Hahahaha Atkins claims that science has does explain the natural world, which I agree. However he still ha yet to make an argument....only saying that science."can" disprove God but not giving any reasons
As much as I hate William Lane Craig, this Peter Atkins guy is just failing so hard. I mean, WLC is just spewing the old theological arguments for god. Couldn't Peter Atkins have studied up and actually come up with a strong case, instead of relying on such vacuous rhetoric?
Materialistic science is a presupposed foregone conclusion. Recording a function/process does not require a mindless origin. Western science is heavily influenced by 17th century naturalism.
Self experience has absolutely nothing to do with immortality. We can only ever know this world through self experience, so one's own experience of it is central to one's understanding of it.
Of course you can explain everything through science. Actually anyone can explain anything through absolutely any method. What I'm concerned with is if the answers are TRUE or FALSE.
The bible answers in the same way that science "Believe with faith because I will not give you a straight answer". Still the facts shows that the Bible is true and more reliable that science.
"If science doesn't deliver, turn to religion..." well how long should we wait for science to deliver?? What if we wait until we're old and on our death bed and it still doesn't deliver?? What if religion was right all along?? Then we die and go to hell all the while waiting on science to deliver. Bad gamble...
Dr Atkins argues that we should give the chance to science to answer our questions regarding creation and existence, and that its answers are simpler.
The chance has been given, and science answers aren't simpler nor sufficient. We can still wait for the answers, but I believe it won't be better than those it gives today.
Also, he says that we can be certain of religion's answers after we die. That is true, but it applies also to science, since there is no way to witness creation.
I would love to one day hear honesty from a debater to say his opponent is out of his league and he must surrender. It would save a lot of time and save us a show of his ignorance in trying to salvage what he can.
"No argument we've heard this evening explicitly excludes the possibility that the values of the fundamental constants are the ones that are necessary for life." (Atkins,1:09 f.) - so there's nothing which excludes the possibility that there is fine tuning in the fundamental constants.
"Atheism is the more primitive view of the world" - Atkins
I am sure that is news to most atheists because I constantly hear atheists say that you must have a primitive mind to believe in a spook in the sky. Even Atkins admits that the idea of God is grandiose and the idea of an almighty God is a profound one. Atheism is not great.
"If science fails to deliver... then by all means turn to religion" - Atkins
Science has failed to deliver because it has not explained everything in the universe.
Unbelievable how this guy embarrassed Himself, is even worst than any other atheist I've seen because he put himself in a pedestal with his arrogance in the opening statement.
this atkins guy is a mess. atheists should have borrowed the old testament practice of killing by stoning, and wait for him outside of this debate. by talking he is doing a disservice to atheism.
@CumSeNumesteMelodia These were laws practiced by many people in the New Testament, and is a prevalent truth. Nonetheless, you need to remember Christian belief completely contradicts these laws and other useless laws of men. One perfect example is about what you talk is when a woman was to be stoned for adultery, Jesus, the one we follow, intervenes, and puts this law to an even higher standard, and asks the whole crowd: He who is withous sin, shall cast the first stone.
@CrippledKnight first of all, why do you tell me this?, second, "other useless laws of men". in the old testament, wasn't God the authority who installed laws, including lapidation (stoning)?
@CumSeNumesteMelodia No, if we're going to base this according to suppsed or real whatever you want to see it, commandements sent by God, there were only 10. After this, hundreds of rules were made in the name of God, such as the one you mention. It is like the "holy christian crusades". They have nothing to do with christianity, they have nothing to do with commandments. They''re just horrible dilusions of men in power in need of control, that use God or christ as their excuse. Have a gday.
@CrippledKnight well, first, do you know that moses says that what he commanded was from the lord, right? Num 1:1, Num 2:1, Num 4:1, Deut 1:3, Lev 1:1 etc. the books of moses are filled with verses which says those words are from god. so from what you say i should conclude that you think moses was a liar, and his books are filled with lies?
@CumSeNumesteMelodia Why so much hate against believers? Again, I'm a christian, and as a christian I follow what Jesus said. Again I tell you that Jesus informed that many laws were erected by men, which are senseless, yet they were erected in the name of God. I did now knew Moses, I cannot account for everything he did, but in some occassions he is also portrayed for 2 things, his closeness to God, and for his faults as a human being. He is not portrayed as the perfect leader. Respectfully, CK
@CumSeNumesteMelodia Is that all you say after I properly answer your questions? I was refering to you getting every point in the bible and citing specific verses without looking at the bigger picuture. Many horrible events happenned in the bible, while the good ones were praised, senseless ones were looked down upon either by later generations or Jesus himself. If you want to look for wrongdoings you will find them, but you will also find truth if you so desire and ask for enlightment, Regards.
@CrippledKnight that means you will not explain what you meant by "Why so much hate against believers?" and an even older question of mine: you think moses was a liar when he gave harsh laws telling to the people that those laws were commands from god? for us to go further you need to address those. if not, i wish to you, what you wished to yourself, and....the end.
@Onesideofyams I spy strawmen. I never said the apostles never existed. I never said a man called Jesus never existed.
I do say there is no first hand witness testimony of any of the acts of Jesus.
Why did Pter die like he did? I don't know. Why did the Heaven's Gate cult die like they did? Was it because there was a spaceship following behind comet Hale-Bopp or was it because they were deluded ino believing that. Someone dying for a belief does not make the belief into a fact.
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
Clearly, Peter Atkins is not an experienced debater and does not have his facts ready. He should have been more prepared (or perhaps reconsidered his beliefs) before going against Craig.
it is amusing and somewhat frustrating to hear atheists say that it is ridiculous and preposterous to think that God created the universe, and then turn around and say, "oh, we don't have the answer to who or what created the universe, but give science a chance, and we will come up with something." How long do you need Science? How long shall we wait? until the earth is destroyed in the heat death of the universe? how can they shun an actual explanation when they have no alternative?
It's almost painful to watch Mr. Atkins stutter in trying to make sense of his own statement that the "Universe is nothing." And then I see atheist nonsense attacking Dr. Craig, Christianity and theists in general, based on hurt feelings. After that, I feel rather good in laughing at how ridiculous he sounds.
Atkins "simplicity" seems to qualify itself as being inadequate all on its own, given the "extremely remote"(his own words) plausability of our existance being chance. From a scientific perspective, if a process of elimination occurred, athiesm would be the first to go.
While he maintains an air of sophistry with his unsubstantiated scientific and ontological claims that don't actually address the reasoning of his opponents arguments, but rather just comments on them and expects us to believe in his criticisms without a line from A to B:
He displays an ignorance of the date the gospels were written, the creedal tradition relayed to us by the Apostle Paul, and the informal oral tradition that was present in ancient Israel.
if you look closely at dr. craig's logic, he never mentions his most basic premise: god exists. his arguments' conclusions are therefore never surprising...
@matthewdoucette I think perhaps that "God exists" is the underlying point of his complete dialog here and therefore understood and in need of no mention because it is a predetermined given in his arguement.
Dr. Atkins is kinda terrible at debating his side of the issue. I almost wish Dr. Craig would have debated someone a little quicker whereas to make this a more interesting and fair debate.
Chance depends on matter and energy operating on each other. If there is no matter or energy. How can chance come into play? Therefore the universe cannot come to be by chance
I love how Dr. Craig puts forth his arguments. He puts them in a logical way. Logic is the way to know logically, that there must be a God. I totally agree, because I think about everything with logic. Through logic, we ultimately find that faith proves that something cannot come from nothing, ultimately leads us to faith in an eternal first cause; an eternal creator. Logic proves an eternal creator.
@sooperfukker assuming you based this on Victor Stengers "nothing" theory, which was completely debunked by Anthony Zee, Stengers argument about nothingness is fundamentally flawed due to his treating "nothing"really as "something". In physics Absolute nothing means no law, no vacuums, no field, no energy, no structure, and no physical or mental entities of any kind. even so it still leaves the question, The postulation of zero net energy doesn't explain where the "nothing" originated a
@jonobrow I must say that that many people allow their beliefs to be substantially affected by on man, take Darwin for instance, Dawkins, Hitchens and Atkins all point back to this one man as the founder of their beliefs. Now I have personally read the writings of all of them and must say that in the end the most compelling argument for Cosmology stands with the Theist. I encourage you to read the book "There is a God: How the most notorious Atheist changed his mind" by Antony Flew
Dr. Atkins forgets that the talmud discusses Jesus' miracles. The talmud was written by the Pharisees - Jesus's enemies! Why would Jesus' enemies falsely assert his miracles??
I believe in God, i believe he is the Lord, Master, Creator of the universe, i believe that we were created to worship him alone, i believe that we will be resurrected and accounted for all we put forth on earth. I think Dr. Atkins has lost track of his arguments and has strayed off into speculations rather than logic and rational thinking. You said "why would the enemies of Jesus falsely assert his miracles". My answer to that is they wouldn't. You see the trick of the Pharisees was simple....
@2005ndcstudent The Pharisees simply mixed truth with falsehood to make people believe their accounts. They would write the true accounts of Jesus' encounters with the Jews and Miracles he performed to simply sway people to believe what they wrote. "Tell a truth, then mix it with bullshit" makes the bullshit easier to swallow. Jesus himself condemns the Jewish scribes and Pharisees who cheated with the pen and wrote that which Jesus did not say, this is evident from the bible. So my point is...
We simply cant believe something is fact based on the testimony of other people who might be from the opposition. We need hard evidence to establish these facts. How can we take the bible as the literal word of God, when we don't know who wrote it, cannot establish when it was written... The Gospel accounts themselves where written at least 80 years after the "death" of Jesus, there is even some dispute as to who even wrote the Gospels. None of this is clear so we cannot base arguments on them.
@2005ndcstudent You refer to the principle of enemy attestation, but I'm unsure as to what portion from the Tannaitic tract you are referring to; that is, if you are indeed referring to the only one we should consider to be historically reliable at all.
@2005ndcstudent Add to this Flavius Josepho, a jude who lived in the same epoch of Christ and wrote about him, afirming his ressurection. See JOSEPHO, Flavius. The History of the Hebreus.
@jefersontorres Josephus was born after Jesus died. That is like me being an eye witness to JFK's life. In te real world we call that hearsay. There is no contemporaneous evidence of Jesus' life. I know faith avoids facts but it does not stop them being facts.
(6) To make this idea plausible, one could look for "traces" of this ripping process in our universe, to look if there are "counter parts" to our matter and our space time construct.
And we do have some things, which could be interpreted as such "traces", namely dark matter, anti matter (mirror matter) and especially the annihilation of particles and anti particles in the quantum state.
However, all in all this is a metaphysical idea and will be largely inaccessible to physical science.
Well, then lend me your ears and eyes for a minute to update you on the topic:
(1) Science has a problem with the good old "Everything came from nothing, without a cause" universe. It doesn't make sense, is not verifiable or falsifiable and therefore scientific inaccessible.
(2) Their idea to solve the problem : Their new "nothing" is NOT the "abscence of anything" (as the word would insinuate), instead it is a "quantum vaccuum".
(3) In this quantum vaccuum, particles start + cease to exist without any cause. They just pop in + pop out of existance for no reason at all.
(4) This "process" could solve a good part of the original problem.
If the particles in the quantum vaccuum come into existance "out of nothing" and "for no reason", why should the universe not have come out of this vacuum by the same "rules" ?
(5) 1 problem remains : While it is indeed true, that in the quantum world, causality is largely abandonded, it is still in question "from what source" these particles come from and "where they go to" when they just cease to exist.
The soluttion is to give the "nothing" a new "quality", meaning that "nothing" can be "ripped apart" into multiple states (like I compared it to ripping apart a "0" into "+1" and "-1"). Only an idea like that could explain, from what source they come from and go to.
@Americant47 The atheist's excuse for loosing so badly in debate forums is not because the information they're pushing around as fact can be easily refuted by someone with truth. Their excuse is that Craig, Strobel, Meyers, Hovind etc are professionals at debate. Hahaha! That cracks me up! I think Richard Dawkins is an idiot but he's smart enough not to debate any of the Christian heavy hitter's! His excuse was they're not as well educated. And he would get spanked hard by dumb dumbs!!!
Hahaha, he wants believers to prove God created the universe? Can he prove nothing divided into something which isn't anything? Or better yet, multiple universe hype? He'll no, so why does he think he's smarter? Besides, how can one part of nothing be smarter than the other part of nothing?
@sooperfukker Honestly, scooperfluffer I have no idea what you talking about but I do have a good idea that nothing is nothing and nothing can't be divided into something, at least not in chemistry, biology, cosmology,.... No science uses that formula for any reason, especially not cooking!
Leave it to the desperation of evolution theories to come up with the now dumbest explanation ever considered!
WoW!!! I just had my first real lmao!... Keep up the good work!
@afortaleza lol he has completely lost it.....even the viewers there started do laugh a bit......Simply, there isnt anything that you can say against God....
ok..... thats it.... please no more history lessons in schools... we just cant believe those history books because it is not reliable cause it is written so many years after the event...
hold on... He said that a believer has to explicitly prove that there is a God. Then he agrees that it unlikely that the universe happened as it did, but says that because there's a chance, it could happen. On these grounds, his argument should have to explicitly prove that his position is correct. It's like when the tobacco industry was saying that cigarettes aren't proven to cause cancer. I know there's better arguments out there, but atkins is pathetic here.
Weak, misguided, intellectual busy body who'd rather run off a cliff than to accept that Christ is his nemesis and not by chance. If you reject religious behavior then you can reject religions but rejecting God requires a personal rejection of Jesus Christ and for Atkins, that's a daily struggle. I, for one, will pray that you set aside your squabble and just talk to Him, He's waiting for that day, Sir.
Atkins discredits himself several times but one stands out for me. He says that because the gospel books were written late in the authors life that the content can't be trusted. That's ignorance of the constructs of authors and literature. Has anyone condemned an autobiography because the author was old when they wrote it? No, but that's what this guy concludes. Besides they more than likely journaled.
If William is rational for self testamony then i am too with Thor or Wutan or buda thats opening a door way to the nut house there is too many self claims to be taken as any proof. Remember it was the bible that said what god did we didn't hear from his own mouth or have proof of his essence so we have perfect justifacation for being atheists as well.
It is surreal to see a Christian Philosopher utterly demolish an Atheist. Usually it is the Atheist who has it all together and the Christian has nothing more than faith. But here Atkins is Clearly out classed.
I think the way Atkins' is talking sounds like he's really nervous. William Lane Craig sounds much more confident and he's more interesting to listen to.
I love that he tells us to "give science a chance". It is almost as if he doesn't even believe what he is saying, and he is just hoping that while he is still alive science will uncover evidence to help his cause. He BELIEVES in atheism while Christians BELIEVE in God. Unfortuantely for him, so far he ahs just proven how dumb the smartest atheists are
If people would realize that it isn't science vs religion. Science is on the side of God. Science brings to light the existence of God and digs up evidence that supports the Bible.
Wow, athiests really need better candidates! And i hate how they twist this whole "science vs religion" situation in their favour - every competent christian scholar i've read and watched have stated scientific facts in support the existence of God, in fact, Dr Craig states more scientific facts than Dr Atkins! I mean, come on. Also i dont know of any scientific FACTS (not theories) that directly contradict the existence of God. Speculation is a bitch! Peace.
He doesn't get it! The universe cannot be an elaborate rearrangement of nothing, as he continually emphasizes. Nothing cannot be rearranged. Nothing cannot take any effect.
I have a pet monkey and he is pissed because only some of the chimpanzee by natural selection became humans. I rather belive a god created me instead of nothing creating me from nothing. when has a ramdom explosion created order? maybe a new organism will emerge from the hiroshima bombsite. the more I look into science the more I believe in a god. not all scientist are athiest. many say because we dont belive in atheism that we dont belive in science, that is not true science does not = atheism
i think science explains god.like explaining the bio chemistry of love.it doesnt mean love doesnt exist.this is where athiest scientists get it wrong and religious people get it wrong when they dont want things explained.and i believe in evolution and that the story of adam and eve is a metaphor of life form becoming concious.this is why jesus came when he did as he could communicate now.like when you can finally communicate with your kids-when they become self aware.animals are like babies.
Peter Atkins says "give science a chance". I do give science a chance, science is great - it shows evidence for the existence of God, NOT for evolution. Good one Atkins .... not. Jesus is coming back and AMEN, atheism / false religion / evolution and all the stupidity we find in the world will be GONE. Even so, come quick Lord Jesus !
Atkins just continuous to try to categorize people who believe in God as weak, unsure of themselves, lazy to find the truth, delusional…but watching the video I can see the God fearing monkey is the one who is more sure of himself and done his research.
"Fails to explain even though it's been trying to explain it for 5,000 years"
WRONGGGG
We haven't had the Bible for 5,000 years nor have we known everything for 5,000 years. Had we known Jesus wouldn't have been put to death. This is typical of atheists who have a poor understanding of the Bible.
so he's basically saying that we're not nothing, just fancy rearranged...nothing. and the basis of that theory is to believe that nothing existed to rearrange the nothing. if nothing existed then NOTHING could move, take place, or most certainly rearrange anything. interesting.
If I wasn't a Christian before I watched this I would be afterworld... simply based on the Laughable statements that Peter Atkins is saying... I mean seriously this guy I know is supposed to be an intelligent debater but here he is simply drowning... I would leave my atheist views if I started with them here.... it is as he said the more primitive view.... if we in fact did come "down from the trees" then why wouldn't we simply look back up at the tree and say there you are forefather....
I don't think Dr. Atkins fails, he practically says that for the premise of "God did it" to be true you can only go so far as speculation. So Craig is based on speculations, while Atkins goes and says I don't want to speculate I take what science has proven today and I wait for Real evidence. Argument: The universe had a beginning. ASSUMPTION God was the cause of that beginning. The conclusion is only true if the latter is true, but that cannot be proven.
Atkins does not understand atheism proposes naturalistic means can write digital coded information. since atheists positively asserted this. the burden of proof is on them to prove it
Theist positively assert an intellect can write digital coded information. the burden of proof has been satisfied
Another disappointing demonstration be atheists. As a veteran of debate and rhetoric, I am appalled at the consistently poor argumentation of skeptics.
I am certainly not a theist, but I think it is very clear to anyone sane and should be admitted that Craig is the winner of this debate. I'll admit that I am not a scientist and Atkins knows far more about what physics has to say about the origins of the universe than me, but this "rearrangement of nothing" is logically ridicoulus
Yeah that statement from Dr. Atkins was pretty funny. Usually atheists claim, in a derogatory sense, that theism is a primitive view of the world and yet here Atkins ironically says that himself of atheism (although he obviously means it in a glorified and simplified sense).
Nor theism or atheism are "primitive" believes in gods or lack of them thereafter exist and have existed since a long time and seems they both will continue to exist for a long time.
"complex order, my argument was greatly maligned there, uh, uh, I will not go into that, I do not have further time this evening" - Atkins...but Atkins finishes with 2:15 left of debating time in this session. Yep, sounds like he did not have time alright.
@JoeBob2462:15 isn't much time. It's certainly insufficient to explain a complicated concept. Even more so when time must also be taken to indicate where his opponent misrepresented it.
@JoeBob246 "so one should just not make any comments, right? He sure made enough other comments and statements in less than 2 min. and 15 sec."
While it's true he could have made some additional statements in the time he had remaining, he couldn't possibly explain the concept and why Craig was in error in such a vanishingly short amount of time.
See, in the real world, complicated concepts can't be reduced to sound bites.
"If science fails to deliver this side of the grave, then by all means turn to religion" - Atkins...how about origin of life or the universe? Where the answer to that delivered by supporting evidence? Atkins, "there was a rearrangment of nothing" then how did we get something (or matter)?
He's already made room for a god in his universe—it's him!
What "historical accident" is he referring to, in regards to the origins of theism? I know of no such historical records that show when men began to believe in God. This is only historical when one first presupposes evolution and no God.
So why haven't the media lapped this up? Why don't people reaise that there is something out there BIGGER, SMARTER and more COMPLEX than our puny self...
Why is it that most people say that ALL theists are stupid and have no idea of Science? Atheists basicly sit on their pedestal and call all others who do not agree with them as stupid.
Yet from here we see, "science fails to deliver"...lol
I don't really understand his point about the bible being potentially false because it was written decades after the events that took place. I just checked my college history textbook, it has information dating back hundreds to thousands of years prior to today, but it was written within the past few years. Should I not believe it because it was written so late after the events? In 80 years should I choose to write an autobiography, will it be false because I did not write it as events happened?
@dudefestguitar Well said! "1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God. For it is written, "He is THE ONE WHO CATCHES THE WISE IN THEIR CRAFTINESS Job 5:13
He catches the wise in their craftiness, and the schemes of the wily are swept away.
@dudefestguitar I would add to his point that there are no contemporary corroborations for the claims in the Bible, and there are no later books that talk at all about the claims in the Bible. Your question is a good one, but I would say that if the history textbook you're reading now was the only version ever printed, then you would certainly have cause for doubt. There are many, many corroborating accounts for historical facts. The Bible doesn't seem to have the same luxury.
@kidwithoutgun He keeps saying "I think, I think, I think" yet never states any claims. Then he resorts to assumptions that people who believe in God are somehow "lonely".
@dudefestguitar The information in your textbooks is itself based on better evidence than what the Gospels provide. Eyewitness accounts are by their nature unreliable, only more so if they are written decades after the event. An event like the battle of Waterloo would be fundamentally based on much more verifiable data than a small collection of eyewitness accounts that contradict each other.
@dudefestguitar So true. And Peter Atkins is saying that the Gospel writers got together with Jesus and said "Let's make a bunch of stuff up so people in the future will think it's all true"?
If this was true why does it say at Matthew 9:34 "But the Pharisees began to say: "It is by the ruler of the demons that he expels the demons".
If Jesus hadn't had done anything supernatural they wouldn't have said this.
@TheAqui1a Primary sources are letters, journal and diary entries, oral histories, and a few other things that don't really apply here. A textbook is compiled of many different historical documents? And the Bible isn't? Maybe I'm mistaken, but I'm pretty sure 40 different authors spanning thousands of years is also a compilation. Half of the new testament are letters from Paul to churches. Letters are a primary source. The Gospels are glorified journal or diary entries. I'm still in school, btw.
@TheAqui1a sorry, staticskylinefl is my band account. The gospels were all written within 100 years after the birth of Christ, Paul's epistles were all written a little later than that. Why?
@TheAqui1a I'm still not sure of your point though. If my grandfather was to write about his childhood, would his entire writing be invalid because he didn't write it at the time it happened?
@dudefestguitar It would be distorted; some things might be added from false memory, and some things might be missed. It's common sense, think about it.
@TheAqui1a true, if only one person wrote about the entire story of Jesus, there wouldn't be Christianity today as we know it. But hundreds of corroborative reports and official documents make a much stronger case.
@dudefestguitar It's very much the opposite; we can see from each of the accounts how different and incompatable they are. Too many chefs spoil the broth. lol
@dudefestguitar You've made a pretty stupid mistake there. Nothing gets into a history book without original sources and not just one of them. Whereas the nonsense fairytales made up about the fictional character jesus have changed many times over the years.
You're wasting your life on stupid fairy tales you galloping imbecile.
@nilbud I'm sorry, I'f finding it difficult to type I'm laughing at you so hard. Whether or not Jesus is the Son of God or not, we'll leave out of this argument as it does not apply. Arguing against the sheer existence of Jesus as an historical person? Well that's just imbecilic. There are hundreds, if not thousands of historical documents and accounts confirming that Jesus of Nazareth existed. And as far as what's changed about the stories...not much. Go read it in it's original greek.
@dudefestguitar The problem with the bible is that it claims supernatural unprovable events, not backed up by historians of the time. And it it's "facts" were passed by vocal tradition, is not clear who were the writers of the of the gospels. Lastly, the bibles mix of historically accurate events with tales and metaphors open to interpretation make it a not so reliable book.
Many points of evidence for miracles. The Walls of Jericho very good example (digs have shown truth). Or how about people being healed these days with no explaination from doctors.
The math for a satellite orbit requires the Orbit of Earth for the last however thousands of years around the Sun.
NASA couldn't work it out. Maths were just off. Someone pointed biblical events Sun being held in sky and shadow being held longer too. When adding these times There were spot on.
A good friend of mine was deaf for 2 years, with no chance of recovery. He was healed and the Doctors can't explain it. That isn't the Placebo effect.
It wasn't that the sun was held in the sky was it, the Earth will have been held in orbit until needed. Thus the sun stayed in the same place in the sky.
If you choose not to see I can't force you, but I pray you will.
@dudefestguitar Exactly my view! In fact, the point has been made before by many people that, not only were there still people alive at the time the Gospels were written who could have stood up and said, "That's not how it happened," but the people who wrote the new testament often died as martyrs for their beliefs. Who in their right mind would die for something they just made up?
So tell me something, if Jesus would was you right now doing the things of God, and he said go preach and Jesus said many will not believe, but you go n do it because you know the truth. Would you scarifice your own life because of one man, or would you scarifice your life for a true man that was of God. haha Wow you make no sense
Hmm, you presummations is kinda of mute, YOu agree that Jesus exists but you fail to think that the people around him that saw him do the miracles was not vaild, and they died accordly for that lie
wow, so basically you speak out of doubt which is somthing moral like faith. But you fail to mention Dr.Akins that it is not of the gospels that people believe bu
Hahahaha Atkins claims that science has does explain the natural world, which I agree. However he still ha yet to make an argument....only saying that science."can" disprove God but not giving any reasons
KoBred1 4 days ago
As much as I hate William Lane Craig, this Peter Atkins guy is just failing so hard. I mean, WLC is just spewing the old theological arguments for god. Couldn't Peter Atkins have studied up and actually come up with a strong case, instead of relying on such vacuous rhetoric?
APaleDot 1 month ago
@APaleDot They're not 'theological arguments' - Craig isn't a theologian, he's a philosopher.
CharlesDilkes 1 week ago
Materialistic science is a presupposed foregone conclusion. Recording a function/process does not require a mindless origin. Western science is heavily influenced by 17th century naturalism.
Rdchannels 1 month ago
Self experience has absolutely nothing to do with immortality. We can only ever know this world through self experience, so one's own experience of it is central to one's understanding of it.
tenbear5 2 months ago
I think that Atkings said something that applies to anyone who doesn't believe in God: "I won't accept it".
DonPetruccci 2 months ago
Of course you can explain everything through science. Actually anyone can explain anything through absolutely any method. What I'm concerned with is if the answers are TRUE or FALSE.
The bible answers in the same way that science "Believe with faith because I will not give you a straight answer". Still the facts shows that the Bible is true and more reliable that science.
DonPetruccci 2 months ago
"If science doesn't deliver, turn to religion..." well how long should we wait for science to deliver?? What if we wait until we're old and on our death bed and it still doesn't deliver?? What if religion was right all along?? Then we die and go to hell all the while waiting on science to deliver. Bad gamble...
MrDddlll 2 months ago
Comment removed
TinaTastic3 2 months ago
Where are to start from Peter, these guys are almost illiterate :-) they are living a Craig Delusion
greekmanos 2 months ago
The participants are equally insufficient and neither deserve their position at the podium.
urcorrect 3 months ago
Embarrassing.
olivleonardo 3 months ago
this guy uses atheisms best defence. going in circles and making crap up
FEARtheCAMPER 3 months ago 3
@FEARtheCAMPER That's atheism for you! Why do you think they are called secularists? Secular..circular...
MysteryoftheGods 3 months ago
Dr. Akins sounds like a desperate child
greglee20 3 months ago in playlist More videos from Christianjr4
Dr. Atkins throughout the debate so far has spoken like a car salesman who is trying to bring back a customer who lost interest in buying a car.
Falcondick69 3 months ago
Dr Atkins argues that we should give the chance to science to answer our questions regarding creation and existence, and that its answers are simpler.
The chance has been given, and science answers aren't simpler nor sufficient. We can still wait for the answers, but I believe it won't be better than those it gives today.
Also, he says that we can be certain of religion's answers after we die. That is true, but it applies also to science, since there is no way to witness creation.
Mvillano13 4 months ago
I would love to one day hear honesty from a debater to say his opponent is out of his league and he must surrender. It would save a lot of time and save us a show of his ignorance in trying to salvage what he can.
reformedman 4 months ago 3
Atkins has been struggling this whole debate, hes got nothing.
ivhoven 4 months ago 10
Comment removed
patrckhh20 2 months ago
"No argument we've heard this evening explicitly excludes the possibility that the values of the fundamental constants are the ones that are necessary for life." (Atkins,1:09 f.) - so there's nothing which excludes the possibility that there is fine tuning in the fundamental constants.
Taltz911 4 months ago
Peter Atkins really struggles in this segment.
Mindtrap028 4 months ago 2
"Atheism is the more primitive view of the world" - Atkins
I am sure that is news to most atheists because I constantly hear atheists say that you must have a primitive mind to believe in a spook in the sky. Even Atkins admits that the idea of God is grandiose and the idea of an almighty God is a profound one. Atheism is not great.
"If science fails to deliver... then by all means turn to religion" - Atkins
Science has failed to deliver because it has not explained everything in the universe.
isthechurchtrue 4 months ago
Unbelievable how this guy embarrassed Himself, is even worst than any other atheist I've seen because he put himself in a pedestal with his arrogance in the opening statement.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
this atkins guy is a mess. atheists should have borrowed the old testament practice of killing by stoning, and wait for him outside of this debate. by talking he is doing a disservice to atheism.
CumSeNumesteMelodia 4 months ago
@CumSeNumesteMelodia These were laws practiced by many people in the New Testament, and is a prevalent truth. Nonetheless, you need to remember Christian belief completely contradicts these laws and other useless laws of men. One perfect example is about what you talk is when a woman was to be stoned for adultery, Jesus, the one we follow, intervenes, and puts this law to an even higher standard, and asks the whole crowd: He who is withous sin, shall cast the first stone.
Regards...
CrippledKnight 4 months ago
@CrippledKnight first of all, why do you tell me this?, second, "other useless laws of men". in the old testament, wasn't God the authority who installed laws, including lapidation (stoning)?
CumSeNumesteMelodia 4 months ago
@CumSeNumesteMelodia No, if we're going to base this according to suppsed or real whatever you want to see it, commandements sent by God, there were only 10. After this, hundreds of rules were made in the name of God, such as the one you mention. It is like the "holy christian crusades". They have nothing to do with christianity, they have nothing to do with commandments. They''re just horrible dilusions of men in power in need of control, that use God or christ as their excuse. Have a gday.
CrippledKnight 4 months ago
@CrippledKnight well, first, do you know that moses says that what he commanded was from the lord, right? Num 1:1, Num 2:1, Num 4:1, Deut 1:3, Lev 1:1 etc. the books of moses are filled with verses which says those words are from god. so from what you say i should conclude that you think moses was a liar, and his books are filled with lies?
CumSeNumesteMelodia 4 months ago
@CumSeNumesteMelodia Why so much hate against believers? Again, I'm a christian, and as a christian I follow what Jesus said. Again I tell you that Jesus informed that many laws were erected by men, which are senseless, yet they were erected in the name of God. I did now knew Moses, I cannot account for everything he did, but in some occassions he is also portrayed for 2 things, his closeness to God, and for his faults as a human being. He is not portrayed as the perfect leader. Respectfully, CK
CrippledKnight 4 months ago
@CrippledKnight " Why so much hate against believers? " what?
CumSeNumesteMelodia 4 months ago
@CumSeNumesteMelodia Is that all you say after I properly answer your questions? I was refering to you getting every point in the bible and citing specific verses without looking at the bigger picuture. Many horrible events happenned in the bible, while the good ones were praised, senseless ones were looked down upon either by later generations or Jesus himself. If you want to look for wrongdoings you will find them, but you will also find truth if you so desire and ask for enlightment, Regards.
CrippledKnight 4 months ago
@CrippledKnight yes, usually i take one topic at a time.
CumSeNumesteMelodia 4 months ago
@CrippledKnight Very well, all I wish upon you is that you find happiness, and if you are, that's great, just spread it around...
Regards,
CrippledKnight 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CrippledKnight that means you will not explain what you meant by "Why so much hate against believers?" and an even older question of mine: you think moses was a liar when he gave harsh laws telling to the people that those laws were commands from god? for us to go further you need to address those. if not, i wish to you, what you wished to yourself, and....the end.
CumSeNumesteMelodia 4 months ago
@Onesideofyams I spy strawmen. I never said the apostles never existed. I never said a man called Jesus never existed.
I do say there is no first hand witness testimony of any of the acts of Jesus.
Why did Pter die like he did? I don't know. Why did the Heaven's Gate cult die like they did? Was it because there was a spaceship following behind comet Hale-Bopp or was it because they were deluded ino believing that. Someone dying for a belief does not make the belief into a fact.
Huttate1 5 months ago
The only valid argument that God does not exist is the existence of Peter Atkins himself.
1. An omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient super-intelligent being known as God could not have created a being as unintelligent as Peter Atkins.
2. Peter Atkins exists and therefore has being.
3. Therefore, God must not exist.
WhisperPathsOfLight 5 months ago
The woman at 5:42 was crying because she so moved by Peter Atkins beautiful words
scar504 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK (DONATED) FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
William Lane Craig=Monster Debater
briandawkinsforever 5 months ago
Clearly, Peter Atkins is not an experienced debater and does not have his facts ready. He should have been more prepared (or perhaps reconsidered his beliefs) before going against Craig.
REDRAGON12345 6 months ago 5
4:08 Atkins: "Dangerous ground because it's not my subject."
Then Atkins states, The he doesn't BELIEVES that the gospels are a true record of what actually happened."
If he doesn't know all that much about the subject, then how the hell did he come to not believing that it took place?!?!?!
The dude is a loon!
AzBirdDog 6 months ago
it is amusing and somewhat frustrating to hear atheists say that it is ridiculous and preposterous to think that God created the universe, and then turn around and say, "oh, we don't have the answer to who or what created the universe, but give science a chance, and we will come up with something." How long do you need Science? How long shall we wait? until the earth is destroyed in the heat death of the universe? how can they shun an actual explanation when they have no alternative?
theantihero420 6 months ago 3
It's almost painful to watch Mr. Atkins stutter in trying to make sense of his own statement that the "Universe is nothing." And then I see atheist nonsense attacking Dr. Craig, Christianity and theists in general, based on hurt feelings. After that, I feel rather good in laughing at how ridiculous he sounds.
IoannesBellator 6 months ago
i wonder do some people not beleive in god due to science or phycology
pinball281 6 months ago
Atkins "simplicity" seems to qualify itself as being inadequate all on its own, given the "extremely remote"(his own words) plausability of our existance being chance. From a scientific perspective, if a process of elimination occurred, athiesm would be the first to go.
WrknClssHero 7 months ago
While he maintains an air of sophistry with his unsubstantiated scientific and ontological claims that don't actually address the reasoning of his opponents arguments, but rather just comments on them and expects us to believe in his criticisms without a line from A to B:
He displays an ignorance of the date the gospels were written, the creedal tradition relayed to us by the Apostle Paul, and the informal oral tradition that was present in ancient Israel.
Lukecash12 7 months ago
if you look closely at dr. craig's logic, he never mentions his most basic premise: god exists. his arguments' conclusions are therefore never surprising...
matthewdoucette 7 months ago
@matthewdoucette I think perhaps that "God exists" is the underlying point of his complete dialog here and therefore understood and in need of no mention because it is a predetermined given in his arguement.
WrknClssHero 7 months ago
poor guy is all over the place, doesnt know where his head is.
MrGeokal 7 months ago
Dr. Atkins is kinda terrible at debating his side of the issue. I almost wish Dr. Craig would have debated someone a little quicker whereas to make this a more interesting and fair debate.
walkerlucas 8 months ago 4
Chance depends on matter and energy operating on each other. If there is no matter or energy. How can chance come into play? Therefore the universe cannot come to be by chance
ansaz14 8 months ago
I love how Dr. Craig puts forth his arguments. He puts them in a logical way. Logic is the way to know logically, that there must be a God. I totally agree, because I think about everything with logic. Through logic, we ultimately find that faith proves that something cannot come from nothing, ultimately leads us to faith in an eternal first cause; an eternal creator. Logic proves an eternal creator.
Caldari1 9 months ago
@sooperfukker assuming you based this on Victor Stengers "nothing" theory, which was completely debunked by Anthony Zee, Stengers argument about nothingness is fundamentally flawed due to his treating "nothing"really as "something". In physics Absolute nothing means no law, no vacuums, no field, no energy, no structure, and no physical or mental entities of any kind. even so it still leaves the question, The postulation of zero net energy doesn't explain where the "nothing" originated a
blarbymcblarbston 9 months ago
@jonobrow I must say that that many people allow their beliefs to be substantially affected by on man, take Darwin for instance, Dawkins, Hitchens and Atkins all point back to this one man as the founder of their beliefs. Now I have personally read the writings of all of them and must say that in the end the most compelling argument for Cosmology stands with the Theist. I encourage you to read the book "There is a God: How the most notorious Atheist changed his mind" by Antony Flew
blarbymcblarbston 9 months ago
I love God!
raulchirica 9 months ago
I'm pretty certain about it and I am very much alive, scientific assumptions gotta love it.
TheBbg83 10 months ago
Dr. Atkins forgets that the talmud discusses Jesus' miracles. The talmud was written by the Pharisees - Jesus's enemies! Why would Jesus' enemies falsely assert his miracles??
2005ndcstudent 10 months ago 40
I believe in God, i believe he is the Lord, Master, Creator of the universe, i believe that we were created to worship him alone, i believe that we will be resurrected and accounted for all we put forth on earth. I think Dr. Atkins has lost track of his arguments and has strayed off into speculations rather than logic and rational thinking. You said "why would the enemies of Jesus falsely assert his miracles". My answer to that is they wouldn't. You see the trick of the Pharisees was simple....
DiLxThief 7 months ago
@2005ndcstudent The Pharisees simply mixed truth with falsehood to make people believe their accounts. They would write the true accounts of Jesus' encounters with the Jews and Miracles he performed to simply sway people to believe what they wrote. "Tell a truth, then mix it with bullshit" makes the bullshit easier to swallow. Jesus himself condemns the Jewish scribes and Pharisees who cheated with the pen and wrote that which Jesus did not say, this is evident from the bible. So my point is...
DiLxThief 7 months ago
We simply cant believe something is fact based on the testimony of other people who might be from the opposition. We need hard evidence to establish these facts. How can we take the bible as the literal word of God, when we don't know who wrote it, cannot establish when it was written... The Gospel accounts themselves where written at least 80 years after the "death" of Jesus, there is even some dispute as to who even wrote the Gospels. None of this is clear so we cannot base arguments on them.
DiLxThief 7 months ago
@2005ndcstudent You refer to the principle of enemy attestation, but I'm unsure as to what portion from the Tannaitic tract you are referring to; that is, if you are indeed referring to the only one we should consider to be historically reliable at all.
Lukecash12 7 months ago
@2005ndcstudent Add to this Flavius Josepho, a jude who lived in the same epoch of Christ and wrote about him, afirming his ressurection. See JOSEPHO, Flavius. The History of the Hebreus.
jefersontorres 6 months ago
@jefersontorres Josephus was born after Jesus died. That is like me being an eye witness to JFK's life. In te real world we call that hearsay. There is no contemporaneous evidence of Jesus' life. I know faith avoids facts but it does not stop them being facts.
Huttate1 6 months ago
@2005ndcstudent
The Talmud does not discuss Jesus' miracles. Look it up.
davewatcher 5 months ago
@2005ndcstudent "the talmud discusses Jesus' miracles"
No, it doesn't. There is a short note on an Hebrew named Yeshu being stoned for practicing sorcery on or around passover. That's it. Period.
fdasherv 3 months ago
If the Talmud provides favorable evidence of Jesus' miracles why was it banned by the Pope in 1553?
daleshankins 1 month ago
@2005ndcstudent To build a bigger lie on them?
foroparapente 4 weeks ago
Mr. Atkins now lowered his voice and stutters...huh.
gregclin 10 months ago
NEVER stutter in a debate.
TheLyricsGuy 10 months ago
(6) To make this idea plausible, one could look for "traces" of this ripping process in our universe, to look if there are "counter parts" to our matter and our space time construct.
And we do have some things, which could be interpreted as such "traces", namely dark matter, anti matter (mirror matter) and especially the annihilation of particles and anti particles in the quantum state.
However, all in all this is a metaphysical idea and will be largely inaccessible to physical science.
sooperfukker 10 months ago
@lederereddy
Well, then lend me your ears and eyes for a minute to update you on the topic:
(1) Science has a problem with the good old "Everything came from nothing, without a cause" universe. It doesn't make sense, is not verifiable or falsifiable and therefore scientific inaccessible.
(2) Their idea to solve the problem : Their new "nothing" is NOT the "abscence of anything" (as the word would insinuate), instead it is a "quantum vaccuum".
sooperfukker 10 months ago
(3) In this quantum vaccuum, particles start + cease to exist without any cause. They just pop in + pop out of existance for no reason at all.
(4) This "process" could solve a good part of the original problem.
If the particles in the quantum vaccuum come into existance "out of nothing" and "for no reason", why should the universe not have come out of this vacuum by the same "rules" ?
sooperfukker 10 months ago
(5) 1 problem remains : While it is indeed true, that in the quantum world, causality is largely abandonded, it is still in question "from what source" these particles come from and "where they go to" when they just cease to exist.
The soluttion is to give the "nothing" a new "quality", meaning that "nothing" can be "ripped apart" into multiple states (like I compared it to ripping apart a "0" into "+1" and "-1"). Only an idea like that could explain, from what source they come from and go to.
sooperfukker 10 months ago
Comment removed
sooperfukker 10 months ago
@Americant47 The atheist's excuse for loosing so badly in debate forums is not because the information they're pushing around as fact can be easily refuted by someone with truth. Their excuse is that Craig, Strobel, Meyers, Hovind etc are professionals at debate. Hahaha! That cracks me up! I think Richard Dawkins is an idiot but he's smart enough not to debate any of the Christian heavy hitter's! His excuse was they're not as well educated. And he would get spanked hard by dumb dumbs!!!
Aloha!
lederereddy 10 months ago
Stars can not come from an exploding nothingness!!!!!
Hueydocks 10 months ago
Hahaha, he wants believers to prove God created the universe? Can he prove nothing divided into something which isn't anything? Or better yet, multiple universe hype? He'll no, so why does he think he's smarter? Besides, how can one part of nothing be smarter than the other part of nothing?
lederereddy 11 months ago
Comment removed
sooperfukker 10 months ago
Comment removed
sooperfukker 10 months ago
@sooperfukker Honestly, scooperfluffer I have no idea what you talking about but I do have a good idea that nothing is nothing and nothing can't be divided into something, at least not in chemistry, biology, cosmology,.... No science uses that formula for any reason, especially not cooking!
Leave it to the desperation of evolution theories to come up with the now dumbest explanation ever considered!
WoW!!! I just had my first real lmao!... Keep up the good work!
lederereddy 10 months ago
Mr. Atkins seems confused.
afortaleza 11 months ago 44
@afortaleza lol he has completely lost it.....even the viewers there started do laugh a bit......Simply, there isnt anything that you can say against God....
juvenarija 8 months ago
@afortaleza I would be too if someone was misrepresenting my arguments and not getting any support from the christian moderator.
twoface4 8 months ago
@twoface4 Misrepresenting arguments? That's a good excuse for ignorance.
afortaleza 8 months ago
Not to be rude or anything,
but atkins is an embarrassment to the atheist side.
FIFAStreetaddict 11 months ago
ok..... thats it.... please no more history lessons in schools... we just cant believe those history books because it is not reliable cause it is written so many years after the event...
thewarr10r 1 year ago
Wow, Dr. Atkins is a bore.
123xxyz 1 year ago
Check out the audience at 5:40
They're practically falling asleep
BathtubGin1412 1 year ago
hold on... He said that a believer has to explicitly prove that there is a God. Then he agrees that it unlikely that the universe happened as it did, but says that because there's a chance, it could happen. On these grounds, his argument should have to explicitly prove that his position is correct. It's like when the tobacco industry was saying that cigarettes aren't proven to cause cancer. I know there's better arguments out there, but atkins is pathetic here.
krivindontanai 1 year ago
Weak, misguided, intellectual busy body who'd rather run off a cliff than to accept that Christ is his nemesis and not by chance. If you reject religious behavior then you can reject religions but rejecting God requires a personal rejection of Jesus Christ and for Atkins, that's a daily struggle. I, for one, will pray that you set aside your squabble and just talk to Him, He's waiting for that day, Sir.
lederereddy 1 year ago
Atkins discredits himself several times but one stands out for me. He says that because the gospel books were written late in the authors life that the content can't be trusted. That's ignorance of the constructs of authors and literature. Has anyone condemned an autobiography because the author was old when they wrote it? No, but that's what this guy concludes. Besides they more than likely journaled.
lederereddy 1 year ago
What complexities is to believe that at the beginning God created heaven ant earth?
apologetico74 1 year ago
If William is rational for self testamony then i am too with Thor or Wutan or buda thats opening a door way to the nut house there is too many self claims to be taken as any proof. Remember it was the bible that said what god did we didn't hear from his own mouth or have proof of his essence so we have perfect justifacation for being atheists as well.
wachnathan 1 year ago
It is surreal to see a Christian Philosopher utterly demolish an Atheist. Usually it is the Atheist who has it all together and the Christian has nothing more than faith. But here Atkins is Clearly out classed.
KDInfinity21 1 year ago
I think the way Atkins' is talking sounds like he's really nervous. William Lane Craig sounds much more confident and he's more interesting to listen to.
jcandy 1 year ago
I love that he tells us to "give science a chance". It is almost as if he doesn't even believe what he is saying, and he is just hoping that while he is still alive science will uncover evidence to help his cause. He BELIEVES in atheism while Christians BELIEVE in God. Unfortuantely for him, so far he ahs just proven how dumb the smartest atheists are
octobrick81 1 year ago
If people would realize that it isn't science vs religion. Science is on the side of God. Science brings to light the existence of God and digs up evidence that supports the Bible.
octobrick81 1 year ago
Is it me or does he keep saying the same thing; which is nothing?
nattyd50 1 year ago
Wow, athiests really need better candidates! And i hate how they twist this whole "science vs religion" situation in their favour - every competent christian scholar i've read and watched have stated scientific facts in support the existence of God, in fact, Dr Craig states more scientific facts than Dr Atkins! I mean, come on. Also i dont know of any scientific FACTS (not theories) that directly contradict the existence of God. Speculation is a bitch! Peace.
lushasraisinsbre 1 year ago
5:42 That lady in the green shirt looks like shes crying LOL?
Snwykid 1 year ago
This debate is not a victory for atheism or (specifically, and narrowly) Christianity, but agnosticism.
mattvansickle 1 year ago
He doesn't get it! The universe cannot be an elaborate rearrangement of nothing, as he continually emphasizes. Nothing cannot be rearranged. Nothing cannot take any effect.
JustinHill47 1 year ago
I have a pet monkey and he is pissed because only some of the chimpanzee by natural selection became humans. I rather belive a god created me instead of nothing creating me from nothing. when has a ramdom explosion created order? maybe a new organism will emerge from the hiroshima bombsite. the more I look into science the more I believe in a god. not all scientist are athiest. many say because we dont belive in atheism that we dont belive in science, that is not true science does not = atheism
cavalierblue 1 year ago
i think science explains god.like explaining the bio chemistry of love.it doesnt mean love doesnt exist.this is where athiest scientists get it wrong and religious people get it wrong when they dont want things explained.and i believe in evolution and that the story of adam and eve is a metaphor of life form becoming concious.this is why jesus came when he did as he could communicate now.like when you can finally communicate with your kids-when they become self aware.animals are like babies.
jamima444 1 year ago
Peter Atkins says "give science a chance". I do give science a chance, science is great - it shows evidence for the existence of God, NOT for evolution. Good one Atkins .... not. Jesus is coming back and AMEN, atheism / false religion / evolution and all the stupidity we find in the world will be GONE. Even so, come quick Lord Jesus !
orlibonurb 1 year ago
why cant people believe in science and god?
jamima444 1 year ago
Atkins just continuous to try to categorize people who believe in God as weak, unsure of themselves, lazy to find the truth, delusional…but watching the video I can see the God fearing monkey is the one who is more sure of himself and done his research.
enemay 1 year ago
"Fails to explain even though it's been trying to explain it for 5,000 years"
WRONGGGG
We haven't had the Bible for 5,000 years nor have we known everything for 5,000 years. Had we known Jesus wouldn't have been put to death. This is typical of atheists who have a poor understanding of the Bible.
oodlesofosz 1 year ago
"If science fails to deliver turn to religion"
Science does fail to prove the origin of the universe.
9pt9 1 year ago
so he's basically saying that we're not nothing, just fancy rearranged...nothing. and the basis of that theory is to believe that nothing existed to rearrange the nothing. if nothing existed then NOTHING could move, take place, or most certainly rearrange anything. interesting.
HeyMrKindred 1 year ago
If I wasn't a Christian before I watched this I would be afterworld... simply based on the Laughable statements that Peter Atkins is saying... I mean seriously this guy I know is supposed to be an intelligent debater but here he is simply drowning... I would leave my atheist views if I started with them here.... it is as he said the more primitive view.... if we in fact did come "down from the trees" then why wouldn't we simply look back up at the tree and say there you are forefather....
blarbymcblarbston 1 year ago 5
@blarbymcblarbston You would allow your beliefs to be substantially affected simply by the poor debating performance of one man? That's absurd, dude.
jonobrow 9 months ago
I don't think Dr. Atkins fails, he practically says that for the premise of "God did it" to be true you can only go so far as speculation. So Craig is based on speculations, while Atkins goes and says I don't want to speculate I take what science has proven today and I wait for Real evidence. Argument: The universe had a beginning. ASSUMPTION God was the cause of that beginning. The conclusion is only true if the latter is true, but that cannot be proven.
el1pensador1ft 1 year ago
@el1pensador1ft
"Craig is based on speculations,"
So deductive logic and established cosmology is speculative? I wonder what you make of evolution.
"I take what science has proven today and I wait for Real evidence."
Craig uses what science has proven AS evidence for God.
"ASSUMPTION God was the cause of that beginning."
No, it's deduction. Watch it again. God atheists can be tedious sometimes, especially when sticking up for other tedious atheists.
Birdieupon 1 year ago
Atkins does not understand atheism proposes naturalistic means can write digital coded information. since atheists positively asserted this. the burden of proof is on them to prove it
Theist positively assert an intellect can write digital coded information. the burden of proof has been satisfied
toobsucker 1 year ago
Another disappointing demonstration be atheists. As a veteran of debate and rhetoric, I am appalled at the consistently poor argumentation of skeptics.
mmarley 1 year ago
I am certainly not a theist, but I think it is very clear to anyone sane and should be admitted that Craig is the winner of this debate. I'll admit that I am not a scientist and Atkins knows far more about what physics has to say about the origins of the universe than me, but this "rearrangement of nothing" is logically ridicoulus
Myrkul1029 1 year ago 6
Atheism is the more primitive 1:40 LOL
Eskon2 1 year ago 11
@Eskon2
Yeah that statement from Dr. Atkins was pretty funny. Usually atheists claim, in a derogatory sense, that theism is a primitive view of the world and yet here Atkins ironically says that himself of atheism (although he obviously means it in a glorified and simplified sense).
Christianjr4 1 year ago
@Christianjr4 I think Atkins was trying to make the argument that humans are born as atheists as babies and then learn about God as they grow up.
supersmash43 1 year ago
@Eskon2 LOL indeed.
midnighter2k 1 year ago
Nor theism or atheism are "primitive" believes in gods or lack of them thereafter exist and have existed since a long time and seems they both will continue to exist for a long time.
midnighter2k 1 year ago
"complex order, my argument was greatly maligned there, uh, uh, I will not go into that, I do not have further time this evening" - Atkins...but Atkins finishes with 2:15 left of debating time in this session. Yep, sounds like he did not have time alright.
JoeBob246 1 year ago
@JoeBob246 2:15 isn't much time. It's certainly insufficient to explain a complicated concept. Even more so when time must also be taken to indicate where his opponent misrepresented it.
recompile 1 year ago
@recompile so one should just not make any comments, right? He sure made enough other comments and statements in less than 2 min. and 15 sec.
JoeBob246 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JoeBob246 "so one should just not make any comments, right? He sure made enough other comments and statements in less than 2 min. and 15 sec."
While it's true he could have made some additional statements in the time he had remaining, he couldn't possibly explain the concept and why Craig was in error in such a vanishingly short amount of time.
See, in the real world, complicated concepts can't be reduced to sound bites.
recompile 1 year ago
"If science fails to deliver this side of the grave, then by all means turn to religion" - Atkins...how about origin of life or the universe? Where the answer to that delivered by supporting evidence? Atkins, "there was a rearrangment of nothing" then how did we get something (or matter)?
JoeBob246 1 year ago
"Give science a chance." - sorry....I don't have that sort of time on my hands.
On a serious note, what in the world is this guy babbling on about?!?!
I can follow Dr. Craig, but Atkins just doesn't have a coherent argument.
imanoutkast 1 year ago
It's painful to watch Dr Atkins whine away like a beaten dog. He's losing the argument and he knows it.
Zaphenath4 1 year ago
He's already made room for a god in his universe—it's him!
What "historical accident" is he referring to, in regards to the origins of theism? I know of no such historical records that show when men began to believe in God. This is only historical when one first presupposes evolution and no God.
jahchild1904 1 year ago
So why haven't the media lapped this up? Why don't people reaise that there is something out there BIGGER, SMARTER and more COMPLEX than our puny self...
Why is it that most people say that ALL theists are stupid and have no idea of Science? Atheists basicly sit on their pedestal and call all others who do not agree with them as stupid.
Yet from here we see, "science fails to deliver"...lol
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
Dr. Craig t-bagged this rambling dumbass with no argument
sek3009 1 year ago 2
There are less clicks on this debate, because a theist is kicking ass.
Versgolem 1 year ago 3
I don't really understand his point about the bible being potentially false because it was written decades after the events that took place. I just checked my college history textbook, it has information dating back hundreds to thousands of years prior to today, but it was written within the past few years. Should I not believe it because it was written so late after the events? In 80 years should I choose to write an autobiography, will it be false because I did not write it as events happened?
dudefestguitar 1 year ago 28
@dudefestguitar Well said! "1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God. For it is written, "He is THE ONE WHO CATCHES THE WISE IN THEIR CRAFTINESS Job 5:13
He catches the wise in their craftiness, and the schemes of the wily are swept away.
senoradebbie 1 year ago
@dudefestguitar
lol excellent...i read a book that talked about an event that happened 14 billion years ago!! wow they really stretchin the imagination now huh lol
very good point my friend!
bigspliffs 1 year ago
@dudefestguitar I would add to his point that there are no contemporary corroborations for the claims in the Bible, and there are no later books that talk at all about the claims in the Bible. Your question is a good one, but I would say that if the history textbook you're reading now was the only version ever printed, then you would certainly have cause for doubt. There are many, many corroborating accounts for historical facts. The Bible doesn't seem to have the same luxury.
PosFlow 1 year ago
@dudefestguitar I think you misunderstand the argument...
jimjamgumbob 1 year ago
@jimjamgumbob there is no argument here. although dr. atkins attempts, he fails miserably.
kidwithoutgun 1 year ago
@kidwithoutgun You're right, this is not a good debate for Atkins. I don't know if he is any good because I have not seen any other arguments by him
jimjamgumbob 1 year ago
@kidwithoutgun He keeps saying "I think, I think, I think" yet never states any claims. Then he resorts to assumptions that people who believe in God are somehow "lonely".
oodlesofosz 1 year ago
@oodlesofosz Ha ha i know man - as soon as you say "I THINK" then you've clearly stated that it's just YOUR IDEA, and no one cares.
kidwithoutgun 1 year ago
@dudefestguitar The information in your textbooks is itself based on better evidence than what the Gospels provide. Eyewitness accounts are by their nature unreliable, only more so if they are written decades after the event. An event like the battle of Waterloo would be fundamentally based on much more verifiable data than a small collection of eyewitness accounts that contradict each other.
lordabacu 1 year ago
@dudefestguitar I often make this point too. well said friend.
kidwithoutgun 1 year ago
@dudefestguitar So true. And Peter Atkins is saying that the Gospel writers got together with Jesus and said "Let's make a bunch of stuff up so people in the future will think it's all true"?
If this was true why does it say at Matthew 9:34 "But the Pharisees began to say: "It is by the ruler of the demons that he expels the demons".
If Jesus hadn't had done anything supernatural they wouldn't have said this.
oodlesofosz 1 year ago
@dudefestguitar
Do you not understand... the textbook is not a historical document, but compiled of numerous historical documents?
Do you not understand the difference between primary sources and secondary sources?
Stay in school, kids.
TheAqui1a 1 year ago
@TheAqui1a Primary sources are letters, journal and diary entries, oral histories, and a few other things that don't really apply here. A textbook is compiled of many different historical documents? And the Bible isn't? Maybe I'm mistaken, but I'm pretty sure 40 different authors spanning thousands of years is also a compilation. Half of the new testament are letters from Paul to churches. Letters are a primary source. The Gospels are glorified journal or diary entries. I'm still in school, btw.
StaticSkylineFL 1 year ago
@StaticSkylineFL Do you know how long after the apparent birth of Jesus the bible was written?
TheAqui1a 1 year ago
@TheAqui1a A few hundred years. The Gospels were all written approximately up to 80 or so years after the birth.
dudefestguitar 1 year ago
@TheAqui1a sorry, staticskylinefl is my band account. The gospels were all written within 100 years after the birth of Christ, Paul's epistles were all written a little later than that. Why?
dudefestguitar 1 year ago
@dudefestguitar The gospels were, as agreed by Lane, written 70 or 80 years following the events. Think about that.
TheAqui1a 1 year ago
@TheAqui1a I'm still not sure of your point though. If my grandfather was to write about his childhood, would his entire writing be invalid because he didn't write it at the time it happened?
dudefestguitar 1 year ago
@dudefestguitar It would be distorted; some things might be added from false memory, and some things might be missed. It's common sense, think about it.
TheAqui1a 1 year ago
@TheAqui1a true, if only one person wrote about the entire story of Jesus, there wouldn't be Christianity today as we know it. But hundreds of corroborative reports and official documents make a much stronger case.
dudefestguitar 1 year ago
@dudefestguitar It's very much the opposite; we can see from each of the accounts how different and incompatable they are. Too many chefs spoil the broth. lol
TheAqui1a 1 year ago
@dudefestguitar You've made a pretty stupid mistake there. Nothing gets into a history book without original sources and not just one of them. Whereas the nonsense fairytales made up about the fictional character jesus have changed many times over the years.
You're wasting your life on stupid fairy tales you galloping imbecile.
nilbud 1 year ago
@nilbud I'm sorry, I'f finding it difficult to type I'm laughing at you so hard. Whether or not Jesus is the Son of God or not, we'll leave out of this argument as it does not apply. Arguing against the sheer existence of Jesus as an historical person? Well that's just imbecilic. There are hundreds, if not thousands of historical documents and accounts confirming that Jesus of Nazareth existed. And as far as what's changed about the stories...not much. Go read it in it's original greek.
dudefestguitar 1 year ago
@dudefestguitar - Excellent point. I'll be using it from now on.
YouAreIsrael 1 year ago
@dudefestguitar The problem with the bible is that it claims supernatural unprovable events, not backed up by historians of the time. And it it's "facts" were passed by vocal tradition, is not clear who were the writers of the of the gospels. Lastly, the bibles mix of historically accurate events with tales and metaphors open to interpretation make it a not so reliable book.
DaGavinX 1 year ago
@DaGavinX
Many points of evidence for miracles. The Walls of Jericho very good example (digs have shown truth). Or how about people being healed these days with no explaination from doctors.
The math for a satellite orbit requires the Orbit of Earth for the last however thousands of years around the Sun.
NASA couldn't work it out. Maths were just off. Someone pointed biblical events Sun being held in sky and shadow being held longer too. When adding these times There were spot on.
God Exists.
TheSuttonator 1 year ago
@TheSuttonator The Walls of Jericho? How do you can you know they were miraculously destroyed and not from any other way?
People being healed wit no explanation- look up the palcebo effect.
How likely it is that the sun was held in the sky? Have you considered any other posibilities.
"Someone pointed biblical events Sun being held in sky and shadow being held longer too. When adding these times There were spot on."
I once saw a documentary about finding hidden prophecies in the bible, so...
DaGavinX 1 year ago
@DaGavinX
I said, look it up.
Placebo effect doesn't get rid of Aids.
A good friend of mine was deaf for 2 years, with no chance of recovery. He was healed and the Doctors can't explain it. That isn't the Placebo effect.
It wasn't that the sun was held in the sky was it, the Earth will have been held in orbit until needed. Thus the sun stayed in the same place in the sky.
If you choose not to see I can't force you, but I pray you will.
God Bless.
TheSuttonator 1 year ago
@DaGavinX it doesn't surprise at all,
God probably doesn't exist.
DaGavinX 1 year ago
@dudefestguitar Exactly my view! In fact, the point has been made before by many people that, not only were there still people alive at the time the Gospels were written who could have stood up and said, "That's not how it happened," but the people who wrote the new testament often died as martyrs for their beliefs. Who in their right mind would die for something they just made up?
tynytian 1 year ago
@dudefestguitar Very good point. ;)
cashernandes1 11 months ago
So tell me something, if Jesus would was you right now doing the things of God, and he said go preach and Jesus said many will not believe, but you go n do it because you know the truth. Would you scarifice your own life because of one man, or would you scarifice your life for a true man that was of God. haha Wow you make no sense
azar24701 1 year ago
@azar24701 welll said, azar. Or Azar the Magnificent. Words erupt from your mouth like bad shrimp that you had for lunch.
sevenonpaper1 1 year ago
Hmm, you presummations is kinda of mute, YOu agree that Jesus exists but you fail to think that the people around him that saw him do the miracles was not vaild, and they died accordly for that lie
azar24701 1 year ago
moot, adj
deprived of practical significance : made abstract or purely academic
mute, adj
unable to speak : lacking the power of speech
Know when to use which and your arguments may be taken more seriously.
bclagge 1 year ago
@azar24701 Huh? What? Are you 14 or something?
sevenonpaper1 1 year ago
wow, so basically you speak out of doubt which is somthing moral like faith. But you fail to mention Dr.Akins that it is not of the gospels that people believe bu