb 3 weeks ago
@Birdieupon What was his phd topic? The faculty was philosophy but what was his subject matter?
Given that Dawkins did debate William Lane Craig at Ciudad del Ideas and given the pathetic hissy fit that Craig threw at the end where he blamed the audience for his own failure; what is your point?
jamesrands 4 weeks ago
@Birdieupon Well att least Dawkins doesn't believe in talking snakes and that the sun stopped in the middle of a sky so a battle could be completed.
steveinchelsea 3 weeks ago
@steveinchelsea you do realize that around the world, ancient records show that there was a missing day right? just thought you might wanna research that on your spare time..
marineboy090 3 weeks ago
@naturalordermage Have you ever read Dawkins (I mean his books, not just watched his videos)? Dawkins is a very poor thinking. He appeals to the friendly audience but cannot hold his own with heavy-weight opposition. Please forgive me, but what has Dawkins discovered that would be worthy of a nobel prize? If you reject a priori then you can not know anything without experience (ie, Hume). This creates grave issues. How do you "experience" logic? Re: "quantum mechanics"- no unification, etc.
BarryGCarpenter 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BarryGCarpenter Craig is poor thinking .Fine tuning begs the question and assumes the universe has a purpose objective Moral argument circular reasoning. Ontological incoherent definition of maximal greatness, cosmological causality is incapable of being discussed prior to the universe. The most interesting of them is the Cosmological Craig admitted that the argument fails but still uses it.
emailpobox666 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BarryGCarpenter Craig is poor thinking .Fine tuning begs the question and assumes the universe has a purpose objective Moral argument circular reasoning. Ontological incoherent definition of maximal greatness, cosmological causality is incapable of being discussed prior to the universe. The most interesting of them is the Cosmological Craig admitted that the argument fails but still uses it.
emailpobox666 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BarryGCarpenter Craig is poor thinking .Fine tuning begs the question and assumes the universe has a purpose objective Moral argument circular reasoning. Ontological incoherent definition of maximal greatness, cosmological causality is incapable of being discussed prior to the universe. The most interesting of them is the Cosmological Craig admitted that the argument fails but still uses it.
emailpobox666 3 weeks ago
Oh this video proves everything WLC says is correct. Dawkins is a coward, and all of WLC arguements are true and rock solid with no flaws whatsoever. Christianity is the one true religion. He has fancy degrees, so he must be correct, there can be no way most of what he is saying is utter nonsense. If someone can't debate him at his level, then that makes him correct. Praise the Lord, I am converted, I am now a sheep, Bahh bahh bahh bahh bahh!!!
paulcorda 1 month ago
@paulcorda No flaws? WLC repeadetly tries to shift the burden of proof in his arguments. That's an elementary flaw right there.
ivar3145 1 month ago
@ivar3145 Let's not forget the Quentin Smith Craig debate in 1996 where Craig admitted the Cosmological Argument is incoherent
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666
citation please?
Birdieupon 1 month ago
@Birdieupon Quentin Smith vs Craig 1996. Pay attention to Craig's rebuttal
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@Birdieupon Goggle it it's the first result. You'll have to read it .Sorry no YT video
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@ivar3145 - sorry if you missed the sarcasm. I was joking in that post. I think WLC may be a skilled debater, but it does not make any of what he takes about any less BS. Personally, he annoys the hell out of me, with his smug smile when he talks and his canned use of articulations in his voice and pre-packaged sound to his thoughts. He sounds very canned to me, like a big sales pitch, it does not feel genuine at all.
paulcorda 1 month ago
@paulcorda
"He has fancy degrees, so he must be correct"
Erm, actually, the point of his showing his qualifications is to disprove Dawkins' claim that he's merely a "professional debater". Ironically, it is Dawkins who's using a reverse appeal to authority by claiming Craig is not qualified enough.
Some say sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, but I wouldn't even claim your remarks to be wit of any kind.
Birdieupon 1 month ago
@Birdieupon - Before I start with you, I would like to know a few things. I usually assume that ppl who defend craig are christians, am I correct? Do you agree with his beliefs? The other defenders are usually ppl who are working toward some sort of degree or PhD. Which one if any are you? if not, then what is your stance?
As for the wit thing, get over yourself. I was having fun. Sarcasm can be a great tool to show how idiotic some ppls beliefs can be. I'll happily dance though, if you like.
paulcorda 1 month ago
@paulcorda
Why do my beliefs matter? It makes no difference to the arguments and evidence, which is supposedly what you care about?
"Sarcasm can be a great tool to show how idiotic some ppls beliefs can be."
Yes... important word "can".
Birdieupon 3 weeks ago in playlist william lane craig
@Birdieupon - Ok fine, but all this arguing, debating is almost futile. Either what WLC is proposing is true or not. My main point I make which ppl can't seem to get in these threads is this. If what WLC believes is untrue, then almost all of what he says is a load of BS. It would not matter how well he could contruct his arguements, or what degrees he has. I am on the side that I think it is untrue, and that he is like a dog chasing his tail, going nowhere.
paulcorda 3 weeks ago
@Birdieupon - BTW, why are you defending him? and yes beliefs do matter, when ppl believe crazy shit, they do crazy things, and other people can suffer for it. examples-
911, crusades, honour killing, sacrificing virgins to gods, inquisitions, sharia law, and on and on and on... WLC is a Christian, and he does what he does in defense of it. Therefore, I need to believe that, I am a sinner and need to repent, Jesus was born of a virgin, rose from the dead, theres a heaven and hell, cont......
paulcorda 3 weeks ago
@Birdieupon - cont... that I need to be saved (Whatever that means) that Christianity is the only way, etc.. etc... Again if all this is untrue, then I do not care what degrees he has, how well he can contruct his arguements. It would not prove anything. He is entitled to his beliefs, that is fine, but I can't stand all the ppl on here worshiping him like he is some genius. If I am wrong (which I believe is highly unlikely) then I will gladly admit it.
paulcorda 3 weeks ago
@Birdieupon - What, are you through with responding?
paulcorda 3 weeks ago
I believe in God and I think that I'm perfectly sane in doing so.
But I do however thing I'm delusional...
Theres 424 like and 380 dislikes
But somehow... That dislike bar seems slightly larger.
I'm delusional! o_O
DAWKINS! DEBATE DR. WLC RIGHT MEOW!
ThatBoyUNeed2Know 1 month ago
So if everything that begins to exist has a cause does that mean god does or doesn't exist?
ptango101 1 month ago
I maintain that God is getting weaker and therefore must be subject to the same laws of entropy that the rest of the universe is subject to, ergo he is not onmipotent and as such should not be considered a God. Look at the evidence - 6500 yrs ago he was able to to create the universe. 2000 yrs ago he could raise people from the dead, walk on water and turn water into wine. Today he is forming some clouds and tortilla chips into images of himself and his son Jesus Christ.
jontibloom 1 month ago
to make wine. He raised the dead by sucking their dicks and and they rose up. But since they were zombies with no blood flowing, went limp. Ever since then he has tried to rise again but alas to no avail. Maybe next year.
stevjen1 1 month ago
@jontibloom Wrong, you mean 6500 years ago God created the Universe and in the garage had the pyramids which were 8500 years old. (thats why their 15,000 years old) so he placed them around his creation. Whiteants were put in a cloud because Noah couldn't take them on his boat. God then froze the lakes so he could walk on it. He then suspended the laws of physics and pulled compounds, potassium sorbet, chemicals C6H12O6 → 2C2H5OH + 2CO2, sugar molecules and enzymes out of his ass
stevjen1 1 month ago
@jontibloom I wish I could thumbs up this comment. :)
FrankLightheart 1 month ago
William Craigs Arguments are completely flawed in that he always assumes that God creating the universe is more likely then without him. All of his arguments are based on this.
Chronoecho 1 month ago
This video is such a poor hodgepodge, you even misquoted WLC in this video. Silly.
dewpoint88 1 month ago
Any engagment with WLC would neither be scholarly nor a discussion of views.
William Lane Craig has already said that even if he was presented with proof that his beliefs were false, he would still believe in them.
With an attitude like that, any discussion with WLC would be a total waste of time.
Genechanger 1 month ago
@Genechanger It would be a waste of time in converting him, but not in the lay person, which is what the audience largely is. Therefore, the argument should go on, not to convince the debater, but the viewers, making the discussion easily worthwhile.
lopikgdjh 1 month ago
@metalnecromancer i'm not affirming P1 to be false. i'm simply saying that craig's arguments do not demonstrate it to be true. for you to demonstrate P1 (as you have just stated it) to be true, you must *demonstrate* that everything that is actual (and once was not actual) was caused to be actual by some actuality, not simply *assert* it, and claim that it is obvious. related - can you give me an example of something that is actual that was caused by an actuality?
DoctorFreed 1 month ago
the bible puts god in such a low place. god the father get's jealous, angry, happy, sad, etc., he sound very human. the jesus myth is somewhat a copy of the buddah meets solar dieties...
virgilxoxo1 1 month ago in playlist The Richard Dawkins v William Lane Craig Saga (past-present)
Dawkins basicaly says I will only take on Catholic high ranking clergy lol. Clergy don't exactly always make good philosophers, their main job is governing the workings of the church. Dawkins is hiding from people who would destroy his arguments.
JeremiahPTTN 1 month ago in playlist The Richard Dawkins v William Lane Craig Saga (past-present)
@JeremiahPTTN Craig's argument are nonsense
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666 Craig has some great arguments, discounting everything he says as "nonesense" only shows your inability to even look at anything that disagrees with whatever your personal belief or lack of belief system is. People are so quick to get offensive and be offended on such debates that could be done with a much friendlier mood. There are brilliant minds on both sides.
JeremiahPTTN 1 month ago
@JeremiahPTTN Fine tuning begs the question and assumes the universe has a purpose Moral objective argument circular reasoning. Ontological incoherent definition of maximal greatness, cosmological causality is incapable of being discussed prior to the universe. The most interesting of them is the Cosmological Craig admitted that the argument fails but still uses it.
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@JeremiahPTTN
"Craig has some great arguments"
Not really. Of course whenever somebody calmly and rationally points out the very obvious flaws and fallacies in Craig's arguments, they are, at best, ignored (as we see on this very page). More often these critics of Craig are blasted as closed-minded or motivated by their preconceived notions of naturalism or, (Craig's own favorite) their desire to sin. It's as if no ad hominem is off limits.
So much for friendly and substantive debate.
citizenghosttown 1 month ago
@citizenghosttown why don't you point 1 out to show us an example?
LucyHarcarty 1 month ago in playlist The Richard Dawkins v William Lane Craig Saga (past-present)
@LucyHarcarty
Here's 2 examples. In nearly every debate, Craig argues that resurrection of Jesus is an argument for God's existence. Putting aside Craig's dodgy handling of what constitutes historical fact, even if we assume that a man DID come back from the dead, that would simply be evidence for a miracle, perhaps a supernatural realm. It's not an argument for the God of Christianity any more than it's an argument for a sorcerer's trick. Logically speaking, it's a non-sequitur.
citizenghosttown 1 month ago
@citizenghosttown well surely IF one agrees Jesus was resurrected then it IS a good piece of evidence for Christianity, therefore God...not 'conclusive' you're right but persuasive to many people. i've never seen him rely on those kind of things though, only when people press him on it. i've only watched him debating, i guess he talks more about specific points of Christianity in his other vids but that's fair isn't it? he's multi-faceted like all of us
LucyHarcarty 1 month ago
@LucyHarcarty
"IF one agrees Jesus was resurrected then it IS a good piece of evidence for Christianity, therefore God"
I don't think so. It might be persuasive because of the cultural force of the narrative but it's not at all logical - and Craig claims to be making an argument from formal logic. Let's suppose there's historical evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. Would being raised from the dead mean that you are divine? that what you say is truthful? or moral? Not at all.
citizenghosttown 1 month ago
@LucyHarcarty
Then there's the moral argument. 1) without God, objective morals can't exist. 2) Objective morals DO exist - therefore God exists. Putting aside Craig's failure to provide a basis for either one of those premises, the argument is essentially circular. What does objective morality mean? Craig insists that to be objective moral duties and values HAVE to come from a transcendent higher power. Because God exists we have morality. Because morality exists we have God. Very tidy.
citizenghosttown 1 month ago
@citizenghosttown he doesn't 'insist' imo, that's his argument--i'm sure he'd be prepared to listen to another explanation for the source of objective morality, such as the theory of forms. which is what i believe btw, so i agree--he's not necessarily correct in everything he says, but we'd have to try to argue that...those aren't logical fallacies, Sam Harris for example doesn't believe in theory of forms (i expect) + he DOES believe in obj.morality, so it's ok to ask how imo?
LucyHarcarty 1 month ago
@LucyHarcarty
I agree that one should ask Sam harris his basis for believing in objective morality. He does provide one - but perhaps it's not persuasive. But then, any thinking person subscribes to some moral theory. And to be fair, you can probably find problems with any moral theory. But the one theory that explains absolutely nothing is to say that morality comes from God because it doesn't tell us the first thing about what makes one thing right and another thing wrong.
citizenghosttown 1 month ago
@citizenghosttown i knew that, it's in Euthyphro isn't it--or you might know it from elsewhere, but it is. however it'd be interesting, if that were the case anyhow, independent from whether it told us how to live or not. & it's a reasonable conclusion though there are possible others of course such as Sam Harris' which was quite weak or mine which i think is better. but WLC puts his case well imo, maybe he is right...who can say. don't you think that's correct?
LucyHarcarty 1 month ago
@LucyHarcarty
I'm not sure how I feel about the Sam Harris case - I saw the debate but didn't read his book. His moral theory seems a variation of consequentialism which is always unsatisfying, But he may be onto something. Afterall, we don't need a supernatural being to make objective statements about human health. Why not morality?
Sure, Craig might be right but I don't think his arguments are any good. For me, a moral theory that can't tell us what morality is, isn't worth anything.
citizenghosttown 1 month ago
@citizenghosttown i haven't read Sam Harris book either but there's about one million books i'll read before that! i think he's got it all wrong unless he just 100% fluffed the debate. i'm shocked though, how can you say it's of no use to know even if there was a 'proof' of the existence of a God? you can't call yourself a philosopher and say that...are you sure you're being fair-minded?,--i suggest perhaps not, tell me what you think
LucyHarcarty 1 month ago
@LucyHarcarty
What have I said that isn't fair-minded? I'm simply sharing my view.
A moral theory that can't tell us what morality is, is indeed worthless. Harris struggles with this- that's clear. But Craig, while a smooth enough speaker, does far worse precisely because he DOESN'T struggle with this. He offers nothing more than a crude divine command theory. It's like a parent who instructs a child: "This is good because I say so." It's the one theory that explains absolutely nothing.
citizenghosttown 1 month ago
@citizenghosttown nope imo, if you don't mind me saying so that's ridiculous--this is not a theory of morality in that sense; he doesn't say "therefore don't murder for example, or we should follow Christianity etc." he's using the fact that [A.] most people believe in moral absolutes of some sort & [B.] no-one can convincingly say how they arise+are binding in materialist philosophy, to propose that [C.] 1 explanation=that arises from a God--big news if true, worth considering
LucyHarcarty 1 month ago
@LucyHarcarty
Sure it's worth considering. That's what we're doing.
From your post, A is true and B is true. My point is that not only does C not follow - C doesn't tell us a thing about morality.
Craig claims to offer a basis for objective morality. Yes? But he only argues for what might make something "objective" (a transcendent Being). But he can't tell us what makes it moral or what morality is. And If you can't do that, you haven't provided any basis for objective morality.
citizenghosttown 1 month ago
@citizenghosttown it's becoming a bit semantical isn't it--i don't know precisely what he said he was going to do or what he meant by it, i take your word for it but to me a 'basis' could mean any nombre de things...let me ask you this then, who do you think is the better philosopher--WLC or Richard Dawkins?
LucyHarcarty 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LucyHarcarty
"who do you think is the better philosopher--WLC or Richard Dawkins?"
That's a bit of a loaded question don't you think? After all, Richard Dawkins isn't a philosopher at all.
citizenghosttown 1 month ago
@JeremiahPTTN Fine tuning begs the question and assumes the universe has a purpose Moral objective argument circular reasoning. Ontological incoherent definition of maximal greatness, cosmological causality is incapable of being discussed prior to the universe. The most interesting of them is the Cosmological Craig admitted that the argument fails but still uses it.
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@JeremiahPTTN Exactly. Whatever his qualifications are as a Biologist, he is a piss-poor philosopher. Any college student who has taken an introductory logic course could dismantle his arguments.
NoorNE 1 month ago
@NoorNE
"Any college student who has taken an introductory logic course could dismantle his arguments"
I assume you're talking about William Lane Craig.
citizenghosttown 1 month ago