An Evil god could not create a being with the freedom to choose, because the freedom to choose is good, an absolute evil by nature can do no good, he would favor enslavement
As a skeptic of religion, I just have to BASED on REASON only, Craig presents a very powerful argument. Craig is one of the few Christian who can give reasonable and respectful arguments for God. But great job to Both!!!
people seem to misunderstand the infinite notion. Infinity as a property within a FINITE entity (i.e; the universe) CANNOT EXIST!! otherwise you would not ID the finite as being finite. God is NOT FINITE (i.e; matter, time, space) therefore he as an immaterial, inspacial, timeless, being DOES exist.
the spaghetti monster is divine. It created the universe along with superman and Vishnu.
"nothing cant come from nothing" . There's a lot of theories on how the universe came to be. the big bang could just be a prior universe that collapsed. We don't know, so the answer "it must be my god because I belive it" isn't convincing. but belive it, no problem. just dont be crazy and start to disbelive evolution which is proven science.
@martinboson the spaghetti monster is divine, really? Divine must be timeless, immaterial and spaceless. How does it meet these conditions? All models fail in the end. First, pushing the problem back a step does not help and makes it more complicated. Second, the fine tuning required is also infinite. Third, nothing in science is provable. Science is a model that changes. Logic is far superior. Evolution is not even a science, yet alone proven. God is the best explanation of the universe.
@6630mcdo "GOD divine, really? Divine must be timeless, immaterial and spaceless. How does GOD meet these conditions? All models fail in the end. " - there, you just owned yourself. peace bitches!
@martinboson The scientific method in step three requires any science be a) repeatable and b) observable. Evolution can do neither. A and B are required, required from the initial process of a until the final condition of b. We only live 100 years or so and cannot preform a and b taking millions of years. And, no, adaptations are not mutations. Mutations always contain less information and are harmful to the life form. Without DNA, life cannot exist. Without life, natural selection cannot exist.
@6630mcdo If you think it's not repeatable than you are simply mistaken. If you think it hasn't been observed that's two strikes in one sentence. I encourage you to do serious research, not apologetics nonsense. "mutations always contain less information". I can guarantee you you'd be enlightened if you spent 20 minutes with a biology professor at your local university. Go find when their office hours are.
Infinite is not physical by definition it's an abstract concept. So when Craig argues an infinite cannot exist, it means God cannot exist. nor any kind of infinite.
@Fordi We will see soon enough. I am shocked that people believe that everything or anything can come from nothing. Or others the universe always existed. Both are illogical. Fine-tuning argument has made it checkmate for atheists. Game's over. Their answer is multiverse. Of course, only after theists showed them fine-tuning! There is zero evidence for multiverse and takes faith more than any Catholic.
@martinboson I've read most fallacious attempts to debunk fine-tuning but they all fail. Less than 1% of cosmologists state it is not fine-tuned. Why do you think atheists had to invent multiply universes? It's checkmate. The universe did not need to be the way it is now. The possible options are 10^500 per cosmologists. Only a few are life-permitting universes. Universe is very finely-tuned. Praise God for His awesome wisdom!
@martinboson Well, all sophomoric causes are very easy to discard. Remember, the cause of the universe MUST be timeless, space-less, and immaterial. Time, matter and space cannot create time, matter and space - circular reasoning of the nth degree. Spaghetti is matter, correct? Spaghetti occupies space, correct? Spaghetti requires time to change matter, correct? That's why all sophomoric comments are so easy to discard. 'Man of science is a poor philosopher.' Einstein.
@martinboson President Bush even said 'atheists are not Americans'. "We are one nation under God", he said. They don't belong here. Atheists then asked Bush to retract his statements. With guts, he said I mean what I say - now get out. I don't deal with non-Americans.
@6630mcdo except bush is an idiot and his statement goes against the constitution. It's religious racism. there's no word of god in the constitution. the words "on god we trust" wasn't printed on money until 1954. he also said "usa has the best educated americans in the world".
@martinboson Option: 1) Universe always existed 2) Universe came from nothing without cause 3) God created the universe. Do you see how insane one must believe in 1 or 2? They are 100% false and illogical. 'We don't know' is only faith - faith in science.
@martinboson Every time this joker says, "Checkmate", I become more convinced that this is a troll account, and we're really talking to Edward Current.
"I am shocked that people believe that everything or anything can come from nothing"
That's exactly what WLC argues for, though; creation ex nihilo. We don't have an example of this ever happening, a model by which this might be possible to instigate, yet creationism insists it must have happened at least once in the universe.
I can't say what happened. I agree that both are absurd - but it doesn't become /less/ absurd if you stick a god onto it.
@Fordi No, Dr. Craig argues creation from a cause. Atheists argue creation from nothing without cause. The cause of the universe must be timeless, immaterial, spaceless, since time, matter and space cannot create time, matter and space. Logic is superior to science. Nowadays, people assume science is all-powerful but is actually quite weak. As St. Thomas Aquinas stated, all truth comes from God. So, there can never be a contradiction with science or religion or history or any other subject area.
@Fordi I know Lawrence Krauss's work. As an engineer & physicist who has taken quantum mechanics & modern physics, he is either naive or deceitful in saying 'nothing'. Virtual particles do not come from nothing as he stated. They come from quantum foam, which is a sea of energy converting energy into mass. And, there are ten theories of the virtual particles themselves. I assume he just does not understand the philosophical view of nothing. Man of science is a poor philosopher - Einstein
@Fordi The fine-tuning and causal arguments are very strong today. In fact, they have never been stronger. Science is over-covering God the more we find. DNA is a code. Codes require intelligence. Sure patterns exist in nature, but DNA is a repeating alphabetic. Why do you not like the FT argument? I find it amazingly strong. After theists showed it to the world, atheists after the fact claimed there must be billions of multiverse of universes. But there can be no evidence, even with logic.
It's not that I don't like it. It's that it assumed that the fundamental constants are in some way variable, an idea for which no evidence exists. Further, the many world interpretation doesn't come from FT at all. It is an interpretation of quantum indeterminacy. Also, DNA is not a code, unless you look at it as having encoded an evolutionary history.
"Codes require intelligence"
They do not. They require variation and filtration.
@Fordi Give me a code that does not require intelligence. Don't use DNA as we disagree. I do not believe evolution happened. Cosmologists all agree (except radicals) that the constants could have been different. They even determined 10^500 possible universes based on fine-tuning. You should study the science.
@Fordi President Bush even said 'atheists are not Americans'. "We are one nation under God", he said. They don't belong here. Atheists then asked Bush to retract his statements. With guts, he said I mean what I say - now get out. I don't deal with non-Americans.
@keebeejones07 Give some proof that God exist! I need some proof! Dont say the Trees, and Nature, and so forth. If we have free will, then why do we still get punished?
@dkman2006 WLC understands a second rendition of inifinity as applied to a timeless being, namely: qualitative summary of all the attributes ascribebable to the divine. This goes beyond the conceptual, abstact form. By the way, when debaters use 'infinity' they generally try to smuggle it from the abstract into the physical world in order to justify the eternality of matter and escape the need of an ultimate beginning and an uncaused Cause. So far though, none has succeeded.
@TheChristcrucified Excuse me? You are a Christian, therefore you believe that God created the universe, which means you believe you KNOW where the universe came from. Stop bullshitting. How can you have faith in a scientific fact? Also, the beginning of the universe is not a faith either. Stop throwing the word around. No religion is being taught in science classrooms, stop with your nonsense.
@ThePuffyDuck Yes, and i admit that i believe it. See, that is where we differ, "religous" and "non religous", we will admit that some things that we hold are beliefs. We accept some things by faith. Do you accept the big bang theory?
@TheChristcrucified First of all, you are confused on the definition of belief. Belief is simply holding the proposition that something is true. In that sense, yes everyone has beliefs. Faith however, is belief without evidence, which is directly contradicting to the purpose of science. No, you do not believe in God, you have faith, because there is no evidence of it's existence. Also, the Big Bang theory has nothing to do with Biological Evolution. Stop making crap up.
@ThePuffyDuckbig bang=Cosmic Evolution. Even michio kaku agrees to that, and you must admit, when it comes to the beginning of the universe it's all speculation. So, when someone teaches the Big Bang, they are teaching someones personal Faith/Belief in what heppened. I have faith that God did it, and you have faith that nothing did it. I can no more prove that God exist than you can prove the big bang. im done hoarding the page if you wanna talk you can send me a personal msg.
@TheChristcrucified im praying for you man. thanks again for the chance to chat. may God open your eyes to His wonderful grace. if you haven't, then try Him. He is good.... I KNOW He is. With love CalebW.
@TheChristcrucified And I'm praying for you to Zeus, Odin, Vishnu, and all of the other non-existent Gods that have the same possibility of existing as your imaginary God.
WLC won this one. Stephen made the reason of an evil God. WHAT? Sticks the entire debate on that! So does he disprove that "God doesn't exist?" And he personally doesn't even accept this proposition being an atheist.
WLC makes me chuckle. He spends the first portion of his argument explaining how an actual infinite is impossible, then the remainder trying to convince people in an infinite cause to the Universe. He fails to explain how he gets to the from a transcendent cause to a transcendent being, leaping from transcendent cause to transcendent being. A tornado has a cause, it begins to exist seemingly out of nothing, but that in no way indicates it was caused by a transcendent sky genie.
@ReverendWyrm "He spends the first portion of his argument explaining how an actual infinite is impossible, then the remainder trying to convince people in an infinite cause to the Universe." SIGH: watch?v=dXQ9Hc_rfdc. Furthermore, Craig believes an actual infinite exists, but not in the physical world.
@drcraigvideos One may ask: If we suspend physical laws to allow an actual infinite for the pre-universe condition (whatever may have been prior to/outside the Universe) then there's no reason to assume that other universal constants apply either, i.e. the rules of cause and effect. Eliminating cause and effect undermines WCL's premise 1&3 of Kalam. Premise 1 of Kalam must by necessity be "Everything that begins to exist WITHIN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE has a cause" and premise 3 wholly discarded.
@THEBRITTISHMAN It is your view that atheism is "setting out to corrupt the world", and your view couldn't be further from the case . To say atheism is a religion is fundamentally wrong, by definition it is faithless, without belief and denying the existence of God, doesn't really sound like a religion does it? Your mistake is to say that all atheists seek to attack faith, we attack your logic, not your faith, at least Craig attempts rational discourse, you don't even do that.
People can illustrate sympathy and empathy and every other ingredient of morality without needing objectivity. Can any magical principle or fake idol in the sky tell us in every instance what is right and wrong regardless of context or situation. The best attempt at objectivity, the categorical imperative never did justice, so where is the God distinguishing right and wrong in every instance? Oh let me guess, its a miracle when "good" occurs, but its punishment or our fault when "evil" occurs.
@iHAVE1j agnosticism- "The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist."
Once again you are wrong. Once again you ignore the fact that this is the definition nearly every agnostic uses. There are indeed agnostic atheists as I have shown DOZENS of times. Stop bsing please.
Sam Harris wascorrect in his statement about Dr. Craig. "the man that has put the fear of God in many of my fellow athiests" Paraphrased of course. It's funny how Dr. Athiest will attack the idea of having a cosmological argument, but will not tell you what he believes to be wrong with it. He distracts from the problem of evil by saying what about the problem of good. The greatest asset of Dr. Athiest seems to be Ad Homenim attacks on his arguments. Dr. Athiest defended an agnostic view 1:42:00!
@TheChristcrucified "Dr. Atheist" need not debunk the cosmological argument since science has already done it. Quantum Theory has proven time and time again that not everything needs a First Mover. In fact, Conservation of Mass-Energy downright disproves it nonsense. For example, gas molecules may bounce against the walls of a container without anything getting them moving in the first place.
@ThePuffyDuck Hello there...I wonder why, if the "cosm arg" is false, why doesnt anyone refute his argument? Just type this into YT. "The First Law of Thermodynamics vs The Cosmological Argument" and "Doesn't Quantum physics proves something came from nothing?". The truely important thing in this is do you know who Jesus Christ is? Do you know that He died for the sins of man to be the propitiation for sins? Have you accepted Him into your heart? You are in my prayers. thank you for your time.
@TheChristcrucified The reason is simple: He hasn't debated any real scientists. Brian Greene or Michio Kaku would destroy him on the cosmological argument. People he has debated however don't use science to prove him wrong, they use philosophy. Also, I just looked at the videos you suggested. Craig shows his ignorance very well. Energy was NOT created at the Big bang. Modern physicists do not claim this at all. Why would I accept a poor copy of all other religious icons? Jesus is a joke.
@ThePuffyDuck Again, if these men can destroy his argument and shut the "silly creationist" up, why haven"t they? Dr. Craig has never turned down a debate. Based upon the last part of your privious reply, i assume you don't subscribe to anything like Christianity, Islam,etc, and as follows you believe the theory of evolution? Right? In my prayers. Thank you again for your time. I truely appreciate it. Caleb.
@ThePuffyDuck Why havent they challenged him? So, you "KNOW" that there was energy before the "big bang", or is that an assumption or maybe a "personal belief" you hold? i dont know anyone that was there. You must admit, when we get into things like beginning of time everything is purely speculation. You are free to "believe" in evolution, but you must recognize that. It is a "belief". I just disagree with my tax dollars supporting your religion being taught in USA schools. Thank you. Caleb.
@TheChristcrucified Great job contradicting yourself. You just stated, "I don't know anyone that was there," yet you pretend like you KNOW where the universe came from and where it's going. I never stated the word "know" because the truth is, we do not. I am mature enough to accept that, you aren't. Evolution is a belief? Yes, and Cells, Atoms, the planet Neptune, and and energy are all beliefs. Everything in science classrooms is wrong. Your ignorance is astounding.
@ThePuffyDuck I never said i Know as a matter a fact, i have my personal faith in certain theories. I only asked if you had faith in the religion of evolution, in reguards to the "beginning". I never said that everything in the science classroom was wrong.science is,but i do not agree with any religion being taught at the expence of my tax dollars. neither should be taught while being funded by anyones tax dollars. sorry im not explaining myself enough that you dont have to add to what i say.
@TheChristcrucified "...you had faith in the religion of evolution, in reguards to the "beginning"." OK, now stop it. Evolution is in no way a religion and belief is not required. There is more than enough evidence supporting Evolution, there's certainly no reason to restrict that knowledge from schools. You're making a classic blunder, the first being "Never get in a land war in Asia", only slightly less well known being that Evolution doesn't try to explain the origin of life.
@TheChristcrucified I'm wondering what Cosmology has to do with Evolution? Certainly Evolution couldn't have occurred without the Big Bang but that's about it. To answer your question, yes, there's very compelling evidence indicating that the Big Bang event occurred. Of course it's important to make the distinction between the Big Bang Phase and the Big Bang Singularity. Much like distinguishing between Evolution and Abiogenesis. My turn, do you REALLY believe in talking donkeys?
@ReverendWyrm The big bang theory is cosmic EVOLUTION! See, you believe in something that you can not prove. That would be classified as a personal belief which means, you have a religion. It doesn't bother me what you believe, but im not happy that my tax dollars support the teaching of your religion. Yes. I would agree that if there is a God, and i believe there is, that he could use a donkey to convey his msg. I believe in the beginning God, and you believe in the beginning dirt. thanks.
@TheChristcrucified You're making a giant leap with this one. The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with Cosmology or the beginning of the Universe. While the word evolution can be used to describe the process of change for just about anything that doesn't make it part of the Theory of Evolution which deals with biological changes in living creatures. Besides, there IS evidence supporting the Big Bang hence it is not a belief. Accepting evidence on something does not make it a religion.
@ReverendWyrm The Big Bang is called cosmic evolution. everyone from dawkins to harris to hitchens to michio kaku agree, thats what it's called. "Accepting evidence..does not make it a religion",agreed, and that is all i do with Christ. I accept the evidence that is given to me, as well as the personal experience. Recap, big bang=cosmic evol. I believe in Jesus Christ, and you believe in something that happened way way way back when. im praying for you man God loves you and Christ died for you.
@TheChristcrucified Again you miss the point. The word evolution, defined as "any process of formation or growth", can apply to just about anything. The Theory of Evolution as hypothesized by Darwin and currently taught in Biology deals with "change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations." The evolution of language for instance, while and accurate description, is not part of the Theory of Evolution, similarly for Cosmology.
@TheChristcrucified "...you believe in something that happened....way back when...you have faith that nothing did it." There is EVIDENCE that the Big Bang occurred. Perhaps not exactly as we understand it right now, but enough to support the hypothesis. There is NO EVIDENCE for genies,bread from the sky,magic,virgin births,resurrections,talking animals,global floods,souls,angels,devils,etc. If you want to understand more about the Big Bang check out physicist and cosmologist Dr. Lawrence Krauss.
@THEBRITTISHMAN Lol'd so bad at your comment. "If Atheism is a religion, then health is a disease!"- Clark Adams. The absence of something makes it impossible for it to be that something. Saying Atheism is a religion is as stupid as saying bald is a hair color. Bringing logic and skepticism, which created science and reason is corrupting the world? Sorry, but stupid religious people preventing the spread of reason are the ones corrupting the world.
Atheism is the belief that there is no god. The belief makes it similar to religion in that it's unfounded and rests on faith. It could be argued, "it may be faith-based, but doesn't have a moral code." Technically, Christianity doesn't have a moral code either, as the coming of Jesus replaced the "law" with "faith." Agnosticism is the only scientific medium between the two, admitting there's room for both theories, or even something else.
@iHAVE1j Atheism is the disbelieve in god. Stop making up definitions for it. You don't believe in unicorns and elves correct? Does that make you an Aunicornist? Does that make you religious in your lack of belif in unicorns? Of course not. I have yet to meet an Atheist who says they believe there isn't a god. Even Richard Dawkins says that he isn't 100% sure. The fact is, there is no evidence, just as there is no evidence fot unicorns,thus we cgoose the stance they do not exist.
"Atheism is the disbelief in god." That's the same as saying it's the belief that there is no god, which requires faith. The formal definition is "the doctrine or belief that there is no God." The origin of the word itself is from "athéisme," meaning "without god." It's impossible to argue a definition. lol. An no, I have never seriously considered my belief in unicorns, meaning I'm indifferent as to whether they exist, not for or against.
@iHAVE1j Disbelief is lack of belief. How does lack of believe equal belief? Excuse me, but that is not the formal definition. The definition is the lack of belief or disbelief in a god or gods. It can also be defined as the stance that god does not exist based off of lack of evidence. You stated yourself that the word itself when broken down means without faith or without belief in god. Even the old form of it means "without god" as you say. You have proven yourself that it is without belief.
@iHAVE1j Also, it seems that you believe that unicorns could possibly exist. The fact that you are willing to believe in fairy tales to keep from looking like a hypocrite regarding your stance on god is pathetic.
If I choose not to believe in the color blue that means I believe that color doesn't exist. This really shouldn't even be an argument.. If I admit the color's existence is uncertain that doesn't constitute a lack of belief, just a confirmation of uncertainty. Anytime you choose not to believe something you are affirming the negative, meaning you believe the contrary. The unicorn argument is irrelevant and only belabors my point..
@iHAVE1j not believe gods exist) Not believing god exists doesn't mean the same as "believing not X" (believe gods do not exist). The placement of the negative is key: the first means not having the mental attitude that proposition X (gods exist) is true, the second means having the mental attitude that proposition X (gods exist) is false. The difference here is between disbelief and denial: the first is disbelief in the broad or narrow sense whereas the second is denial.
Formal logic would disagree with you for good reason. First, "Mental attitude" holds no place in logic. And even if you were 50% empirically certain that god doesn't exist, all that would do is confirm your uncertainty, not your disbelief or belief (that could only be attributed to the unknowable portion, or your faith). And yes, not believing x does mean you believe -x. "Not" negates the positive. There's no reason for this argument to continue..
@iHAVE1j Now you're leaving? How pathetic. First, agnosticism has no opinion on whether God exists. Their belief is that we can never know, so no they do not believe that x may not exist and that x may exist. Once again, you have no clue what you are talking about. If you claim you do not believe in elves, you do not believe in elves. If you claim you believe that they don't exist, that is a belief. Disbelief is lack of belief. Period. The definitions of are completely different.
@iHAVE1j And Agnosticism vs Atheism is not clear cut at all. You fail to realize that most, if not all Atheists are Agnostic, however not all Agnostics are Atheist. I have yet to meet an Atheist who claims that they can experiment and prove that God does not exist and prove such a thing. Disbelief is belief due to lacking of evidence. That is what Atheism is. Actively disbelieving, or denying is having evidence and rejecting it. There is no evidence of God, therefore we do not believe. You lost.
@iHAVE1j Oh, I forgot something. You said the unicorn argument is unimportant. Why? You obviously recognizes that it crushes your entire argument. The statement, "Unicorns exist" cannot be proven nor proven to be not true. By your definition of Atheism and Agnosticism, this requires faith, and thus the disbelief in Unicorns is a religion. However, why do we not have a word for such a thing? Because it makes no sense. Your argument is easily shown to be nonsense.
Agnosticism does not propose that we can "never" know. Here's the definition: "an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge."
Those claims exist in the present.
There is no contradiction in what atheist or agnostics believe, only in what you're tying to say. I've laid out exactly where the contradiction is but your ego is too inflated to grasp it. This is VERY basic logic. You're either a troll or a moron. Bye.
@iHAVE1j Do you not know the definition of "claim" and "know"? Agnostics believe that the claims made that God does/doesn't are uncertain because we do not, and we will not ever know. You have just said it yourself that there is no contradiction between Agnosticism and Atheism. Both say that there is no logical evidence for God, however Agnostics take it further and say we will never know while Atheists simply don't believe. You're the moron, get over it.
You seem to get confused easily. Ask yourself this question, "what does it mean to not believe that god exists and to believe that he may or may not exist?" To me, it seems that means you're claiming both disbelief (CERTAINTY) and an admittance of not knowing (UNCERTAINTY). If you can clearly, coherently tell me how being certain and uncertain about the same thing is not a contradiction, you have won this argument. If not, this is my last post.
@iHAVE1j Since when is disbelief certainty? You do realize that disbelief comes in two packages right? There is active, and passive. Passive is simply saying there is no evidence, thus we do not believe it. Active is saying, "I do not believe in God because it makes no sense" and these are the ones who try to support this. In both cases though, the core logic is that there is no logical evidence for God. How am I wrong about Agnosticism when I was given that definition by over 10 of them?
You didn't answer my question at all. If belief is not certainty, real or pretended, then it's in an entirely different spectrum than agnosticism. Meaning you still couldn't be theist & agnostic or atheist & agnostic.
What dictionary are you using? The agnostic claim has never been that one can "never" attain absolute knowledge, it's that we presently can't. If any agnostic were to use the word "never," which is an absolute, it would be a contradiction in itself.
For example, like Mr. Craig, I don't believe infinity exists in our time-space continuum, this means I am affirming the negative, that infinity does not exist in our reality. This is just basic fundamental logic. If you don't understand it, accept it and move on.
Just finished the debate. Law did very well, but his refusal to respond to the Cosmological argument greatly damaged his case. Also, his appeal to emotions when dealing with the problem of evil just isn’t a good, rigorous, philosophical argument to back up his case, as Craig pointed out.
All in all, I think Craig made the more persuasive case, whatever the shortcomings of his conclusions.
@themorbidimmortal well that's obvious, I was just pointing out that the crowd shouted more for Craig for some reason, probably because he won the debate.
@THEBRITTISHMAN And it is religion which is setting out to corrupt the world, not atheists. Atheists are out there trying to rid the world of religious corruption...
Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values."
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities and the supernatural.
Atheism is NOT a religion. It's basically an OPPOSITE to religion. Get educated...
What THEBRITTISHMAN means to say, I believe, is that Atheism is a FAITH. It is obviously not a religion as these have dogmas, commands, etc. But it is clearly a statement of faith to categorically say, “There is no God,” for how can one be sure of such a thing? And if you can’t be sure there is no God, then the statement becomes a matter of faith—not a matter of fact.
It’s no wonder Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines Atheism as “the doctrine that there is no deity."
DR. Craig is good, he presents his case well but if it weren't logical then he wouldn't be able to make a case at all. The fact is that it is more logical to be a theist than it is to be an atheist. The arguments are logically sound and have not yet been adequately refuted. Reasonable Faith, with sound logic allows a theist to believe. An athiest only has their own feelings and flawed logic to back up what they want to believe.
@imkluu What Theistic logic is sound? The logic behind creationism is "This is true, now let's find support for it" while Atheist logic is "I have evidence, now let's formulate a theory behind it," which is how science works. Science gave you the computer you are using to type your nonsense on. You owe your life to it. Religion has done no such thing.
@ThePuffyDuck Straw man much? I dint mention creationism or religion. There are and have been logical arguments for the existence of God for centuries and they have not been adequately refuted. I have not heard a logical argument for there not being a God that has not been adequately refuted. Don't confuse the argument for or against evolution with being a theist or an atheist. They are not mutually exclusive. God can exist and there can be evolution. There can be both God and evolution.
@imkluu I love how you fail to mention said "logical arguments" for God's existence. Please list them. The three main ones, the cosmological, theological, and the ontological have all be debunked. Since you mentioned Evolution, the theological argument is debunked by it. Yes it does not disprove God, but it proves that the argument for God's existence is nonsense. No matter what you say, God's existence is used by circular logic (This is a fact, now let's find the evidence), which is faulty.
@ThePuffyDuck Please point me in the direction of the arguments that refute those you mentioned for the existence of God.
I think you are wrong in saying that these arguments are circular. And wan't evolution actually first taken as a fact and then people went out to find evidence and still are.
Also stating your feelings that arguing for God's existence is nonsense does nothing to prove that God does not exist.
@imkluu Immanuel Kant has debunked the ontological argument centuries ago. Also I have already proven the cosmological argument wrong in another comment to someone else. Evolution used circular logic? You do realize that they used comparative anatomy and homologous structures before thinking of it. Darwin himself was still a Christian and didn't come up with his theory until YEARS after he visited the Galapagos and got data and observations. What you are claiming is pure lies.
@ThePuffyDuck I have not lied. It is purely ad hominem for you to say this. I may be wrong but your claiming I am wrong does not prove it so. But I did not lie. I feel that our discussion of the arguments have no further purpose.
@imkluu LOL! I have to say, you guys need some variety. With Christians it is always, "ad hominem!" You claimed that Theistic logic is sound, while Atheistic logic is not, REFUSING to list any reasons why. Then when I showed you why the three main arguments (cosmological, theological, and ontological) are wrong and have been refuted, you claim that I have not done so and that I am simply claiming you to be wrong with no evidence. I have in fact given evidence. You are indeed lying.
@ThePuffyDuck You assume I am a Christian. I have only talked about the arguments not my beliefs and I said that Craig comes off well because his arguments are sound in this vid. I dint say atheistic logic wasn't sound, I said I hadn't seen any that hadn't been logically refuted. The refutation of the theistic arguments I have seen have been fallacious. I must have missed where you showed how the arguments are wrong. I only read that you said they were wrong. I may be wrong but I am not lying
@imkluu See the thing is, Craig's arguments were created centuries ago and have been refuted as I ALREADY addressed. I'm not restating them again. Either look for them in the comments or don't reply back. And once again I fail to see how atheistic logic is fallicious when you would use the same logic to debate someone who believes in unicorns, elves, etc. You suspend your logic because of your beliefs. I don't care if you don't say you are a Christian or not, your bias is evident.
@ThePuffyDuck What do you call it when a person insults or makes the argument about their opponent instead of what is being discussed? I thought this was 'ad hominem'. I don't know about other people claiming it but when it is done, I think it correct to claim it. Again I say, I may be wrong. And I will admit it when shown I am wrong. But I am not purposefully stating what I know to be untrue. I am not lying. I could not help responding but will not further after twice being wrongfully accused.
@imkluu Please do not get me wrong, I have no issue with faith or religion, and am no Dawkinsite. But to ever utter the words, logical and reasonable in relation to religious belief is totally nonsensical. Not only is the belief in God the victim of the burden of proof, but God is a statement that even God himself couldn't understand as we have no language by which to possibly describe what would constitute a belief in God, so why do you bother? Respectfully, have faith, but do not reason it.
@williamtuohy logical and reasonable were not in relation to a religious belief but to the existence of God. The definitoin of God as I have heard it is 'the greatest possible being." This is philosophical. And in philosophy to discuss the existence of God is something that is reasonable and should be logically done. Faith as I state it that it is reasonable to believe in your own experiences and thoughts unless something shows it to be untrue. This does not even have to be religious.
@williamtuohy I may be wrong, it is only my thought that theism is only a belief in God, it is not a religion. There are philosophically reasonable and logical arguments for God's existence. Most have nothing to do with religious practices or beliefs.
Tho Dr. Craig does use Jesus' resurrection and his own personal relationship with God as arguments, these are not as convincing to me as they are more subjective.
I am not a philosopher just using my common sese in this.
I am a christian but still I would like to express my highest respect for Stephen Law. He is a good guy with some clever thoughts. He didn't convince me but he did a good job trying :)
@drcraigvideos Please, please, quote my comment and I will take everyone blow-by-blow through how I stupid I was, and how I came do change my mind and deleted my comment. Please, I beg you.
@drcraigvideos In fact, you know what I did: despite the fact that I am a big fan of SisyphusRedeemed, I checked my source and made sure they knew the hell what they were talking about. Go on, tell me how stupid that is, I dare you.
@drcraigvideos You're not surprised because I found out what I previously believed wasn't so cut and dried as I thought it was, so I changed my mind and deleted the comment. Go on, have a good laugh and make yourself look twice as stupid. I'm sure you would never do such a thing, you wouldn't need to because you, of course, have the secrets of the universe at your fingertips.
and oh my what a name dropper... Their arguments are not any stronger than his but he lines them up as if they say anything of value. It would be like getting the other GOP candidates to support an argument. So what and why would anyone value a bad opinion no matter how many times it is offered?
Could there possibly be ANYONE who finds Craig in the least compelling if they didn't already start on his side? He asserts without evidence and then demands special pleading for his arguments (if you can even call them that)
There is no god and there never has been. Get over it and let's start making the world a better place. Leave your superstition and hatred toward the unbeliever. By hatred I mean christians agree with the god that the unbeliever committed an unforgivable sin and that he sent them strong delusions so that they will believe a lie.
God is real(unseen). I've seen him(in my dreams). When I pray (disrupting the laws of nature) God hears me(voices in my head). His word is true(faith,gullibility).
The bible should be interpreted right (my way of interpreting is right).
Christians are taking the bible out of context (not real christians) God has a special plan for me(the world revolves around me)Repent or god's judgment will be upon you (Believe what I believe or be tortured and burned forever.)
@InvincibleIronyMan Why am I not surprised you deleted this comment? Would it because you know that SisyphusRedeemed lied about Stephen Hawking mentioning creationism?
Also kind of curious how a timeless creature can "cause" anything to exist, since the act of causing requires time itself. That is the most critical flaw to Craig's argument.
Also unfortunately for Craig, the Universe CAN ACTUALLY cause itself without an outside cause. Laurence Krauss (an actual scientist) describes it really well in the "A universe out of nothing"
This man just wont let go off the ''Evil'' God argument,why is he so obsessed with it?
MrUrosSrb 2 weeks ago
@KuriapXia Amen William Lane Craig destroys
jordan7787 3 weeks ago
Dr. WLC did it AGAIN ! Congrats !
Romans1014Preach 1 month ago
An American who can pronounce 'Birmingham'! This is a rare thing.
KapernicusI 1 month ago
I believe a chair has more courage than Dawkins
eagles5822 1 month ago
And another one bites the dust, congratulation again Dr.Craig.
KuriapXia 2 months ago
The fact that wlc is a great debater. i never tought someone could make religion sound almost worth believing to.
PolitismenosAgrikos 2 months ago
@PolitismenosAgrikos Ma then emathes tipota otan se piyene h mana sou stin eklesia?
M3PanoS 2 months ago
@M3PanoS ti sxesi exei me to an ematha pote kati apo tin ekklisia (kalo i kako) me to ean aksizei na pistevei kaneis sto xristianismo.
PolitismenosAgrikos 2 months ago
An Evil god could not create a being with the freedom to choose, because the freedom to choose is good, an absolute evil by nature can do no good, he would favor enslavement
Law19157 2 months ago
@Law19157 No a totally evil god could use freewill to make the effect on men even more painfull.
guerrillaroach 2 months ago in playlist religion 2
@Law19157 Why is the freedom to choose inherently good?
RonBurgundy161 2 months ago
As a skeptic of religion, I just have to BASED on REASON only, Craig presents a very powerful argument. Craig is one of the few Christian who can give reasonable and respectful arguments for God. But great job to Both!!!
yihemaoful 2 months ago
Craig vs Law was a great debate. Law is one of the few Atheists who put up a challenge to WLC.
209vaughn 2 months ago
I admire Stephen Law but WLC is a hero of mine.... =)
samuellis 2 months ago
people seem to misunderstand the infinite notion. Infinity as a property within a FINITE entity (i.e; the universe) CANNOT EXIST!! otherwise you would not ID the finite as being finite. God is NOT FINITE (i.e; matter, time, space) therefore he as an immaterial, inspacial, timeless, being DOES exist.
JOKACRAZY25 3 months ago
Checkmate Christian - Got Ya! Type the title below into the YouTube search box above.
"Pac Biggie - Holy Bible - Genesis is FALSE according to Yale University!"
pacbiggiecom 3 months ago
Comment removed
unediteable 3 months ago
Comment removed
unediteable 3 months ago
excellent debate. Man WLC lays whoopins on people!
9pt9 3 months ago
Stephen Law is so stupid! It was hard hearing such stupidity! WOW
6630mcdo 3 months ago
@6630mcdo
Really? I thought he explained himself rather well. Craig was remarkably unrepentant in his apparent dishonesty, though.
Fordi 3 months ago
@6630mcdo way to bomb the thread."WOW"
the spaghetti monster is divine. It created the universe along with superman and Vishnu.
"nothing cant come from nothing" . There's a lot of theories on how the universe came to be. the big bang could just be a prior universe that collapsed. We don't know, so the answer "it must be my god because I belive it" isn't convincing. but belive it, no problem. just dont be crazy and start to disbelive evolution which is proven science.
martinboson 3 months ago
@martinboson the spaghetti monster is divine, really? Divine must be timeless, immaterial and spaceless. How does it meet these conditions? All models fail in the end. First, pushing the problem back a step does not help and makes it more complicated. Second, the fine tuning required is also infinite. Third, nothing in science is provable. Science is a model that changes. Logic is far superior. Evolution is not even a science, yet alone proven. God is the best explanation of the universe.
6630mcdo 3 months ago
@6630mcdo "GOD divine, really? Divine must be timeless, immaterial and spaceless. How does GOD meet these conditions? All models fail in the end. " - there, you just owned yourself. peace bitches!
martinboson 3 months ago
@martinboson Well, minds and numbers meet this conditions. Do you believe in numbers? Numbers do not create, though. Minds can create. Peace
6630mcdo 3 months ago
@martinboson The scientific method in step three requires any science be a) repeatable and b) observable. Evolution can do neither. A and B are required, required from the initial process of a until the final condition of b. We only live 100 years or so and cannot preform a and b taking millions of years. And, no, adaptations are not mutations. Mutations always contain less information and are harmful to the life form. Without DNA, life cannot exist. Without life, natural selection cannot exist.
6630mcdo 3 months ago
@6630mcdo If you think it's not repeatable than you are simply mistaken. If you think it hasn't been observed that's two strikes in one sentence. I encourage you to do serious research, not apologetics nonsense. "mutations always contain less information". I can guarantee you you'd be enlightened if you spent 20 minutes with a biology professor at your local university. Go find when their office hours are.
AR333 3 months ago
Infinite is not physical by definition it's an abstract concept. So when Craig argues an infinite cannot exist, it means God cannot exist. nor any kind of infinite.
dkman2006 3 months ago
@dkman2006 *SIGH* watch?v=dXQ9Hc_rfdc. Craig believes infinity DOES exist, genius.
drcraigvideos 3 months ago
@dkman2006 God is infinite in a QUALITY, NOT QUANTITY.
6630mcdo 3 months ago
@6630mcdo
Oh, I agree completely: the character of God is described as the pinnacle of quality. Shame his quantity is zero.
Fordi 3 months ago
@Fordi We will see soon enough. I am shocked that people believe that everything or anything can come from nothing. Or others the universe always existed. Both are illogical. Fine-tuning argument has made it checkmate for atheists. Game's over. Their answer is multiverse. Of course, only after theists showed them fine-tuning! There is zero evidence for multiverse and takes faith more than any Catholic.
6630mcdo 3 months ago
@6630mcdo Fine Tuning has been disproven. it's called the hoyles' fallacy. also check out "The Fallacy of Fine Tuning"
martinboson 3 months ago
@martinboson I've read most fallacious attempts to debunk fine-tuning but they all fail. Less than 1% of cosmologists state it is not fine-tuned. Why do you think atheists had to invent multiply universes? It's checkmate. The universe did not need to be the way it is now. The possible options are 10^500 per cosmologists. Only a few are life-permitting universes. Universe is very finely-tuned. Praise God for His awesome wisdom!
6630mcdo 3 months ago
@6630mcdo Even if the fine-tuned theory is correct, which it isn't - praise the flying spaghetti monster.
martinboson 3 months ago
@martinboson haha I've seen those videos. He's awesome.
achivement unlocked: found intelligent person.
martinboson 3 months ago
@martinboson Well, all sophomoric causes are very easy to discard. Remember, the cause of the universe MUST be timeless, space-less, and immaterial. Time, matter and space cannot create time, matter and space - circular reasoning of the nth degree. Spaghetti is matter, correct? Spaghetti occupies space, correct? Spaghetti requires time to change matter, correct? That's why all sophomoric comments are so easy to discard. 'Man of science is a poor philosopher.' Einstein.
6630mcdo 3 months ago
@martinboson President Bush even said 'atheists are not Americans'. "We are one nation under God", he said. They don't belong here. Atheists then asked Bush to retract his statements. With guts, he said I mean what I say - now get out. I don't deal with non-Americans.
6630mcdo 3 months ago
@6630mcdo yeah well bush is an idiot and in my opinion not a true american himself
coltsrule5150 3 months ago
@6630mcdo except bush is an idiot and his statement goes against the constitution. It's religious racism. there's no word of god in the constitution. the words "on god we trust" wasn't printed on money until 1954. he also said "usa has the best educated americans in the world".
martinboson 3 months ago
@martinboson Option: 1) Universe always existed 2) Universe came from nothing without cause 3) God created the universe. Do you see how insane one must believe in 1 or 2? They are 100% false and illogical. 'We don't know' is only faith - faith in science.
6630mcdo 3 months ago
@martinboson Every time this joker says, "Checkmate", I become more convinced that this is a troll account, and we're really talking to Edward Current.
Fordi 3 months ago
@6630mcdo
"I am shocked that people believe that everything or anything can come from nothing"
That's exactly what WLC argues for, though; creation ex nihilo. We don't have an example of this ever happening, a model by which this might be possible to instigate, yet creationism insists it must have happened at least once in the universe.
I can't say what happened. I agree that both are absurd - but it doesn't become /less/ absurd if you stick a god onto it.
Fordi 3 months ago
@Fordi No, Dr. Craig argues creation from a cause. Atheists argue creation from nothing without cause. The cause of the universe must be timeless, immaterial, spaceless, since time, matter and space cannot create time, matter and space. Logic is superior to science. Nowadays, people assume science is all-powerful but is actually quite weak. As St. Thomas Aquinas stated, all truth comes from God. So, there can never be a contradiction with science or religion or history or any other subject area.
6630mcdo 3 months ago
"Fine-tuning argument has made it checkmate for atheists."
I don't think so. It's so amazingly broken in its assumptions, I think it's remarkable that you haven't seen its destruction.
Try "A universe from nothing" by Lawrence Krauss. It's an entry level levelling of fine tuning and kalam.
Fordi 3 months ago
@Fordi I know Lawrence Krauss's work. As an engineer & physicist who has taken quantum mechanics & modern physics, he is either naive or deceitful in saying 'nothing'. Virtual particles do not come from nothing as he stated. They come from quantum foam, which is a sea of energy converting energy into mass. And, there are ten theories of the virtual particles themselves. I assume he just does not understand the philosophical view of nothing. Man of science is a poor philosopher - Einstein
6630mcdo 3 months ago
@Fordi The fine-tuning and causal arguments are very strong today. In fact, they have never been stronger. Science is over-covering God the more we find. DNA is a code. Codes require intelligence. Sure patterns exist in nature, but DNA is a repeating alphabetic. Why do you not like the FT argument? I find it amazingly strong. After theists showed it to the world, atheists after the fact claimed there must be billions of multiverse of universes. But there can be no evidence, even with logic.
6630mcdo 3 months ago
@6630mcdo
"Why do you not like the FT argument?"
It's not that I don't like it. It's that it assumed that the fundamental constants are in some way variable, an idea for which no evidence exists. Further, the many world interpretation doesn't come from FT at all. It is an interpretation of quantum indeterminacy. Also, DNA is not a code, unless you look at it as having encoded an evolutionary history.
"Codes require intelligence"
They do not. They require variation and filtration.
Fordi 3 months ago
@Fordi Give me a code that does not require intelligence. Don't use DNA as we disagree. I do not believe evolution happened. Cosmologists all agree (except radicals) that the constants could have been different. They even determined 10^500 possible universes based on fine-tuning. You should study the science.
6630mcdo 3 months ago
@Fordi President Bush even said 'atheists are not Americans'. "We are one nation under God", he said. They don't belong here. Atheists then asked Bush to retract his statements. With guts, he said I mean what I say - now get out. I don't deal with non-Americans.
6630mcdo 3 months ago
@dkman2006 Infinite that are QUANTITATIVE do not exist. God is QUALITATIVE.
6630mcdo 3 months ago
@dkman2006 God is not defined as an infinite, but eternal. Read some philosophy
keebeejones07 3 months ago
@keebeejones07 Really!? And what is it that you think eternal means? Means its been around forever...i.e. infinite in time.
xbatcountryx1 2 months ago
@keebeejones07 Give some proof that God exist! I need some proof! Dont say the Trees, and Nature, and so forth. If we have free will, then why do we still get punished?
Djones2011ful 1 month ago
@Djones2011ful because we are born into a world of sin and are apart of it until we follow God, second the Bible that's a BIG proof...
AngellustheAngel 1 month ago
@dkman2006 WLC understands a second rendition of inifinity as applied to a timeless being, namely: qualitative summary of all the attributes ascribebable to the divine. This goes beyond the conceptual, abstact form. By the way, when debaters use 'infinity' they generally try to smuggle it from the abstract into the physical world in order to justify the eternality of matter and escape the need of an ultimate beginning and an uncaused Cause. So far though, none has succeeded.
universephotons 2 months ago
Craig's debating method is (was) in a league of it's own.
This, however, is music to my ears. Stephen Law is a genius for finding such a simple yet strong debating method to oppose Craig.
Well done dear sir!
EvolutionIsADJ 3 months ago
@TheChristcrucified Excuse me? You are a Christian, therefore you believe that God created the universe, which means you believe you KNOW where the universe came from. Stop bullshitting. How can you have faith in a scientific fact? Also, the beginning of the universe is not a faith either. Stop throwing the word around. No religion is being taught in science classrooms, stop with your nonsense.
ThePuffyDuck 4 months ago
@ThePuffyDuck Yes, and i admit that i believe it. See, that is where we differ, "religous" and "non religous", we will admit that some things that we hold are beliefs. We accept some things by faith. Do you accept the big bang theory?
TheChristcrucified 4 months ago
@TheChristcrucified First of all, you are confused on the definition of belief. Belief is simply holding the proposition that something is true. In that sense, yes everyone has beliefs. Faith however, is belief without evidence, which is directly contradicting to the purpose of science. No, you do not believe in God, you have faith, because there is no evidence of it's existence. Also, the Big Bang theory has nothing to do with Biological Evolution. Stop making crap up.
ThePuffyDuck 3 months ago
@ThePuffyDuckbig bang=Cosmic Evolution. Even michio kaku agrees to that, and you must admit, when it comes to the beginning of the universe it's all speculation. So, when someone teaches the Big Bang, they are teaching someones personal Faith/Belief in what heppened. I have faith that God did it, and you have faith that nothing did it. I can no more prove that God exist than you can prove the big bang. im done hoarding the page if you wanna talk you can send me a personal msg.
TheChristcrucified 3 months ago
@TheChristcrucified im praying for you man. thanks again for the chance to chat. may God open your eyes to His wonderful grace. if you haven't, then try Him. He is good.... I KNOW He is. With love CalebW.
TheChristcrucified 3 months ago
@TheChristcrucified And I'm praying for you to Zeus, Odin, Vishnu, and all of the other non-existent Gods that have the same possibility of existing as your imaginary God.
ThePuffyDuck 3 months ago
WLC won this one. Stephen made the reason of an evil God. WHAT? Sticks the entire debate on that! So does he disprove that "God doesn't exist?" And he personally doesn't even accept this proposition being an atheist.
archangelcats 4 months ago
@archangelcats
Ok, fine. You worship an evil god for which there is no reasonable evidence - and you're apparently incapable of noticing.
Way to go there.
Fordi 3 months ago
WLC won, hands down.
mancomesaround7 4 months ago
WLC makes me chuckle. He spends the first portion of his argument explaining how an actual infinite is impossible, then the remainder trying to convince people in an infinite cause to the Universe. He fails to explain how he gets to the from a transcendent cause to a transcendent being, leaping from transcendent cause to transcendent being. A tornado has a cause, it begins to exist seemingly out of nothing, but that in no way indicates it was caused by a transcendent sky genie.
ReverendWyrm 4 months ago in playlist Debates 3
@ReverendWyrm "He spends the first portion of his argument explaining how an actual infinite is impossible, then the remainder trying to convince people in an infinite cause to the Universe." SIGH: watch?v=dXQ9Hc_rfdc. Furthermore, Craig believes an actual infinite exists, but not in the physical world.
drcraigvideos 4 months ago 2
@drcraigvideos One may ask: If we suspend physical laws to allow an actual infinite for the pre-universe condition (whatever may have been prior to/outside the Universe) then there's no reason to assume that other universal constants apply either, i.e. the rules of cause and effect. Eliminating cause and effect undermines WCL's premise 1&3 of Kalam. Premise 1 of Kalam must by necessity be "Everything that begins to exist WITHIN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE has a cause" and premise 3 wholly discarded.
ReverendWyrm 4 months ago in playlist Debates 13
@ReverendWyrm Learn to pay attention, that's not what he said. And your analogy is just as reckless as your summary of his argument.
djuatdelta123 2 months ago
@THEBRITTISHMAN It is your view that atheism is "setting out to corrupt the world", and your view couldn't be further from the case . To say atheism is a religion is fundamentally wrong, by definition it is faithless, without belief and denying the existence of God, doesn't really sound like a religion does it? Your mistake is to say that all atheists seek to attack faith, we attack your logic, not your faith, at least Craig attempts rational discourse, you don't even do that.
williamtuohy 4 months ago
People can illustrate sympathy and empathy and every other ingredient of morality without needing objectivity. Can any magical principle or fake idol in the sky tell us in every instance what is right and wrong regardless of context or situation. The best attempt at objectivity, the categorical imperative never did justice, so where is the God distinguishing right and wrong in every instance? Oh let me guess, its a miracle when "good" occurs, but its punishment or our fault when "evil" occurs.
williamtuohy 4 months ago
I laughed out load at 46:13 - "Hold up! I'm not done converting him yet!"
rbx01x 4 months ago
@iHAVE1j agnosticism- "The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist."
Once again you are wrong. Once again you ignore the fact that this is the definition nearly every agnostic uses. There are indeed agnostic atheists as I have shown DOZENS of times. Stop bsing please.
ThePuffyDuck 4 months ago
@THEBRITTISHMAN
All atheist means is not theist. Look at the etymology of the word.
help4343 4 months ago
Sam Harris wascorrect in his statement about Dr. Craig. "the man that has put the fear of God in many of my fellow athiests" Paraphrased of course. It's funny how Dr. Athiest will attack the idea of having a cosmological argument, but will not tell you what he believes to be wrong with it. He distracts from the problem of evil by saying what about the problem of good. The greatest asset of Dr. Athiest seems to be Ad Homenim attacks on his arguments. Dr. Athiest defended an agnostic view 1:42:00!
TheChristcrucified 4 months ago
@TheChristcrucified "Dr. Atheist" need not debunk the cosmological argument since science has already done it. Quantum Theory has proven time and time again that not everything needs a First Mover. In fact, Conservation of Mass-Energy downright disproves it nonsense. For example, gas molecules may bounce against the walls of a container without anything getting them moving in the first place.
ThePuffyDuck 4 months ago
@ThePuffyDuck Hello there...I wonder why, if the "cosm arg" is false, why doesnt anyone refute his argument? Just type this into YT. "The First Law of Thermodynamics vs The Cosmological Argument" and "Doesn't Quantum physics proves something came from nothing?". The truely important thing in this is do you know who Jesus Christ is? Do you know that He died for the sins of man to be the propitiation for sins? Have you accepted Him into your heart? You are in my prayers. thank you for your time.
TheChristcrucified 4 months ago
@TheChristcrucified The reason is simple: He hasn't debated any real scientists. Brian Greene or Michio Kaku would destroy him on the cosmological argument. People he has debated however don't use science to prove him wrong, they use philosophy. Also, I just looked at the videos you suggested. Craig shows his ignorance very well. Energy was NOT created at the Big bang. Modern physicists do not claim this at all. Why would I accept a poor copy of all other religious icons? Jesus is a joke.
ThePuffyDuck 4 months ago
@ThePuffyDuck Again, if these men can destroy his argument and shut the "silly creationist" up, why haven"t they? Dr. Craig has never turned down a debate. Based upon the last part of your privious reply, i assume you don't subscribe to anything like Christianity, Islam,etc, and as follows you believe the theory of evolution? Right? In my prayers. Thank you again for your time. I truely appreciate it. Caleb.
TheChristcrucified 4 months ago
@TheChristcrucified I already answered your question. I'll pray for you too.
ThePuffyDuck 4 months ago
@ThePuffyDuck Why havent they challenged him? So, you "KNOW" that there was energy before the "big bang", or is that an assumption or maybe a "personal belief" you hold? i dont know anyone that was there. You must admit, when we get into things like beginning of time everything is purely speculation. You are free to "believe" in evolution, but you must recognize that. It is a "belief". I just disagree with my tax dollars supporting your religion being taught in USA schools. Thank you. Caleb.
TheChristcrucified 4 months ago
@TheChristcrucified Great job contradicting yourself. You just stated, "I don't know anyone that was there," yet you pretend like you KNOW where the universe came from and where it's going. I never stated the word "know" because the truth is, we do not. I am mature enough to accept that, you aren't. Evolution is a belief? Yes, and Cells, Atoms, the planet Neptune, and and energy are all beliefs. Everything in science classrooms is wrong. Your ignorance is astounding.
ThePuffyDuck 4 months ago
@ThePuffyDuck I never said i Know as a matter a fact, i have my personal faith in certain theories. I only asked if you had faith in the religion of evolution, in reguards to the "beginning". I never said that everything in the science classroom was wrong.science is,but i do not agree with any religion being taught at the expence of my tax dollars. neither should be taught while being funded by anyones tax dollars. sorry im not explaining myself enough that you dont have to add to what i say.
TheChristcrucified 4 months ago
@TheChristcrucified "...you had faith in the religion of evolution, in reguards to the "beginning"." OK, now stop it. Evolution is in no way a religion and belief is not required. There is more than enough evidence supporting Evolution, there's certainly no reason to restrict that knowledge from schools. You're making a classic blunder, the first being "Never get in a land war in Asia", only slightly less well known being that Evolution doesn't try to explain the origin of life.
ReverendWyrm 4 months ago
@ReverendWyrm Wait, do you "accept" the big bang theory?
TheChristcrucified 4 months ago
@TheChristcrucified I'm wondering what Cosmology has to do with Evolution? Certainly Evolution couldn't have occurred without the Big Bang but that's about it. To answer your question, yes, there's very compelling evidence indicating that the Big Bang event occurred. Of course it's important to make the distinction between the Big Bang Phase and the Big Bang Singularity. Much like distinguishing between Evolution and Abiogenesis. My turn, do you REALLY believe in talking donkeys?
ReverendWyrm 3 months ago
@ReverendWyrm The big bang theory is cosmic EVOLUTION! See, you believe in something that you can not prove. That would be classified as a personal belief which means, you have a religion. It doesn't bother me what you believe, but im not happy that my tax dollars support the teaching of your religion. Yes. I would agree that if there is a God, and i believe there is, that he could use a donkey to convey his msg. I believe in the beginning God, and you believe in the beginning dirt. thanks.
TheChristcrucified 3 months ago
@TheChristcrucified You're making a giant leap with this one. The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with Cosmology or the beginning of the Universe. While the word evolution can be used to describe the process of change for just about anything that doesn't make it part of the Theory of Evolution which deals with biological changes in living creatures. Besides, there IS evidence supporting the Big Bang hence it is not a belief. Accepting evidence on something does not make it a religion.
ReverendWyrm 3 months ago
@ReverendWyrm The Big Bang is called cosmic evolution. everyone from dawkins to harris to hitchens to michio kaku agree, thats what it's called. "Accepting evidence..does not make it a religion",agreed, and that is all i do with Christ. I accept the evidence that is given to me, as well as the personal experience. Recap, big bang=cosmic evol. I believe in Jesus Christ, and you believe in something that happened way way way back when. im praying for you man God loves you and Christ died for you.
TheChristcrucified 3 months ago
@TheChristcrucified Again you miss the point. The word evolution, defined as "any process of formation or growth", can apply to just about anything. The Theory of Evolution as hypothesized by Darwin and currently taught in Biology deals with "change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations." The evolution of language for instance, while and accurate description, is not part of the Theory of Evolution, similarly for Cosmology.
ReverendWyrm 3 months ago
@TheChristcrucified "...you believe in something that happened....way back when...you have faith that nothing did it." There is EVIDENCE that the Big Bang occurred. Perhaps not exactly as we understand it right now, but enough to support the hypothesis. There is NO EVIDENCE for genies,bread from the sky,magic,virgin births,resurrections,talking animals,global floods,souls,angels,devils,etc. If you want to understand more about the Big Bang check out physicist and cosmologist Dr. Lawrence Krauss.
ReverendWyrm 3 months ago
@ThePuffyDuck Philosophy is just fine in refuting this fool, science is overkill.
williamtuohy 4 months ago
@THEBRITTISHMAN Lol'd so bad at your comment. "If Atheism is a religion, then health is a disease!"- Clark Adams. The absence of something makes it impossible for it to be that something. Saying Atheism is a religion is as stupid as saying bald is a hair color. Bringing logic and skepticism, which created science and reason is corrupting the world? Sorry, but stupid religious people preventing the spread of reason are the ones corrupting the world.
ThePuffyDuck 4 months ago
@ThePuffyDuck
Atheism is the belief that there is no god. The belief makes it similar to religion in that it's unfounded and rests on faith. It could be argued, "it may be faith-based, but doesn't have a moral code." Technically, Christianity doesn't have a moral code either, as the coming of Jesus replaced the "law" with "faith." Agnosticism is the only scientific medium between the two, admitting there's room for both theories, or even something else.
iHAVE1j 4 months ago
@iHAVE1j Atheism is the disbelieve in god. Stop making up definitions for it. You don't believe in unicorns and elves correct? Does that make you an Aunicornist? Does that make you religious in your lack of belif in unicorns? Of course not. I have yet to meet an Atheist who says they believe there isn't a god. Even Richard Dawkins says that he isn't 100% sure. The fact is, there is no evidence, just as there is no evidence fot unicorns,thus we cgoose the stance they do not exist.
ThePuffyDuck 4 months ago
@ThePuffyDuck
"Atheism is the disbelief in god." That's the same as saying it's the belief that there is no god, which requires faith. The formal definition is "the doctrine or belief that there is no God." The origin of the word itself is from "athéisme," meaning "without god." It's impossible to argue a definition. lol. An no, I have never seriously considered my belief in unicorns, meaning I'm indifferent as to whether they exist, not for or against.
iHAVE1j 4 months ago
@iHAVE1j Disbelief is lack of belief. How does lack of believe equal belief? Excuse me, but that is not the formal definition. The definition is the lack of belief or disbelief in a god or gods. It can also be defined as the stance that god does not exist based off of lack of evidence. You stated yourself that the word itself when broken down means without faith or without belief in god. Even the old form of it means "without god" as you say. You have proven yourself that it is without belief.
ThePuffyDuck 4 months ago
@iHAVE1j Also, it seems that you believe that unicorns could possibly exist. The fact that you are willing to believe in fairy tales to keep from looking like a hypocrite regarding your stance on god is pathetic.
ThePuffyDuck 4 months ago
@ThePuffyDuck
If I choose not to believe in the color blue that means I believe that color doesn't exist. This really shouldn't even be an argument.. If I admit the color's existence is uncertain that doesn't constitute a lack of belief, just a confirmation of uncertainty. Anytime you choose not to believe something you are affirming the negative, meaning you believe the contrary. The unicorn argument is irrelevant and only belabors my point..
iHAVE1j 4 months ago
@iHAVE1j not believe gods exist) Not believing god exists doesn't mean the same as "believing not X" (believe gods do not exist). The placement of the negative is key: the first means not having the mental attitude that proposition X (gods exist) is true, the second means having the mental attitude that proposition X (gods exist) is false. The difference here is between disbelief and denial: the first is disbelief in the broad or narrow sense whereas the second is denial.
ThePuffyDuck 4 months ago
@ThePuffyDuck
Formal logic would disagree with you for good reason. First, "Mental attitude" holds no place in logic. And even if you were 50% empirically certain that god doesn't exist, all that would do is confirm your uncertainty, not your disbelief or belief (that could only be attributed to the unknowable portion, or your faith). And yes, not believing x does mean you believe -x. "Not" negates the positive. There's no reason for this argument to continue..
iHAVE1j 4 months ago
But just so that this will be 100% clear to you (i hope), in the simplest terms:
1. I do not believe x exists.
2. I believe no x exists.
Is the logic I'm proposing. You are proposing:
1. I do not believe x exists.
2. I believe that x may exist.
This is clearly false and entirely subjective. You've been describing agnosticism the whole time, which proposes:
1. I believe x may exist.
2. I believe x may not exist.
Thanks for the argument, but I'm done.
iHAVE1j 4 months ago
@iHAVE1j Now you're leaving? How pathetic. First, agnosticism has no opinion on whether God exists. Their belief is that we can never know, so no they do not believe that x may not exist and that x may exist. Once again, you have no clue what you are talking about. If you claim you do not believe in elves, you do not believe in elves. If you claim you believe that they don't exist, that is a belief. Disbelief is lack of belief. Period. The definitions of are completely different.
ThePuffyDuck 4 months ago
@iHAVE1j And Agnosticism vs Atheism is not clear cut at all. You fail to realize that most, if not all Atheists are Agnostic, however not all Agnostics are Atheist. I have yet to meet an Atheist who claims that they can experiment and prove that God does not exist and prove such a thing. Disbelief is belief due to lacking of evidence. That is what Atheism is. Actively disbelieving, or denying is having evidence and rejecting it. There is no evidence of God, therefore we do not believe. You lost.
ThePuffyDuck 4 months ago
@iHAVE1j Oh, I forgot something. You said the unicorn argument is unimportant. Why? You obviously recognizes that it crushes your entire argument. The statement, "Unicorns exist" cannot be proven nor proven to be not true. By your definition of Atheism and Agnosticism, this requires faith, and thus the disbelief in Unicorns is a religion. However, why do we not have a word for such a thing? Because it makes no sense. Your argument is easily shown to be nonsense.
ThePuffyDuck 4 months ago
@ThePuffyDuck
Agnosticism does not propose that we can "never" know. Here's the definition: "an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge."
Those claims exist in the present.
There is no contradiction in what atheist or agnostics believe, only in what you're tying to say. I've laid out exactly where the contradiction is but your ego is too inflated to grasp it. This is VERY basic logic. You're either a troll or a moron. Bye.
iHAVE1j 4 months ago
@iHAVE1j Do you not know the definition of "claim" and "know"? Agnostics believe that the claims made that God does/doesn't are uncertain because we do not, and we will not ever know. You have just said it yourself that there is no contradiction between Agnosticism and Atheism. Both say that there is no logical evidence for God, however Agnostics take it further and say we will never know while Atheists simply don't believe. You're the moron, get over it.
ThePuffyDuck 4 months ago
You seem to get confused easily. Ask yourself this question, "what does it mean to not believe that god exists and to believe that he may or may not exist?" To me, it seems that means you're claiming both disbelief (CERTAINTY) and an admittance of not knowing (UNCERTAINTY). If you can clearly, coherently tell me how being certain and uncertain about the same thing is not a contradiction, you have won this argument. If not, this is my last post.
And you are def wrong about agnosticism. ; )
iHAVE1j 4 months ago
@iHAVE1j Since when is disbelief certainty? You do realize that disbelief comes in two packages right? There is active, and passive. Passive is simply saying there is no evidence, thus we do not believe it. Active is saying, "I do not believe in God because it makes no sense" and these are the ones who try to support this. In both cases though, the core logic is that there is no logical evidence for God. How am I wrong about Agnosticism when I was given that definition by over 10 of them?
ThePuffyDuck 4 months ago
@ThePuffyDuck
You didn't answer my question at all. If belief is not certainty, real or pretended, then it's in an entirely different spectrum than agnosticism. Meaning you still couldn't be theist & agnostic or atheist & agnostic.
What dictionary are you using? The agnostic claim has never been that one can "never" attain absolute knowledge, it's that we presently can't. If any agnostic were to use the word "never," which is an absolute, it would be a contradiction in itself.
iHAVE1j 4 months ago
For example, like Mr. Craig, I don't believe infinity exists in our time-space continuum, this means I am affirming the negative, that infinity does not exist in our reality. This is just basic fundamental logic. If you don't understand it, accept it and move on.
iHAVE1j 4 months ago
The miracles of jesus doesnt make him who he claimed to be
1navyseal1962 4 months ago
@themorbidimmortal true
AnonymousProgramer 4 months ago
Surely Law could have said that the argument for a good god could be obverted and fit in a few more arguments with the remaining 19 minutes.
Zimnyification 4 months ago
Comment removed
Zimnyification 4 months ago
Comment removed
Zimnyification 4 months ago
Just finished the debate. Law did very well, but his refusal to respond to the Cosmological argument greatly damaged his case. Also, his appeal to emotions when dealing with the problem of evil just isn’t a good, rigorous, philosophical argument to back up his case, as Craig pointed out.
All in all, I think Craig made the more persuasive case, whatever the shortcomings of his conclusions.
Thanks for posting it.
MrProfTeach 4 months ago
@themorbidimmortal well that's obvious, I was just pointing out that the crowd shouted more for Craig for some reason, probably because he won the debate.
signofthehammer 4 months ago
I’m not in Law’s “camp,” but I must say his is probably the best opening speech for his side I’ve heard.
MrProfTeach 4 months ago
@THEBRITTISHMAN And it is religion which is setting out to corrupt the world, not atheists. Atheists are out there trying to rid the world of religious corruption...
bondenjostein 4 months ago
@THEBRITTISHMAN Do you even know what a philosopher is?
Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values."
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities and the supernatural.
Atheism is NOT a religion. It's basically an OPPOSITE to religion. Get educated...
bondenjostein 4 months ago
@bondenjostein
What THEBRITTISHMAN means to say, I believe, is that Atheism is a FAITH. It is obviously not a religion as these have dogmas, commands, etc. But it is clearly a statement of faith to categorically say, “There is no God,” for how can one be sure of such a thing? And if you can’t be sure there is no God, then the statement becomes a matter of faith—not a matter of fact.
It’s no wonder Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines Atheism as “the doctrine that there is no deity."
MrProfTeach 4 months ago
DR. Craig is good, he presents his case well but if it weren't logical then he wouldn't be able to make a case at all. The fact is that it is more logical to be a theist than it is to be an atheist. The arguments are logically sound and have not yet been adequately refuted. Reasonable Faith, with sound logic allows a theist to believe. An athiest only has their own feelings and flawed logic to back up what they want to believe.
imkluu 4 months ago
@imkluu What Theistic logic is sound? The logic behind creationism is "This is true, now let's find support for it" while Atheist logic is "I have evidence, now let's formulate a theory behind it," which is how science works. Science gave you the computer you are using to type your nonsense on. You owe your life to it. Religion has done no such thing.
ThePuffyDuck 4 months ago
@ThePuffyDuck Now come on! Religion gave us that wonderful vault of information the bible! lol
MegaAtheistman 4 months ago
@ThePuffyDuck Straw man much? I dint mention creationism or religion. There are and have been logical arguments for the existence of God for centuries and they have not been adequately refuted. I have not heard a logical argument for there not being a God that has not been adequately refuted. Don't confuse the argument for or against evolution with being a theist or an atheist. They are not mutually exclusive. God can exist and there can be evolution. There can be both God and evolution.
imkluu 4 months ago
@imkluu I love how you fail to mention said "logical arguments" for God's existence. Please list them. The three main ones, the cosmological, theological, and the ontological have all be debunked. Since you mentioned Evolution, the theological argument is debunked by it. Yes it does not disprove God, but it proves that the argument for God's existence is nonsense. No matter what you say, God's existence is used by circular logic (This is a fact, now let's find the evidence), which is faulty.
ThePuffyDuck 4 months ago
Comment removed
imkluu 4 months ago
@ThePuffyDuck Please point me in the direction of the arguments that refute those you mentioned for the existence of God.
I think you are wrong in saying that these arguments are circular. And wan't evolution actually first taken as a fact and then people went out to find evidence and still are.
Also stating your feelings that arguing for God's existence is nonsense does nothing to prove that God does not exist.
imkluu 4 months ago
@imkluu Immanuel Kant has debunked the ontological argument centuries ago. Also I have already proven the cosmological argument wrong in another comment to someone else. Evolution used circular logic? You do realize that they used comparative anatomy and homologous structures before thinking of it. Darwin himself was still a Christian and didn't come up with his theory until YEARS after he visited the Galapagos and got data and observations. What you are claiming is pure lies.
ThePuffyDuck 4 months ago
@ThePuffyDuck I have not lied. It is purely ad hominem for you to say this. I may be wrong but your claiming I am wrong does not prove it so. But I did not lie. I feel that our discussion of the arguments have no further purpose.
imkluu 4 months ago
@imkluu LOL! I have to say, you guys need some variety. With Christians it is always, "ad hominem!" You claimed that Theistic logic is sound, while Atheistic logic is not, REFUSING to list any reasons why. Then when I showed you why the three main arguments (cosmological, theological, and ontological) are wrong and have been refuted, you claim that I have not done so and that I am simply claiming you to be wrong with no evidence. I have in fact given evidence. You are indeed lying.
ThePuffyDuck 4 months ago
@ThePuffyDuck You assume I am a Christian. I have only talked about the arguments not my beliefs and I said that Craig comes off well because his arguments are sound in this vid. I dint say atheistic logic wasn't sound, I said I hadn't seen any that hadn't been logically refuted. The refutation of the theistic arguments I have seen have been fallacious. I must have missed where you showed how the arguments are wrong. I only read that you said they were wrong. I may be wrong but I am not lying
imkluu 4 months ago
@imkluu See the thing is, Craig's arguments were created centuries ago and have been refuted as I ALREADY addressed. I'm not restating them again. Either look for them in the comments or don't reply back. And once again I fail to see how atheistic logic is fallicious when you would use the same logic to debate someone who believes in unicorns, elves, etc. You suspend your logic because of your beliefs. I don't care if you don't say you are a Christian or not, your bias is evident.
ThePuffyDuck 4 months ago
@ThePuffyDuck What do you call it when a person insults or makes the argument about their opponent instead of what is being discussed? I thought this was 'ad hominem'. I don't know about other people claiming it but when it is done, I think it correct to claim it. Again I say, I may be wrong. And I will admit it when shown I am wrong. But I am not purposefully stating what I know to be untrue. I am not lying. I could not help responding but will not further after twice being wrongfully accused.
imkluu 4 months ago
@imkluu Please do not get me wrong, I have no issue with faith or religion, and am no Dawkinsite. But to ever utter the words, logical and reasonable in relation to religious belief is totally nonsensical. Not only is the belief in God the victim of the burden of proof, but God is a statement that even God himself couldn't understand as we have no language by which to possibly describe what would constitute a belief in God, so why do you bother? Respectfully, have faith, but do not reason it.
williamtuohy 4 months ago
@williamtuohy logical and reasonable were not in relation to a religious belief but to the existence of God. The definitoin of God as I have heard it is 'the greatest possible being." This is philosophical. And in philosophy to discuss the existence of God is something that is reasonable and should be logically done. Faith as I state it that it is reasonable to believe in your own experiences and thoughts unless something shows it to be untrue. This does not even have to be religious.
imkluu 4 months ago
@williamtuohy I may be wrong, it is only my thought that theism is only a belief in God, it is not a religion. There are philosophically reasonable and logical arguments for God's existence. Most have nothing to do with religious practices or beliefs.
Tho Dr. Craig does use Jesus' resurrection and his own personal relationship with God as arguments, these are not as convincing to me as they are more subjective.
I am not a philosopher just using my common sese in this.
imkluu 4 months ago
@THEBRITTISHMAN Nicely put, and LOL at the last bit!
lukehase 4 months ago
@themorbidimmortal are you suggesting the audience didn't have any kind of rational thinking before shouting for Craig?
signofthehammer 4 months ago
I am a christian but still I would like to express my highest respect for Stephen Law. He is a good guy with some clever thoughts. He didn't convince me but he did a good job trying :)
FruKaos 4 months ago
BTW, please forgive any spelling mistakes I made, it's all the booze and drugs I am on tonight.
InvincibleIronyMan 4 months ago
@drcraigvideos I mean, it's not like anything SisyphusRedeemed says is holy scripture or anything.
InvincibleIronyMan 4 months ago
@drcraigvideos Please, please, quote my comment and I will take everyone blow-by-blow through how I stupid I was, and how I came do change my mind and deleted my comment. Please, I beg you.
InvincibleIronyMan 4 months ago
@drcraigvideos In fact, you know what I did: despite the fact that I am a big fan of SisyphusRedeemed, I checked my source and made sure they knew the hell what they were talking about. Go on, tell me how stupid that is, I dare you.
InvincibleIronyMan 4 months ago
@drcraigvideos You're not surprised because I found out what I previously believed wasn't so cut and dried as I thought it was, so I changed my mind and deleted the comment. Go on, have a good laugh and make yourself look twice as stupid. I'm sure you would never do such a thing, you wouldn't need to because you, of course, have the secrets of the universe at your fingertips.
InvincibleIronyMan 4 months ago
Craig tries to put up a smoke screen between deism and theism. And he fails.
Dafariii 4 months ago
and oh my what a name dropper... Their arguments are not any stronger than his but he lines them up as if they say anything of value. It would be like getting the other GOP candidates to support an argument. So what and why would anyone value a bad opinion no matter how many times it is offered?
MrMightymorphosis 4 months ago
Thank you drcraigvideos!!!! Greatly appreciate your videos. God bless you
SkullRocKetS 4 months ago
Could there possibly be ANYONE who finds Craig in the least compelling if they didn't already start on his side? He asserts without evidence and then demands special pleading for his arguments (if you can even call them that)
MrMightymorphosis 4 months ago
There is no god and there never has been. Get over it and let's start making the world a better place. Leave your superstition and hatred toward the unbeliever. By hatred I mean christians agree with the god that the unbeliever committed an unforgivable sin and that he sent them strong delusions so that they will believe a lie.
This is foolish behavior.
time2learnnow 4 months ago
Did Law try to sell his book at the conclusion of his last rebutal? Seriously, that's funny.
Seansean771 4 months ago
God is real(unseen). I've seen him(in my dreams). When I pray (disrupting the laws of nature) God hears me(voices in my head). His word is true(faith,gullibility).
The bible should be interpreted right (my way of interpreting is right).
Christians are taking the bible out of context (not real christians) God has a special plan for me(the world revolves around me)Repent or god's judgment will be upon you (Believe what I believe or be tortured and burned forever.)
time2learnnow 4 months ago
Two Hours? Not tonight, I got a baseball game to watch!
petphotog 4 months ago
Comment removed
InvincibleIronyMan 4 months ago
@InvincibleIronyMan Why am I not surprised you deleted this comment? Would it because you know that SisyphusRedeemed lied about Stephen Hawking mentioning creationism?
drcraigvideos 4 months ago
Craig changed his opening speech. Very good.
MrProfTeach 4 months ago
Law is a low-talker
wittenbergdoor 4 months ago
WLC is the micheal Jordan and Anderson Silva of Religious debates.
jamx97 4 months ago
Also kind of curious how a timeless creature can "cause" anything to exist, since the act of causing requires time itself. That is the most critical flaw to Craig's argument.
Also unfortunately for Craig, the Universe CAN ACTUALLY cause itself without an outside cause. Laurence Krauss (an actual scientist) describes it really well in the "A universe out of nothing"
alexicoff 4 months ago