DOES GOD EXIST? William Lane Craig vs Antony Flew (HQ) 8/11

[REDRAGON12345]

WIlliam Craig is simply brilliant.

[TruthSeekingOne]

Wow Craig is very impressive in this segment here, his words constructed together so well they seem to be read from a book.

[quranresponse]

@TruthSeekingOne Quran:

(Surah-2-the cow-vs-186)

And when my servants ask you concerning me, then surely I am very near; I answer the prayer of suppliant when he calls on me, so they should answer my call and believe in me that they may walk in the right way.

[AgeOfReasonXXI]

once again Craig shifted the burden of proof on his opponent. Instead of prooving his speculations that Molinism is correct, Craig insisted Flew should prove Aquinas's "theory". what a hack

[quranresponse]

@AgeOfReasonXXI Quran:

(Surah-4-the women-vs-110)

And whoever does evil or acts unjustly to his soul, then asks forgiveness of Allah, he shall find Allah forgiven, merciful.

111- And whoever commits a sin, he only commits it against his soul; and Allah is knowing, wise.

112- And whoever commits a fault or a sin, then accuses of it one innocent, he indeed takes upon himself the burden of a calumny and a manifest sin.

[VerseInfinitum]

Luis Molina, St. Thomas Aquinas and even Baruch Spinoza had their own concept of the nature of God and our relations with the divine. What I find strange is that there's a worldwide uniformed acceptance of the science. However, there's a multitude of denominations of Judaism, Christianity and Islam that don't agree with all of the specifics of their faith. Not to mention since God is an all encompassing deity, why no agreement between all of the world's religious faiths is possible?

[Purushadasa]

@lukeism2 That is a series of your silly personal beliefs for which you have failed to provide any evidence whatsoever. That is why the world rejects them as mere personal beliefs, which are useless, irrational, illogical, and unscientific.

In reality, there is no logical contradiction between God's perfect foreknowledge and man's free will. The world is waiting for the feeble-minded atheist to present some evidence to the contrary, but so far, he has FAILED to do so.

atheist total fail

[firefloat22]

Religions are inherited or accepted emotionally. Both are erroneous paths in the search for truth. Google Doe’s Account.

[Purushadasa]

A symphony conductor knows the musical score from beginning to end: He has foreknowledge of how the song that he is conducting sounds.

His foreknowledge doesn't preclude the free will of any of the musicians that he conducts with their various instruments, nor does their free will preclude his foreknowledge, or his existence.

God is like a conductor for the "symphony" of life, and we are all like free-willed musicians, each of us playing our own part freely, yet under His ultimate guidance.

[lizazoon]

@Purushadasa The difference being, that the conductor does not know, which one of the musicians is going to play false. But god knows the outcome of our actions beforehand. If you believe that we are just puppets.

[Purushadasa]

@lizazoon You have failed to provide any evidence for your personal belief that the conductor doesn't know which musician plays "false."

In fact, a good conductor is very familiar with the playing styles, virtues, and faults of all his musicians.

atheist total fail

[lizazoon]

@Purushadasa :You intentionally change my words to fit your biased, bigoted ideas.

[lukeism2]

@Purushadasa dude... omniscience just killed your argument.. if there is omniscience, there is no free will.. if we can fool god.. he is not god

[joe018687645]

One picks christianity or islam or bhudism by faith. He/she 1st will become a deist through reason and what science leads them to believe. Please dont confuse Theism with Christianity. One more fact, and i will provide proof later....Majority of worlds scientists are Theists! FACT!

[lizazoon]

@joe018687645  In a christianity dominated society, scientists are most christians. In a moslem society, the scientists are mostly moslems. Did you see what happens when religion looses it`s grip on society ? In Western countries most scientists are not believers.

[slartibartfats]

Dr Craig is correct that a lion is not a moral being whereas humans are but this does not entail that there must be an external arbiter. It is a matter of brain power: humans know what they do whereas most other animals do not have that capacity.

[infinity730]

Nope, sorry, if you cannot demonstrate your claim objectively, you cannot claim something to exist. Therefore the claim of a god or gods existence is without merit, and anyone's opinion, including yours, is stricken mute.

[95TurboSol]

Well that counts agaist your own view, Your answer to your own question two posts above is without marit and stricken mute.

[infinity730]

I can demonstrate the lack of evidence for the existence of a god.

It's not an opinion, it's logic.

[95TurboSol]

And I can demonstrate the evidence for the existence of God.

Its not an opinion its logic.

[infinity730]

"And I can demonstrate the evidence"

Objective "evidence" for the existence of a god is non-existent.

Sorry. If you say otherwise, present your evidence and do it according to the scientific method.

[95TurboSol]

Oh you define evidence as science, how convenient given the fact that its not a scientific question lol, Gods existence is a question of philosophy whos premises are supported by science.

[infinity730]

"its not a scientific question"

It is when you say you can present evidence.

Philosophy occurs in the mind, science explains reality.

If make the claim "my god is real", when I ask you for evidence, you can't just argue the supernatural into existence. By definition, the supernatural doesn't exist. You start from a losing position.

[95TurboSol]

"Philosophy occurs in the mind, science explains reality"

Thats just silly, without philosophy science couldn't explain anything at all, it takes the mind and philosophy first before you even do science lol.

[infinity730]

Also, I am not the one making a positive claim.

Do you need to have an opinion of fairies or dragons to show how they don't exist?

[95TurboSol]

"Q Does god exist?

A No."

That is a positive claim to knowledge, not just claiming lack of evidence.

[infinity730]

"That is a positive claim"

No, it's the rejection of a positive claim.

[95TurboSol]

Saying God does not exist is a claim to knoweldge.

[infinity730]

Person1: God exists (making a claim)

Person2: No it doesn't (rejecting a claim)

Simple logic is lost on people like you.

[95TurboSol]

And why would you reject a claim if you didn't know somthing about that claim, namly that its false. The very rejection is a claim to knowledge, or else why would you reject it!?

[infinity730]

No I have to know that fairies, dragons, bigfoot etc. don't exist to reject the claim of it's existence? This question is rhetorical, of course I don't have to. All I need is a grasp on reality to reject those claims. You can;t prove a negative, but you can use logical discourse to reject a positive claim.

[infinity730]

"Do* i have to know.."

[p3rs0nan0ngrata]

@infinity730

1. We do know that fairies etc do not exist. We have evidence of their non-existence. This evidence comes from fictional tales in which they were conjured.

2. It is basic philosophy 101 that you can prove a negative, empirically and logically. I can prove to myself, and anyone in my room that there is not a perpetually visible, tangible, 5 legged pink unicorn humping a dormouse on my bed. Also,

p > q

~q

: ~p

[p3rs0nan0ngrata]

@infinity730

God does not exist (making a claim)

Yes, he does (rejecting a claim)

[infinity730]

One must first assert the existence of something, for a person to reject that claim.

"We do know that fairies etc do not exist"

No, we don't. We disbelieve the claim of the existence of fairies. Just like we don't "know" that a god doesn't exist, but we can assert that a god doesn't exist based on the evidence we find, or lack thereof.

"fictional tales in which they were conjured"

Exactly like religious myths.

[p3rs0nan0ngrata]

@infinity730

"One must first assert the existence of something, for a person to reject that claim."

However, one can assert the existence of something in riposte to some other assertion. For instance, the existence of a singularity in riposte to the assertion of an infinite universe

The evidence for the non-existence of fairies etc lies in their improbability. Fairies are posited to exist physically within the universe, in our world, so our inability to find them suggests their improbability

[infinity730]

"existence of something in riposte to some other assertion"

My assertion is a naturalistic force, not a personal being, or an anthropomorphic father figure. It is Spinoza, or Einstein's "god".

[p3rs0nan0ngrata]

Well, I'm not an authority on Spinoza's or Einstein's "god" (though I am quite sure they were not 'naturalists', which would rule out any sort of causal force or being), so I won't pretend to address their positions.

[p3rs0nan0ngrata]

@infinity730

God, however, is posited as existing beyond the universe, so absence of evidence of His physical existence does not make His existence improbable.

As to your final point, the falsity of religion is insufficient to conclude the non-existence of God.

[infinity730]

"is posited as existing beyond the universe"

Yet, is supposed to have created the earth and have a constant hand at work.

This god you speak of cannot be one of the major religions. It is a deistic god.

[p3rs0nan0ngrata]

I'm not sure how 'existing beyond the universe' is contravened by 'have a constant hand at work'.

If I may use an analogy, a car mechanic does not exist within a car. Yet (s)he is able to fix a broken car, and even does so from outside the car. Likewise, an artist does not exist within the art, yet still the art is created, and still the art can be refined at the artist's will.

As to religion, I am convinced that religion is not the way to go. To me, religion is largely a political endeavour.

[infinity730]

the car and the painting are in the same universe...

god is supposedly outside the universe...

Universe IS everything that exists, if anything is posited to be "outside" it, then it cannot exist by definition. Same goes with so-called supernatural events, they are also non-existent by definition, because everything we observe is based on natural forces.

"Every mystery, ever solved, turned out to be, not magic" - "Storm", Tim Minchin: youtube. com/watch?v=ujUQn0HhGEk

[infinity730]

youtube. com/watch?v=UB_htqDCP-s

Better version of "Storm"

[infinity730]

"If I may use an analogy,"

The universe is not a car or a painting.. it is a accumulation is natural forces, without a creator or purpose.

The universe exists.

This is all we can prove.

We cannot assert that it even has a purpose or a creator, unless it holds many extraordinary evidences to this claim, of which have yet to be demonstrated objectively.

[p3rs0nan0ngrata]

"the car and the painting are in the same universe..."

You have missed the analogy.

Assume that the car and the painting are the universe, or rather, each of them are a universe of sorts.

[p3rs0nan0ngrata]

"Universe IS everything that exists, if anything is posited to be "outside" it, then it cannot exist by definition."

This begs the question, since to accurately assert it, sans evidence, one must presuppose Naturalism.

[p3rs0nan0ngrata]

"Same goes with so-called supernatural events, they are also non-existent by definition, because everything we observe is based on natural forces. "

If it is prescriptive that our observations have a natural basis, then all that shows is that, were there to be supernatural events, we would not be able to observe them.

[p3rs0nan0ngrata]

If it is descriptive, then it would merely show that we have yet to observe a supernatural event. To conclude that supernatural events do not exist 'by definition' is a gross non-sequitor. (Besides which, there is nothing in the definition of 'supernatural' which logically implies, or is logically equivalent with 'non-existence').

[infinity730]

"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -Delos McKown

[p3rs0nan0ngrata]

I've no interest in pretty looking quotes from famous people.

If you have a case to state, then state it, or do not. Either way, don't be indecent by hiding behind someone else's rhetoric.

[infinity730]

Hm.

[billhicks8]

cont...

So here is your problem. There would be no debate if there was not an original assertion. The original assertion was not 'god doesn't exist' because nobody would know what you were talking about, 'god' is an abstract theory from our history that has been introduced as an answer and draped in whatever extraneous notion(s) the speaker happens to feel fit with it. Hence the need for Kalam arguments and so forth, to provide some attempt at evidence for the claim to knowledge.



[infinity730]

Inherently the question is loaded in the first place, which god am I talking about, they can't ALL exist.

[95TurboSol]

Your right about that, one could exist or none could exist but not all of them could exist, the law of non-contradiction.

[infinity730]

Would you be more comfortable with "I am 99.99999.....% sure that a god does not exist."?

[infinity730]

You are just as much as an atheist as I am when it comes to Zeus, Wotan, or the Flying Spaghetti monster, I just go one god further.

[95TurboSol]

And you are just as much a theist as I am, I just go one God futher then you lol.

[infinity730]

If you're just going to mock me in an unintelligible fashion, then I can infer that this conversation is an exercise in futility.

[95TurboSol]

Where did I mock you?

[infinity730]

"just as much a theist"

I believe in no gods, theism describes a belief in one or more god.

You reject the same amount of gods that I do, minus one, therefore you are an atheist when it comes to other people's gods, just not your own.

I am not a theist in any way, because have rejected all gods. That sentence is where you mocked me while making inane statements. So with that, I'll refer you to my channel page's favorites, you might learn something. Good day.

[95TurboSol]

My statment was not to mock you. I was just playing off the fact that the point of your statment does both directions, Both athiests and I (as a christian) reject all other Gods (the law of non-contradiction of course). So I am only one God away from athiesm, but this goes for you too since you reject all the Gods I do execpt one, So you are only one God away from theism.

Its a rediculous comparison that tries to down play the difference between existence and non-existence.

[infinity730]

Q: Does god exist?

A: No.

[anguspure]

Craig's last argument is nasty, he invites Flew to outright call him a liar on the basis of what? Underhanded? I think so. This is not so much a discussion about the truth but a title fight. Bullshit I say.

[celestialsalamander]

crag said "god is real TO ME"

thus he loses for useing post modern nonsence.

[mrluke13]

I BELIEVE THE UNIVERSE CAME FROM SOMETHING.

YOU BELIEVE THAT IT CAME FROM NOTHING....Man that is stupid!!!

[mrluke13]

id rather believe that an invisible friend created the universe....than what an atheist is asking me to believe....that all the matter and energy popped into existence into a realm of space in time accidently uncause ....and out of absoultuly nothing....that is stupid.

[MrDarkbloom]

Part 2.

And that cant be proved, no matter how Craig tries, and thus every piece of proof he provides falls short of proving his point.

[MrDarkbloom]

Part 1

Why should we think the universe was created for life... and not for say, stars or planets or ANYTHING that is something. For Craigs argument about fine-tuning to work, it must be proved that life has some particular significance in the universe over, say, the processes by which stars are formed. Some purpose or function we have been created to serve that is not implicit in our biological natures but externally provided.

[DeeperRootsProject]

I like Dr Craig a lot but the tank top has to go...

[trenton1980]

lol ... awesome

[judoyodan]

Christianity is nearing an end.

As people become educated, they fill the gaps of Godly ignorance with reason and knowledge. We should have outgrown this ridiculous superstition a century ago.

I say it's about time and GOOD RIDANCE to the idiocy of Christianity!

[EllisWilliam08]

Read statistics and information on census' and you will see how thoughtless that comment is.

[judoyodan]

What is "thoughtless" is you believing in a sky daddy.

It's about time you people grew out of this ridiculous superstition.

[EllisWilliam08]

'Sky daddy', if there was ever a demonstration of your ignorance to philosophy, theology and for that matter comedy that comment was it.

[judoyodan]

Would you prefer "invisible friend"? FSM?

How about "delusional manifestation"?

If you believe in this mythology, you are at least a little bit crazy. Maybe more than "a little" in your case.

[EllisWilliam08]

You have clearly read the God Delusion and think you have come to some incredible conclusions, but you display nothing more than an atheist fundamentalist arrogance which has become so toxic within society in the 21st century.

[judoyodan]

Toxic to ignorance and superstition maybe.

And no, I have not read The God Delusion.

[Birdieupon]

....and with that, I presume I am correct in thinking that you will refute all 5 of William Lane Craig's reasons, since you are obviously so educated and enlightened.

You time starts, now!! :-D

[amendoza2]

I certainly did take the opportunity to read your comments and was curious if you had met the majority of atheists to make your inductive argument stronger? I did not see a response for that. As for finding an open-minded, ;non-potty mouthed', kind, live by strict rules of virtue,who don;t slander curse and insult others with jeers, snarls, and wisecracks. I have found Dr. Matthew Rainbow (AVC), Dr. Claude Gratton (AVC), Christian Gomez (MSAC), Delmy Rodriguez (UCSD).

[MiracleOfRealism]

Dr. Rainbow is an agnostic

[amendoza2]

Sometimes he is. He let us know (when I took him for Biology 101 and 110) that he fluctuates from being an agnostic to an atheist; it depended from what mood he was in to what he ate for lunch. Anyways, I guess one example one have sufficed, and Dr. Rainbow is a special case and should not have been included due to his fluctuating views. I thank you for correction.

[MiracleOfRealism]

No problem. Oddly I think it was from him that I learned the term agnostic, that is why I knew.

In regards to your actual point though, I must agree, not all non-theist are pricks. Rainbow would have been one of the few that popped into my mind too actually. :)

[mrluke13]

why are all atheist potty mouths?

i dont know of any atheist...and i have known a many of them...that are kind, open minded, live by strict rules of virtue, who dont slander curse and insult others with jeers, snarls, and wisecracks. i dont know any happy atheists.

[GetMeThere1]

I know MANY kind and open minded atheists (and I'm one).

As for the grumpiness: Atheists are forced to live in an INESCAPABLE INSANE ASYLUM, where the patients run everything (and, luckily, go on witch hunts and crusades only sporadically). And where the patients broadly smile, spout gibberish, and vehemently insist you agree with them.

Social friction is reduced for those who believe in the local demons and gods.

The tide IS turning, though... ;)

[mrluke13]

i asked for cleaned mouth atheists and those who dont insult...which you qualified...nice atheists?....there are none.

[mrluke13]

"witch hunts and crusades only sporadically"

witch hunts killed 14 people crusades over two centuries killed 2,000

In just last century atheists like pol pott, mao tse tung, & karl Marx and his spiritual offspring stalin and lenin....killed over 100,000,000 people...

no wonder your e an atheist....cause you are soooo "open minded"

you are repeating the same crap i have heard all my life....when are you guys going to group up and realize your arguemetns dont work anymore, GEEZ!!!!!!!

[judoyodan]

You are the one that needs to "grow up" and realize that having an invisible friend, at your age, is ridiculous.

[Birdieupon]

So you don't even face the fact that atheism is responsible for far more deaths than theism?

[judoyodan]

"Atheism" isn't responsible for any deaths. There have been atheists that have caused death, but they are far outnumbered by theists in the area.

And as far as Craig's argument, he has no valid premise. His argument is a smoke screen, useless except to dunces.

[Birdieupon]

sorry if you got multiple replies, may have had a technical hitch!

[amendoza2]

Sounds like a hasty generalization. I certainly do not mean this as someone who defends an atheist, but your claim is not valid and is a fallacy. Unless you can counter it by showing evidence that you have met a very high percentage of atheists around the world who fit your claim.

[mrluke13]

READ!!!! READ and ask any atheist anywhere in the world....if they dont do any of those things...come back and let me kow...i might as well ask you to go find a spider with a hundred legs and come back

[amendoza2]

The acronyms in the parentheses are where they either teach or attend. I do not ask you to take my word, but you can always contact them to rebuttal your inductive claim. I am certainly not looking for trouble, but just want to know where your conclusions are derived and if statistics, hypotheses, facts, are behind your claim I would like to know what they are so your claim is solid and strong. I worry that people just come to conclusion(s) without investigating the claims(s).

[TheAmazingCristian]

Nerdbombs, just because something is complicated doesn't mean it is false

[Scientialist]

"Bla bla bla"

God made it hard to resist some things and hard not to resist others. God is a manipulative  bastard. He could have made it different.

[Tholz09]

Life is complicated, get over it.

[johnhili]

I don't understand 122nerdbombs... You are not a Christian because Christian dogma is long and complicated? So, by that logic, do you also disregard physics, chemistry, biology, philosophy or psychology, whose theories and accounts are also long and complicated?

I would think that human beings (finite) trying to understand God (infinite) would probably produce some long and complicated results!

[geoffreyefloyd]

amen @ tonlocs comment, although as craig believes, reason and can coexist with faith and this video is a good example of that so you even if you believe because of your experience, you can rest assured that there is no good defeater for that experience. That is why debates like this are interesting, atheists don't have good arguments, no good reason for us not to believe.

[Tonloc1986]

I just remembered why I am Christian:

I can accept that JESUS took away my SIN, saved me from HELL, and promised I'll meet him and be with him FOREVER someday if I follow him. I have the Bible so I can understand God's love, his wisdom, and his plan to defeat sin and renew the world as he made it in the beginning.

JESUS IS LORD!

[Tholz09]

You're an idiot (122nerdbombs). No offense. ; )

[Tonloc1986]

Some people just don't get it Tholz09. Sometimes I feel I'm wasting my time witnessing to these people, but I'm doing it for the Lord and that's never a waste of time. God bless and peace! ;)