Both the God Hypothesis and the Big Bang Theory can be subjected to the problem of infinite regress. However, the issue I take with Craig's argument is that he assumes that once the concept of a god has been proven not to be impossible, then naturally intelligent design is the most plausible cause for the creation of the universe. Also, in his examples with the moon and the arrowheads, the defining factor is that evidence has been discovered before conclusions are made, contrary to creationism
To be completely honest, I've always hated that argument of Dawkins'. I feel it's his weakest, and just provides a target for people to shoot down while ignore his stronger ones.
The argument of WLC that if the scientist cannot explain now a phisical phenomenon it must be god... is ludacris and a total lack or rispect of 500 hundred years of scientific method..
The argument of WLC that if the scientist cannot explain now a phisical phenomenon it must be god... is ludacris and a total lack or rispect of 500 hundred years of scientific method..
This point is completely self-defeating and stupid. Yes, you do need to be able to explain the explanation, and Archeologists do need extensive historical knowledge of what they are researching so they can put their findings into context and assemble a larger, more encompassing explanation. The Mars analogy is also terrible, as we absolutely would need to find out who left it. Most people would probably assume it was us and that it was some kind of hoax until the aliens showed up in the flesh.
Craig actually did a great job at showing how fundamental logic discredits Dawkins ridiculous statement. Apologists are indeed a breed of authentic intelligence using a real brain coming to real rational conclusions. Most scientists are mere parrots that boast textbook jargon and use selective assertions mixed with fancy terminology to fool the low IQ crowd. The current generation statistical has a lower IQ than past generations. Its a fact. That's why frauds like Dawkins can thrive.
@highnote606 1. It`s evident that you dont have any idea how the scientific knowledge is obtained..... the jargon u say it´s technical language.... everybody used.. from the military to lawyers.... 2. The current generation it`s more inteligente that the past generations.. sorry.. just because the little girls listen to Justin Biebers and Lady Gaga doents meant that they arent smartest.. today we have better edcation and forms to grow our intelligence that the past generations didnt have...
And science will eventually explain the explanation of the explanation, and creationists will retreat and bury their head i'n the abscence of an explanation of the explanation of the explanation of the explanation.
WLC reaches a new low in nonsensical BS. Of course we know that arrow heads were made by someone. We know this before we even find one in the dirt. Claiming that the explaination of the explaination is unneccessary is complete nonsense. Of course we will continue to seek the answers to the questions that new scientific discovery creates. No, we do not have to settle for a lame made up "goddidit" explaination. WLC Fails Again. LOL
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
He totally miss the fact that science, and indeed any field of study, is about theory and how well the theory can uphold scrutiny. And in fact, science is a infinite regress of necessary explanations and questions. Dawkins pointed this out when he mentioned that god is just a simple, unsatisfying, and procastinatory answer to a complex problem, like duct taping a crack in the hover damn. "Don't look at it to intently or it might let go." all Dr. Craig did was spin words without substance...
Craig's examples of arrowheads and moon-machines BOTH involve us distinguishing the said objects as designed by contrasting them with the (supposedly designed) environments we found them in. Why, in either case should we assume anyone other than God designed these 'artifacts'?
That's why Intelligent Design fails, because nothing is not designed to compare anything to, if you follow me.
@FoolTuber41 I've never heard that line of reasoning before, but i do follow your logic, you make an excellent point.
What you said totally refutes the "watchmaker" argument nicely, i.e. a primitive man would recognise the watch is designed due to the CONTRAST with nature, thus implying nature has no designer...
But yout idea of "poof, hi there universe" makes so much more sense.
So in summary, you either beleive something cannot ever be explained and just so happened to form complex logical mechanisms to govern a district of reality or...
something can not ever be explained and knew what it was doing when he made complex logical mechanisms to govern a district of reality.
And there is no evidence of God, except what is essentialy a circular arguement that "we are here, get used to it", I just say there is something beyond the reality we live in that does not need to be governed by any of the laws we know to be true, and logic agrees with me since NOTHING only Creates Nothing, so something had to exist, plain and simple something HAD TO EXIST. and with the obvious order and function of this reality, it was all planned.
God Did not need a beginning because without a beginning it ends the chain of "who created... Blah" DO we understand this fully? No. But its a hell of alot more logical then saying "well, void caused energy and then the energy exploded, and then the explosion made matter and space, and physical laws, and renewable energy, and then eventualy life spat out of a rock that got rained on. Yup you atheists sure know your science.....
So saying there was SOMETHING that is beyond our physical world is a total reality, because WHAT created the entropy that expanded into the universe (if you can believe that hogwash) You can pretend the universe exploded from raw energy (that still needed a beginning, you see where I'm going with this..) or you can make the educated guess that SOMETHING always existed since SOMETHING had to to make ANYTHING. Can you make a Rembrandt by smashing paint on a wall? no, so SOMETHING purposeful did it
"Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations"-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuits completely altered the education system to suit their evolution agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible.
Craig: "In order to recognize that an explanation is the best, you don't need to have an explanation of the explanation."
Um....sometimes you do. Like when the thing that you are calling an "explanation" doesn't actually explain anything.
Just another illustration of Craig's sophistry. Any capable philosopher would laugh at this and also at Craig's "archeologist" example which is so obviously distinguishable.
@gregrutz what the hell are you talking about? If something is created, IT WAS CREATED. Doesn't matter if there are follow up qeustions, how can you miss the point so entirely?
So maybe humans have the coneption of god wrong. WE WERE STILL CREATED. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest nothing can create anything, and for that matter something existing forever, therefore SOMETHING caused us to be here, I say God did it, you say... nothing did it... (or pretend an entropy existed) and didit
Dawkins:"I have to be careful to avoid prejudice resulting from my almost visceral loathing of "Dr" Craig's odiously unctuous, smug and self-satisfied tone of voice. But this piece (about Krauss) of libellous logic-chopping deserves to be set alongside his notorious defence of biblical genocide and infanticide. Craig really is a truly disgusting person in the literal sense: he disgusts. After this, I'd have a hard time bringing myself to shake hands with him, let alone share a platform with him"
@AgeOfReasonXXI Yes, I read that comment on Dawkins website too. What a cowardly, snivelling little wretch he is.
He not only runs away from a one-on-one debate with Craig but fails to respond to any of Craig's published criticisms of his book and then cowers in the safety of his atheist fanbase, making vicious slurs on Craig's character. One wonders...why the hatred?
Might it be easier to resort to cheap insults than meet the challenge of a debate he knows he would lose?
@relarerfhjk Possibly for the same reason Craig won't debate John W. Loftus? Or because Craig is a silver-tongued lawyer-for-Jesus type who is more suited to spin than engaging in an honest discussion?
@havvyweponsman Craig has walloped every prominent atheist in existence,from Victor Stenger to Dan Dennett. Dawkins is the only scalp he hasnt yet claimed. It would be a walkover as Dawkins has no training in philosophy or logic.Craig has demonstrated how each of the "arguments" in God Delusion (particularly the Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit) are logical fallacies. Far from being into "spin" Craig has been publsihed in hundreds of peer-reviewed journals and praised by leading atheist philosophers
@relarerfhjk "Craig has walloped every prominent atheist in existence,from Victor Stenger to Dan Dennett. Dawkins is the only scalp he hasnt yet claimed"
Only according to WLC supporters -- because there is no way to judge these debates ( and determine who won) to say craig as walloped eevry prominet atheist in existence very subjective.
Its is only in you opion that craig as walloped every priominet atheist -- an opinoion not shared by most people
@badpanda84 "only according to WLC supporters" Not at all. Its the consensus among atheists.Famous atheist philosophes like Quentin Smith wrote that Craig is better-informed than his opponents.
He destroyed Sam Harris more easily than Hitchens (Harris ended up going into a disgraceful off-topic rant in his last speech because he had completely lost the debate, after Craig exposed his book as bunkum!)The renowned atheist blog Common Sense Atheism said Craig has "never failed to win a debate"
@relarerfhjk " It would be a walkover as Dawkins has no training in philosophy or logic."
That is my point -- training in philosohy or logic ------ basically means training in being an expert debater ( what other use dose philisophy and logic have?)
@badpanda84 "what other use does philosophy and logic have" Dude, that is such a stupid question, I honestly don't know what to say, except you need to go away and do the reading you clearly never did at school.
Philosophy and the assumptions it makes about the world and its rules of logic form the basis of science, ethics, education and everything else.
Science cannot exist without following rules laid down in philosophy and accepting philosophical assumptions about the Universe.
@badpanda84 Further to my past post, even the Oxford atheist philosopher Danie Came said here in the British media that Dawkins is a "coward" for ducking a debate with "a fearsome intellect" like Craig. Craig despatched Christopher Hitchens with such ease, it was positively embarassing.
I agree debate skills dont prove anything. He would win because Dawkins arguments are wrong, not because he's a better debater. He's explained the fallacies in Dawkins arguments in print many times!
@relarerfhjk "He would win because Dawkins arguments are wrong, not because he's a better debater "
Nope that is where you are wrong -- If you read the comment after WLC videos ( assuming he didnt censor the comments) you can see many posts which point out WLC the obvious flaw in his logic,
Also the so called "fallacies: in Dawkins arguments are just cases where WLC either
@badpanda84 "nope that is where your wrong" Where am I wrong? I have read many of the Youtube posts you describe, and not one of them offers a serious refutation, because they don't actually understand the arguments. I try and respond to as many of them as I can, explaining the facts.
Nope, the fallacies in Dawkins arguments have been exposed not just by Craig but by many other philosophers.Atheist philosopher Quentin Smith said Dawkins book is "an embarassment" to atheism!
@relarerfhjk Nope of WLC argument are serious -- they are so stupid that once you get pass his style of debate ( cause most of us aren't familar with debating like that in everyday life) you realises WLC is just speaking nonsense..
@badpanda84 "they are so stupid". Wrong. His arguments are of such quality (and so watertight) that atheist philosophers Quentin Smith and Daniel Came estimate that Craig's Kalam argument has generated more peer-reviewed articles in philosophy journals than any other theist argument in the past two centuries!
Craig's arguments have nothing to do with "debating style" they have been published in hundreds of the leading philosophy journals.
@relarerfhjk "because they don't actually understand the arguments"
That is a fault with WLC arguements -- he has specifically made his arguments hard to understand so people have trouble debating him ( and to make himself sound smarter). that is a deliberate tatic by WLC.
That is why he wins debates --because style sometimes is better than substance..
Problem is that most people know WLC is talking shit but we can't explain in it same style as WLC dose
@badpanda84 "he has specifically made the arguments hard to understand"
You don't know what your talking about. craig hasnt "made" any new arguments, he deliberately re-formulates ancient Christian, theist and philosophical arguments for the existence of God,(e.g why anything exists instead of nothing) in light of new scientific and historical evidence.
The arguments haven't changed but the balance of proof has shifted in their favour.
@relarerfhjk "craig hasnt "made" any new arguments, he deliberately re-formulates ancient Christian, theist and philosophical arguments for the existence of God,"
Ok I agree -- still that make it even worst then.. so he cant even come up with new argument.
@badpanda84 "still that make it even worst then.. so he cant even come up with new argument." i read this and now i regret i responded to you before. how the heck did you concluded that?why he must come up with new ones? you are hopeless regarding the activity called "thinking".
@badpanda84 It doenst" make it worse" the whole point is that he is not simply making up the evidence for God, that evidence has always been there! Which is why he doesnt invent new arguments, he reproduces old ones and tests them against the latest evidence which further reinforces them! E.g Christians always argued that the fact anything exists instead of nothing is proof it was all created. But atheists argued the Universe has always existed, now science proves it hasnt, it had a beginning
@relarerfhjk "But atheists argued the Universe has always existed, now science proves it hasnt, it had a beginning"
Not true -- atheisst argue if you claim God has always existed ( and dosent need a cause) then why not save a step and say the universe has alway existed..
@badpanda84 Not true...naturalists always argued there is nothing beyond the natural world because it has always existed. Big Bang cosmology proved them wrong. So, as Craig explains, atheists now have to believe the natural world came from nothing with no cause, since they don't believe in a supernatural creator.
The second argument is disproved by the First Cause argument,only contingent beings require a cause,the first cause of all contingent beings must exist by necessity of its own nature
@relarerfhjk "The second argument is disproved by the First Cause argument,only contingent beings require a cause"
That is a cop out -- its just so conviencent that he defined his "god" ( whichever one it happens to be) in such a way that it dosent need to be created.
Its like saying everything need to be created expect my God because he is magic.
@badpanda84 No...I mean the evidence that everything that exists came into being, and therefore must ultimately have come from a creator of all existence. And the evidence that the Universe is improbably suited to life to the extent that chance doesnt explain it.
As craig says, chance is the last resort of the atheist, so no matter how ridiculously implausible it is that the Universe could cme about by chance, the atheist has no option but to believe it and make themselves looks stupid
@badpanda84 "he has specifically made his arguments hard to understand so people have trouble debating him", "most people know WLC is talking shit but we can't explain..."(...why). you are hilarious. this is the last defense left for an atheist? you poor things... :)) although i haven't heard anybody using this poor excuse, but you, so i think it's only your opinion. anyway, it's pathetic.
Topics: DEADLY 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
But science does exactly the same thing. The current explanation for the universe is that it came about from certain basic laws. However we are stuck there for there is the obvious question ' where did the laws that brought about the universe come from'?
More Craig bullshit. "You don't need any explanation for the origin of a god. You can just say that it's unreasonable to ask the question 'How do you explain god's existence.'" He just wants to appeal to dimwits who'll buy into that nonsense. Let's face it. It's not brainiacs that give money to churches. Intelligent people as a whole aren't that gullible. They donate directly to reputable charities, rather than supporting the clergy and their front groups and spokesmen. god=sqr rt -1
@ndrthrdr1 "It's not brainiacs that give money to churches. Intelligent people as a whole aren't that gullible. They donate directly to reputable charities"..Thats a funny quote, considering that the majority of atheists do not donate and I have yet to find a humanitarian funded project supported mainly by atheists. I like how you also say "they donate" and not "we donate. "Intelligent people as a whole aren't that gullible." you just implied that you're unintelligent. lol,foolish little boy.
Am I missing something? From where do we draw the conclusion that intelligent design is the best explanation for the origins and existence of the universe?
this is the most inane thing i have heard this guy say. i would have thought it obvious that the evidence which a theory is reliant upon would need to be as strong or better yet stronger than the original theory else it is the equvilant of an elephant balancing on top of a sand castle. it wont hold it up for long
This guy is pathetic: Dawkins is right not to debate him. He just wants to make his non-existent career into something reputable by latching onto to Dawkins and his success.
@bubbabobroy keep telling yourself that. even if intelligent design were proven, it wouldnt prove any one religion over another, nor would it show that "God" is "Good," nor would it show that there is infact even one god as opposed to a race of super beings, aliens or whatever. it wouldnt prove a creator is all knowing, it wouldnt disprove Paleontology, just that perhaps life was started in a different way than science commonly believes. Religion = FAKE, all roads, even with I.D.
@ZachRose88 Spoken with the same sophmoric reasoning put forth my Richard Dawkins and his followers. I've read two in depth critiques of TGD and both mention that Dawkins reasoning and commentry on Christianity is fallacious and ill informed. When atheists like Michael Ruse mention that Dawkins makes him embarassed to call himself an atheist, and Dr. Came calls him a coward then you know there is a serious problem. Dawkins is a pompous insufferable ass. Whose arrogance betrays an empty self.
Is he really arguing for an intelligent designer of natural things by illustrating how obvious intelligently designed objects are when contrasted against natural objects?
His argument is wholly reliant on the premise that the universe was created by something, which has yet to be proven. He is simply taking Dawkin's argument out of its actual context, and then cramming it into a new context with a false premise.
You don't have to explain the best explanation? What a F@CKING nonsense... The presumption that GOD is the creator is not an EXPLANATION, it is a freaking ASSUMPTION/THEORY. And what Dawkins did as a SCIENTIST was QUESTION if that assumption/theory is logical. Craig is a good debater and defender I give him that... But he has got to stop using words that misleads the audience...
@dobiefan100 Don't tell me you really believe Craig on his "You don't need an explanation to an explanation" bullshit? Theories should be backed up also by more basic theories. That is why Dawkins questioned the ID Theory - to push us to show what theories support it. By accepting that ID is the best explanation, without even questioning it, then it would make it a fundamental belief, not a theory.
this was informative & helpful discussion;.I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more strident claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" .The article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is given to general atheistic social perspectives
@jvsm1971 what are you on about theory you do know even william lane craig accepts evolution and even if people never prove wether there is a god or not we do know all the religions are made by men which is why there are so many why pick one religion over another
@mc u didn't answer my question.As far as I have understood,WLCraig believes even IF evolution is proved,it still wouldn't intefere with his faith but he even said himself,there are appalling flaws in this tested re-tested theory.It's a matter of faith for all- including u!By faith, u believe there is no God - because you're still waiting for the scientist to prove it.U find it incredible that people believe in God without proof & yet u believe by faith God doesn't exist-that's hypocracy to me.
@mc He has revealed Himself physically upon the earth AND He reveals Himself to ANYONE who truly and honestly seeks Him. Again, I cant put anyone in front of you and say "here is God"... you must seek to find Him yourself with all your heart and mind... and He assures us all, He will show Himself. I believe He already did this when He became flesh and dwelt amongst men.. Jesus Christ. So, for me, that question you asked has been answered and by FAITH I believe Jesus is God..and by FAITH u dont.
@jvsm1971 well im sorry but that aint proof for me historians cant agree wether jesus actually existed or not and why are his stories the same as earlier gods why dosnt he answer prayers why all the death and destruction and why so many religions
@mcdinkity exactly!u and I weren't around when the records claim Jesus was around,some scholars say He was a man that truly existed...others say He didn't exist at all.. a fairy tale-so you see,by FAITH because you and I were not there to see Him with our own eyes and witness His miracles and hear Him with our own ears... we have chosen based on what we have been told... to believe or not believe!Your whole belief system is faith based and not grounded on one piece of sciene(by ur own admission)
@jvsm1971 - sorry, but that makes no sense. None of us were also around for say, Julius Cesare, Michael Angelo,. Shakespear, George Washington, A. Lincoln,etc..... just because we were not physically there doesn't mean that we cannot accept credible historical accounts as true.... It's the same with the person of Jesus who has a strong and well-established historical basis in history.
@shieldsff My point is that it's by faith we believe all accounts that Jesus truly existed. you and I were not there, so by faith we believe those accounts to be the truth. That was my point. And I totally agree with you, the sources of reliable credible historical records prove Jesus truly existed, and by faith I believe it. God Bless.
@mcdinkity So many religions - yep. But Jesus Christ is NOT a religion. He promises a RELATIONSHIP with anyone who desires to know Him and the TRUTH. Religion is mans attempt to reach "God".. but it's nothing more than a cheap counterfeit of the real thing - relationship. Jesus Christ died for you because He loves you - He didn't die for a religion or to start a religion. If you study it, u will discover Jesus Christ HATED religion in His day and it was the religious leaders who wanted Him dead.
@jvsm1971 we'll just have do agree to disagree you believe religion and i think its ridiculous i see no evidence if jesus did exist then he was only a man he couldnt be anything else
@mcdinkity How about I talk about Mohammed and Islam... and what they teach/preach... creeped out by that too? or Buddhism? or Hare Krishna? or is it only the Jesus thing? If it's only Jesus that freaks you out... then that's enormous.
@mcdinkity how many have you actually sat down and talked with? Or have you judged by what other people have said? The chances of you meeting a "creepy" christian are slim to none.... what has freaked you out is that they believe Jesus Christ is Lord of all and will judge those who have willfully rejected the only provision He made to save mankind from the selfdestructive effects of a fallen heart. It's the heart of man that Jesus Christ came to heal, restore, renew. Jesus Christ is not creeepy.
@mcdinkity The Gospel is creeping you out.because it's conviction in your heart that is freaking you out... somewhere deep deep down in that heart of yours.... there is a question you're being forced to ask, and that is, "could all this be true, and if it's true, what does that mean for me"... Truly, if the Gospel wasn't freaking you out, it wouldn't matter how many people rambled on about Jesus - you simply wouldn't give a hoot... but it's affecting you, and you need to get to the bottom- WHY?
@mcdinkity That's not the truth. History has actually validated the historical events in the bible AND science has provoked more questions than ever before regarding the origin of life and the universe. Science hasn't answered ANY of the questions, such as HOW did the universe come to be? WHY did it happen? HOW does life begin? WHAT is the purpose of life? WHAT happens AFTER we die? Can you provide scientific answers to those questions? You will be the first if you can..Plenty of theories only.
@jvsm1971 First of all, history has only validated the supposed "historical events in the bible" in the sense that some of the stories have a kernal of actual truth to them. Secondly, the search for greater knowledge will inevitably lead to more questions; the more we learn, the more we understand what we don't know yet. And just because science hasn't answered ALL of the questions doesn't mean that it hasn't answered ANY questions.
@Arca That simply is not the truth regarding our ancient past and the bible.If you want to swallow that one, then feel free, but you are simply(willfully)deceiving yourself.Your life, your choice. Science cannot prove something that is "supernatural". HOW could it ever? God is outside of this dimension - the God that we are discussing is SPIRIT. HOW does science test this or prove this? &for people to believe throughout the world - why not?What can u say to me that "proves" God isnt there?
@jvsm1971 "Science cannot prove something that is 'supernatural'" Of course that assumes that the answer to those questions is supernatural, though the only reason you've given for that assumption is that science hasn't answered them as of yet. Have you never heard of "god of the gaps"? Our not yet knowing the answer to a particular question doesn't mean that we will never know, nor is it a valid excuse to interject some (by your own admission) untestable claim to answer it.
@ArcanaKnight The funny thing is, the God of the bible PROMISES to reveal Himself to anyone who seeks Him with ALL their HEART.The God of the bible is very clear about making Himself KNOWN to the individual. He claims He is a personal God who wants a relationship with His creation.And He proves His existence through His word and especially through bible prophecy which cant be dismissed.How can science prove the existence of God? It's by faith anyone believes- not science.
@jvsm1971 Funny thing that, how god only "reveals himself" to those who already believe in him. Another funny thing? How the so-called miracles attributed to god dropped off precipitously in quality as we became better able to record, analyze, and share information with others; he used to burn down cities and turn people to salt, and now can only manage to occasionally show up on a piece of toast.
The "bible prophesy" of yours absolutely can be dismissed. Every one of them was either so vague that they could be true of almost any time in history, or were written after the event they were supposed to be prophesying.
(cont.) You need to recognize that an arrowhead looks as it does so that it can pierce flesh, is attached to some type of shaft, has weight, etc. Science ALWAYS needs an explanation; the NATURE of the explanation must be significant, though. Though Dr. Craig is intelligent, this argument didn't seem to be to me.
@bottomlesschad I think Craig's point is just that a given explanation can be the best, even if it creates more questions, like believing in God or in a hypothetical tribe of ancient people. We are justified in believing in something even if holding that belief creates new questions or needs explaining.
Severe problem with Dr. Craig's argument of explanations for me. Quite simply, when he gives an example of people recognizing arrowheads as designed, you in fact DO need an explanation. Problem is, you don't need the explanation that he gives as an example (ie: where arrowhead creators are from, what they looked like, etc.). The explanation isn't about the hair colour of the inventors. Rather, you need an explanation about why something shaped like an arrowhead likely has a designer (cont.).
@thetraceur123 I used the word cosmos to refer to the multiverse, not to our universe. Moreover, im parodying Craig. I cannot claim that the multiverse is eternal and always been there. But he does it with god and scape from the eternal regression problem by postulating that we dont need an explanation of the explanation.
The cosmos is eternal and always has been there. Thats the explanation. Dont ask why this is the explanation because we dont need an explanation of the explanation. Craig is high on religious impulses,lol.
I've found that William Lane Craig, doesn't seem to like the idea that the universe quite possibly came from nothing. The concept that nothing created something is in Quantum Physics to a very basic form, known as anti-matter, and that anti-matter itself pulses back and forth from one form to anther just as all matter pulse from one form to another, and yet with the "observer effect" concludes to one form. Too complex for us humans to grasp at this point, but in due time.
The problem with Craigs first dismissal is that WE HAVE SEEN PEOPLE BEFORE, SO WE CAN INFER THEM AND DON'T HAVE TO ASK WHERE THEY CAME FROM. With a God, the 'who designed the designer' is a flaw as it creates an infinite regress unless we solve it by explaining the nature of the said God.
@TheBiddleMan yes but he used a good example of an alien species. in that case we could know nothing of the alien species, and possibly never know. but if we found complex machinery, then the best explanation would be that it had been designed.
@TheBiddleMan whether we can grant the existence of aliens is irrelevant. if you found machinery on the moon, it wouldnt matter whether you knew aliens existed or not, the greatest probable explanation would be it had been manufactured by some intelligence. such a discovery could even infer the existence of aliens before we had any. this is why some infer there is a god because of the observed design in the universe.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Actually, the humorous thing here is science offers the explanation without infinite regress. As Hawking has shown in his work, quantum mechanics, super gravity, quantum gravity, and string theory point to a unified, self-contained explanation of a self-creating universe. You just have to have some education to understand the elegant solution that science offers instead of being an ignorant, superstitious savage.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You worship an imaginary evil god and yet you tell non believers to go to a mental institution. If you want to see insanity look at yourself in the mirror. Again why do you worship an imaginary evil god.? Give me an intelligent explanation in order to prove that you are not a fruit cake. Some how I don't think you can otherwise you would have had no hesitation in providing an explanation.
@DrMontague you have all your facts wrong lol. you come to these conclusion on bias because you must, its the only thing supporting your atheism. you dont actually take the facts for what they are. stop being a troll and go get an education about the things of which you speak before you make any conclusions at all you uneducated iq-less youtube troll.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@amapmwt The god you believe must have wanted the recent so so called natural disasters to happen. He could have prevented these disasters which have claimed the lives of thousands ,therefore he has to be evil. BTW you claim I have all my facts wrong!Which facts? You are claiming the Old Testament doesn't state that god demanded gay and lesbians be stoned to death? Check it out you will find that I am right. Perhaps you believe the recent natural disasters are not facts either?!
god made nature, nature caused disasters, god wont work for us, he already gave us life and i suppose that all the pollution now is god`s fault and not humans screwing around, if you want to debate check my new account RedStreak40
@mgmga1 That is like claiming god lit the blue touch paper and retreated and let the universe and earth to his laws of physics. . Then his laws of physics are evil. The evidence is that that the earth is 4.5 billion years old ,even before man came on scene it was full of natural disasters. If god does not intervene then he is evil. We can see from the craters on the moon and other planets that the solar system had a violent beginning. Nothing to do with man but an insane god?!
you dont seem to be comprehending what im telling you and your argument is silly, so god is evil for creating the universe, physics, oxygen, clouds, and us but didnt prevent NATURAL disasters???? God only made us and the world, he does not get in the way of disasters like tornadoes, also, if you had a brain, dying is not the end in this belief, also, by the time evolution even happend at all, by the time it took for us to come the sun would have died, simple science :P
@mgmga1 My argument is not silly in the least. The writer of the story of Job in the bible goes to great lengths to try and persuade us your imaginary god's non intervention is justified. He fails miserably. The Old Testament is full of god 's evil. He demanded that human's should stone to death homosexuals and burn alive women found not to be virgins on their wedding night. So much for his love. Further I think you need to research what we know of the universe and evolution.
ok...you keep repeating the same reply to everyone your losing the debate to...what if you read the bible and actually know all the details about the homosexual story that you misunderstood so greatly
@mgmga1 I repeat myself because they are powerful arguments against your bull shit and delusion that your imaginary god is only full of love and compassion. He is also full of evil, vengeance, and hatred. This is the reason they miss big chunks out of the bible in the education system i.e. they cherry pick. There is nothing difficult to understand about god's demands he clearly states homosexuals must be killed.
@amapmwt I do have a good education mate, from a top university in the UK. I don't really like to bring education up but fucktards like you are fond of telling everyone who isn't deluded yourself that they are uneducated. Again your imaginary god is an evil piece of shit who you created in your own image.
@DrMontague its not a matter of being educated its a matter of hatred ,people who use bad language like yourself is clearly hateful of believers regardless of their stance good or bad.im guessing your an atheist and if so why are you wasting your time trying to convince people that there is no god ?perhaps your unsure of your own atheistic view.
@prime440 These are debating channels. What do you think this video is about?! It's a video which the guest speakers i.e. f atheists and theists putt forward their arguments. I too-as an atheist.- put forward my argument i.e. that the god of the Old Testament is evil. If you don't like debating and find it uncomfortable when your deluded beliefs are challenged then my advice is to stay away. I know several theists both friends and family I certainly don't hate them.
@prime440 I call you a fucktard because you have the the audacity to call anyone who intellectually challenge your deluded beliefs as uneducated. Again the God of the Old Testament clearly showes his evil. If you believe that drowning babies and children is not evil act then you have what is known as affection-less psychopathy.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Isaiah 45: 7
“I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.”
See your imaginary god even admits he created evil. . Do fucking retard creationists ever read the bible?! BTW Giving negative votes will only make people curious. HA ha ha.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
“…the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil…” Genesis 3: 22. As a human who knows good and evil, I judge the biblical god to be evil by definition.
Obviously creationists cannot distinguish between good and evil because their brains are damaged beyond repair. How do I know this? Well it is clear as the noon day sun that their imaginary god is evil yet they cannot see it never mind justify it.
You cannot make a very effective material analogy when talking about existence. It is not a watch, tomahawks, or machinery on the moon.
Take out the analogies, and you are left with is him saying that Design needs no explanation because it is clearly the best choice, so it needs no defense.
Whereas scientific theories are constantly looking for their own explanations, seeking truth in proving themselves wrong.
Craig, not a good philosopher, little knowledge of science.
singhumt 2 weeks ago
Both the God Hypothesis and the Big Bang Theory can be subjected to the problem of infinite regress. However, the issue I take with Craig's argument is that he assumes that once the concept of a god has been proven not to be impossible, then naturally intelligent design is the most plausible cause for the creation of the universe. Also, in his examples with the moon and the arrowheads, the defining factor is that evidence has been discovered before conclusions are made, contrary to creationism
trial0by0fire 1 month ago
To be completely honest, I've always hated that argument of Dawkins'. I feel it's his weakest, and just provides a target for people to shoot down while ignore his stronger ones.
flaviusclaudius7510 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The argument of WLC that if the scientist cannot explain now a phisical phenomenon it must be god... is ludacris and a total lack or rispect of 500 hundred years of scientific method..
templario9001 1 month ago
The argument of WLC that if the scientist cannot explain now a phisical phenomenon it must be god... is ludacris and a total lack or rispect of 500 hundred years of scientific method..
templario9001 1 month ago
This point is completely self-defeating and stupid. Yes, you do need to be able to explain the explanation, and Archeologists do need extensive historical knowledge of what they are researching so they can put their findings into context and assemble a larger, more encompassing explanation. The Mars analogy is also terrible, as we absolutely would need to find out who left it. Most people would probably assume it was us and that it was some kind of hoax until the aliens showed up in the flesh.
TheDesertDragon 2 months ago
Craig actually did a great job at showing how fundamental logic discredits Dawkins ridiculous statement. Apologists are indeed a breed of authentic intelligence using a real brain coming to real rational conclusions. Most scientists are mere parrots that boast textbook jargon and use selective assertions mixed with fancy terminology to fool the low IQ crowd. The current generation statistical has a lower IQ than past generations. Its a fact. That's why frauds like Dawkins can thrive.
highnote606 3 months ago
@highnote606 1. It`s evident that you dont have any idea how the scientific knowledge is obtained..... the jargon u say it´s technical language.... everybody used.. from the military to lawyers.... 2. The current generation it`s more inteligente that the past generations.. sorry.. just because the little girls listen to Justin Biebers and Lady Gaga doents meant that they arent smartest.. today we have better edcation and forms to grow our intelligence that the past generations didnt have...
templario9001 1 month ago
Misses the point by a mile. And on purpose I presume.
0ver10rd 3 months ago
And science will eventually explain the explanation of the explanation, and creationists will retreat and bury their head i'n the abscence of an explanation of the explanation of the explanation of the explanation.
charzy11 4 months ago
WLC reaches a new low in nonsensical BS. Of course we know that arrow heads were made by someone. We know this before we even find one in the dirt. Claiming that the explaination of the explaination is unneccessary is complete nonsense. Of course we will continue to seek the answers to the questions that new scientific discovery creates. No, we do not have to settle for a lame made up "goddidit" explaination. WLC Fails Again. LOL
TheEkstaza 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago
He totally miss the fact that science, and indeed any field of study, is about theory and how well the theory can uphold scrutiny. And in fact, science is a infinite regress of necessary explanations and questions. Dawkins pointed this out when he mentioned that god is just a simple, unsatisfying, and procastinatory answer to a complex problem, like duct taping a crack in the hover damn. "Don't look at it to intently or it might let go." all Dr. Craig did was spin words without substance...
Steelwolf696 4 months ago
Craig's examples of arrowheads and moon-machines BOTH involve us distinguishing the said objects as designed by contrasting them with the (supposedly designed) environments we found them in. Why, in either case should we assume anyone other than God designed these 'artifacts'?
That's why Intelligent Design fails, because nothing is not designed to compare anything to, if you follow me.
FoolTuber41 5 months ago
@FoolTuber41 I've never heard that line of reasoning before, but i do follow your logic, you make an excellent point.
What you said totally refutes the "watchmaker" argument nicely, i.e. a primitive man would recognise the watch is designed due to the CONTRAST with nature, thus implying nature has no designer...
Great contribution, thank you!
andyjs2008 5 months ago
@andyjs2008
No, thank you for rewording it. It sounds much clearer how you said it.
FoolTuber41 5 months ago
If your explanation of the natural world allows supernatural intervention then that's theological philosophy.
If your explanation of the natural world disqualifies supernatural intervention then that's science.
The 2 are incompatible.
GuillemotWatcher 5 months ago
he is showing how well he completely missed the point hes arguing against.
smof1 5 months ago 2
@smof1
And you're showing how well you can't even articulate what the point is supposed to be.
DrWhoDaMan 4 months ago
My next door neighbor is a designer, maybe she did it.
gregrutz 5 months ago
Yup God is magic alright.
But yout idea of "poof, hi there universe" makes so much more sense.
So in summary, you either beleive something cannot ever be explained and just so happened to form complex logical mechanisms to govern a district of reality or...
something can not ever be explained and knew what it was doing when he made complex logical mechanisms to govern a district of reality.
Ya..... Magic indeed.
MagnusCattus 5 months ago
And there is no evidence of God, except what is essentialy a circular arguement that "we are here, get used to it", I just say there is something beyond the reality we live in that does not need to be governed by any of the laws we know to be true, and logic agrees with me since NOTHING only Creates Nothing, so something had to exist, plain and simple something HAD TO EXIST. and with the obvious order and function of this reality, it was all planned.
You lost mate.
MagnusCattus 5 months ago
@MagnusCattus Study quantum mechanics, matter can come from nothing.
gregrutz 5 months ago
God Did not need a beginning because without a beginning it ends the chain of "who created... Blah" DO we understand this fully? No. But its a hell of alot more logical then saying "well, void caused energy and then the energy exploded, and then the explosion made matter and space, and physical laws, and renewable energy, and then eventualy life spat out of a rock that got rained on. Yup you atheists sure know your science.....
MagnusCattus 5 months ago
So saying there was SOMETHING that is beyond our physical world is a total reality, because WHAT created the entropy that expanded into the universe (if you can believe that hogwash) You can pretend the universe exploded from raw energy (that still needed a beginning, you see where I'm going with this..) or you can make the educated guess that SOMETHING always existed since SOMETHING had to to make ANYTHING. Can you make a Rembrandt by smashing paint on a wall? no, so SOMETHING purposeful did it
MagnusCattus 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations"-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuits completely altered the education system to suit their evolution agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible.
SpencerBenedict2nd 5 months ago
Craig: "In order to recognize that an explanation is the best, you don't need to have an explanation of the explanation."
Um....sometimes you do. Like when the thing that you are calling an "explanation" doesn't actually explain anything.
Just another illustration of Craig's sophistry. Any capable philosopher would laugh at this and also at Craig's "archeologist" example which is so obviously distinguishable.
hazydavey 5 months ago
You don't have to expalin anything, you need to show some evidence.
Evidence of a god.
Evidence of a global flood.
Evidence Jesus was a god.
gregrutz 5 months ago
@gregrutz what the hell are you talking about? If something is created, IT WAS CREATED. Doesn't matter if there are follow up qeustions, how can you miss the point so entirely?
So maybe humans have the coneption of god wrong. WE WERE STILL CREATED. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest nothing can create anything, and for that matter something existing forever, therefore SOMETHING caused us to be here, I say God did it, you say... nothing did it... (or pretend an entropy existed) and didit
MagnusCattus 5 months ago
@MagnusCattus So who created us? Allah? who created god?
gregrutz 5 months ago
Can't believe...someone that takes the bible as truth, talking about "untrue" points in a book.
He is soooo ridicule(Bill Lame Craig).
LowresTV 6 months ago
Dawkins:"I have to be careful to avoid prejudice resulting from my almost visceral loathing of "Dr" Craig's odiously unctuous, smug and self-satisfied tone of voice. But this piece (about Krauss) of libellous logic-chopping deserves to be set alongside his notorious defence of biblical genocide and infanticide. Craig really is a truly disgusting person in the literal sense: he disgusts. After this, I'd have a hard time bringing myself to shake hands with him, let alone share a platform with him"
AgeOfReasonXXI 6 months ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI Yes, I read that comment on Dawkins website too. What a cowardly, snivelling little wretch he is.
He not only runs away from a one-on-one debate with Craig but fails to respond to any of Craig's published criticisms of his book and then cowers in the safety of his atheist fanbase, making vicious slurs on Craig's character. One wonders...why the hatred?
Might it be easier to resort to cheap insults than meet the challenge of a debate he knows he would lose?
relarerfhjk 6 months ago
@relarerfhjk Possibly for the same reason Craig won't debate John W. Loftus? Or because Craig is a silver-tongued lawyer-for-Jesus type who is more suited to spin than engaging in an honest discussion?
havvyweponsman 6 months ago
@havvyweponsman Craig has walloped every prominent atheist in existence,from Victor Stenger to Dan Dennett. Dawkins is the only scalp he hasnt yet claimed. It would be a walkover as Dawkins has no training in philosophy or logic.Craig has demonstrated how each of the "arguments" in God Delusion (particularly the Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit) are logical fallacies. Far from being into "spin" Craig has been publsihed in hundreds of peer-reviewed journals and praised by leading atheist philosophers
relarerfhjk 6 months ago
@relarerfhjk Agree to disagree, then.
havvyweponsman 6 months ago
@relarerfhjk "Craig has walloped every prominent atheist in existence,from Victor Stenger to Dan Dennett. Dawkins is the only scalp he hasnt yet claimed"
Only according to WLC supporters -- because there is no way to judge these debates ( and determine who won) to say craig as walloped eevry prominet atheist in existence very subjective.
Its is only in you opion that craig as walloped every priominet atheist -- an opinoion not shared by most people
badpanda84 6 months ago
@badpanda84 "only according to WLC supporters" Not at all. Its the consensus among atheists.Famous atheist philosophes like Quentin Smith wrote that Craig is better-informed than his opponents.
He destroyed Sam Harris more easily than Hitchens (Harris ended up going into a disgraceful off-topic rant in his last speech because he had completely lost the debate, after Craig exposed his book as bunkum!)The renowned atheist blog Common Sense Atheism said Craig has "never failed to win a debate"
relarerfhjk 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@relarerfhjk " It would be a walkover as Dawkins has no training in philosophy or logic."
That is my point -- training in philosohy or logic ------ basically means training in being an expert debater ( what other use dose philisophy and logic have?)
badpanda84 6 months ago
@badpanda84 "what other use does philosophy and logic have" Dude, that is such a stupid question, I honestly don't know what to say, except you need to go away and do the reading you clearly never did at school.
Philosophy and the assumptions it makes about the world and its rules of logic form the basis of science, ethics, education and everything else.
Science cannot exist without following rules laid down in philosophy and accepting philosophical assumptions about the Universe.
relarerfhjk 5 months ago
@relarerfhjk OK so lets say you majoried in philoshpoy -- what kind of job could you get (that isnt a debater , or a lecturer or theologian)
badpanda84 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@relarerfhjk "Might it be easier to resort to cheap insults than meet the challenge of a debate he knows he would lose?"
Debating would prove nothing -- it wouldn't matter what happens WLC supporters will quoting mine Darwkins and claim victory..
All debating would prove is who is a better debater -- nothing more -- no truth is ever determined by debate
badpanda84 6 months ago
@badpanda84 Further to my past post, even the Oxford atheist philosopher Danie Came said here in the British media that Dawkins is a "coward" for ducking a debate with "a fearsome intellect" like Craig. Craig despatched Christopher Hitchens with such ease, it was positively embarassing.
I agree debate skills dont prove anything. He would win because Dawkins arguments are wrong, not because he's a better debater. He's explained the fallacies in Dawkins arguments in print many times!
relarerfhjk 6 months ago
@relarerfhjk "He would win because Dawkins arguments are wrong, not because he's a better debater "
Nope that is where you are wrong -- If you read the comment after WLC videos ( assuming he didnt censor the comments) you can see many posts which point out WLC the obvious flaw in his logic,
Also the so called "fallacies: in Dawkins arguments are just cases where WLC either
a) misquoted or misinterprated him
or
b) missed the point entirely
badpanda84 6 months ago
@badpanda84 "nope that is where your wrong" Where am I wrong? I have read many of the Youtube posts you describe, and not one of them offers a serious refutation, because they don't actually understand the arguments. I try and respond to as many of them as I can, explaining the facts.
Nope, the fallacies in Dawkins arguments have been exposed not just by Craig but by many other philosophers.Atheist philosopher Quentin Smith said Dawkins book is "an embarassment" to atheism!
relarerfhjk 5 months ago
@relarerfhjk Nope of WLC argument are serious -- they are so stupid that once you get pass his style of debate ( cause most of us aren't familar with debating like that in everyday life) you realises WLC is just speaking nonsense..
badpanda84 5 months ago
@badpanda84 "they are so stupid". Wrong. His arguments are of such quality (and so watertight) that atheist philosophers Quentin Smith and Daniel Came estimate that Craig's Kalam argument has generated more peer-reviewed articles in philosophy journals than any other theist argument in the past two centuries!
Craig's arguments have nothing to do with "debating style" they have been published in hundreds of the leading philosophy journals.
The Youtubers you mention are easy to rip apart.
relarerfhjk 5 months ago
@relarerfhjk "because they don't actually understand the arguments"
That is a fault with WLC arguements -- he has specifically made his arguments hard to understand so people have trouble debating him ( and to make himself sound smarter). that is a deliberate tatic by WLC.
That is why he wins debates --because style sometimes is better than substance..
Problem is that most people know WLC is talking shit but we can't explain in it same style as WLC dose
badpanda84 5 months ago
@badpanda84 "he has specifically made the arguments hard to understand"
You don't know what your talking about. craig hasnt "made" any new arguments, he deliberately re-formulates ancient Christian, theist and philosophical arguments for the existence of God,(e.g why anything exists instead of nothing) in light of new scientific and historical evidence.
The arguments haven't changed but the balance of proof has shifted in their favour.
Dawkins arguments are embarassingly weak
relarerfhjk 5 months ago
@relarerfhjk "craig hasnt "made" any new arguments, he deliberately re-formulates ancient Christian, theist and philosophical arguments for the existence of God,"
Ok I agree -- still that make it even worst then.. so he cant even come up with new argument.
badpanda84 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@badpanda84 "still that make it even worst then.. so he cant even come up with new argument." i read this and now i regret i responded to you before. how the heck did you concluded that?why he must come up with new ones? you are hopeless regarding the activity called "thinking".
CumSeNumesteMelodia 5 months ago
@badpanda84 It doenst" make it worse" the whole point is that he is not simply making up the evidence for God, that evidence has always been there! Which is why he doesnt invent new arguments, he reproduces old ones and tests them against the latest evidence which further reinforces them! E.g Christians always argued that the fact anything exists instead of nothing is proof it was all created. But atheists argued the Universe has always existed, now science proves it hasnt, it had a beginning
relarerfhjk 5 months ago
@relarerfhjk "But atheists argued the Universe has always existed, now science proves it hasnt, it had a beginning"
Not true -- atheisst argue if you claim God has always existed ( and dosent need a cause) then why not save a step and say the universe has alway existed..
badpanda84 5 months ago
@badpanda84 Not true...naturalists always argued there is nothing beyond the natural world because it has always existed. Big Bang cosmology proved them wrong. So, as Craig explains, atheists now have to believe the natural world came from nothing with no cause, since they don't believe in a supernatural creator.
The second argument is disproved by the First Cause argument,only contingent beings require a cause,the first cause of all contingent beings must exist by necessity of its own nature
relarerfhjk 5 months ago
@relarerfhjk "The second argument is disproved by the First Cause argument,only contingent beings require a cause"
That is a cop out -- its just so conviencent that he defined his "god" ( whichever one it happens to be) in such a way that it dosent need to be created.
Its like saying everything need to be created expect my God because he is magic.
badpanda84 5 months ago
@relarerfhjk "the whole point is that he is not simply making up the evidence for God, that evidence has always been there! "
what you mean --"wow the universe is so complex and amazing therefore God did it"
badpanda84 5 months ago
@badpanda84 No...I mean the evidence that everything that exists came into being, and therefore must ultimately have come from a creator of all existence. And the evidence that the Universe is improbably suited to life to the extent that chance doesnt explain it.
As craig says, chance is the last resort of the atheist, so no matter how ridiculously implausible it is that the Universe could cme about by chance, the atheist has no option but to believe it and make themselves looks stupid
relarerfhjk 5 months ago
@relarerfhjk "And the evidence that the Universe is improbably suited to life to the extent that chance doesnt explain it."
Yes chance along dosent explain it-- which is exactly why we dont say that... natural selction is not the same as random chance.
badpanda84 5 months ago
@badpanda84 "he has specifically made his arguments hard to understand so people have trouble debating him", "most people know WLC is talking shit but we can't explain..."(...why). you are hilarious. this is the last defense left for an atheist? you poor things... :)) although i haven't heard anybody using this poor excuse, but you, so i think it's only your opinion. anyway, it's pathetic.
CumSeNumesteMelodia 5 months ago
@relarerfhjk Debating skills prove who will win a debate -- debating skills dosent prove who is right or wrong..
WLC has obviously had alot of pratcie debating..
badpanda84 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: DEADLY 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 7 months ago
One glance at your facade channel makes clear who's commenting.
ndrthrdr1 7 months ago
But science does exactly the same thing. The current explanation for the universe is that it came about from certain basic laws. However we are stuck there for there is the obvious question ' where did the laws that brought about the universe come from'?
PermanentWater 7 months ago
Which website did he get his doctorate off?
frogmancrack 7 months ago
This guys' stupidity amazes me...
Ryakki 7 months ago
More Craig bullshit. "You don't need any explanation for the origin of a god. You can just say that it's unreasonable to ask the question 'How do you explain god's existence.'" He just wants to appeal to dimwits who'll buy into that nonsense. Let's face it. It's not brainiacs that give money to churches. Intelligent people as a whole aren't that gullible. They donate directly to reputable charities, rather than supporting the clergy and their front groups and spokesmen. god=sqr rt -1
ndrthrdr1 7 months ago
Comment removed
jimbowillie121 7 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 "It's not brainiacs that give money to churches. Intelligent people as a whole aren't that gullible. They donate directly to reputable charities"..Thats a funny quote, considering that the majority of atheists do not donate and I have yet to find a humanitarian funded project supported mainly by atheists. I like how you also say "they donate" and not "we donate. "Intelligent people as a whole aren't that gullible." you just implied that you're unintelligent. lol,foolish little boy.
jimbowillie121 7 months ago
Comment removed
ndrthrdr1 7 months ago
Comment removed
ndrthrdr1 7 months ago
Am I missing something? From where do we draw the conclusion that intelligent design is the best explanation for the origins and existence of the universe?
Eh...
Ryanfarrick 7 months ago
this is the most inane thing i have heard this guy say. i would have thought it obvious that the evidence which a theory is reliant upon would need to be as strong or better yet stronger than the original theory else it is the equvilant of an elephant balancing on top of a sand castle. it wont hold it up for long
popifar 7 months ago
Ugh. I wish this guy could be taken behind the back shed and shot.
RandallMultiflag 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RandallMultiflag And thats the reason you don't deserve any respect.
bubbabobroy 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 8 months ago
This guy is pathetic: Dawkins is right not to debate him. He just wants to make his non-existent career into something reputable by latching onto to Dawkins and his success.
ZachRose88 8 months ago
@ZachRose88 Yet he has repeatedly won debate after debate with atheists. All Dawkins does is name call and mud-sling and deserves no respect.
bubbabobroy 8 months ago
@bubbabobroy keep telling yourself that. even if intelligent design were proven, it wouldnt prove any one religion over another, nor would it show that "God" is "Good," nor would it show that there is infact even one god as opposed to a race of super beings, aliens or whatever. it wouldnt prove a creator is all knowing, it wouldnt disprove Paleontology, just that perhaps life was started in a different way than science commonly believes. Religion = FAKE, all roads, even with I.D.
cycophile 7 months ago
@ZachRose88 Spoken with the same sophmoric reasoning put forth my Richard Dawkins and his followers. I've read two in depth critiques of TGD and both mention that Dawkins reasoning and commentry on Christianity is fallacious and ill informed. When atheists like Michael Ruse mention that Dawkins makes him embarassed to call himself an atheist, and Dr. Came calls him a coward then you know there is a serious problem. Dawkins is a pompous insufferable ass. Whose arrogance betrays an empty self.
vittoriacolona 8 months ago
@ZachRose88 kk
r0baa 7 months ago
Is he really arguing for an intelligent designer of natural things by illustrating how obvious intelligently designed objects are when contrasted against natural objects?
digitaljez 8 months ago
Excellent;
oopscanada 8 months ago
I praise the Lord for this man!
xchampx 8 months ago
His argument is wholly reliant on the premise that the universe was created by something, which has yet to be proven. He is simply taking Dawkin's argument out of its actual context, and then cramming it into a new context with a false premise.
XlXKrampusXlX 8 months ago
@XlXKrampusXlX Please, explain.
xchampx 8 months ago
@XlXKrampusXlX dawkins no where in his book gave definitive proof that atheism is true.
XXThrashtera88XX 8 months ago
Dr Craig, what if the makers of the machinery were Chinese? Or any other nation with a space program advanced enough to land material on the moon?
HKOverlord117 8 months ago
It's hard to take William Craig seriously because he looks and talks like Steve Carell
eldrinirdle 9 months ago
213 people are intelligent
eldrinirdle 9 months ago
Just because you can explain something with evidence, doesn't mean that you're suddenly going to delve into a infinite regress of explanation.
upliftzippy 9 months ago
@upliftzippy oh yes it can when the evidence is not 100% proven.
thikabouit 9 months ago
@thikabouit there is no absolute proof so its a non-statement, its just things are more likely than others
upliftzippy 9 months ago
You don't have to explain the best explanation? What a F@CKING nonsense... The presumption that GOD is the creator is not an EXPLANATION, it is a freaking ASSUMPTION/THEORY. And what Dawkins did as a SCIENTIST was QUESTION if that assumption/theory is logical. Craig is a good debater and defender I give him that... But he has got to stop using words that misleads the audience...
eldrinirdle 9 months ago
@eldrinirdle
i wud say that it is an explanation is a theory...so jus be carefull on ur words man
saleebyman 9 months ago
@saleebyman No.. An EXPLANATION is a CONCLUSION you moron... It is not a theory.
eldrinirdle 9 months ago
@eldrinirdle
No need to go nuts at me
i meant to say "it is an explanation and it is a theory" they dont go against each other
i.e. an explanation of how the universe started is the big bang theory
EXPLANATION
1.A statement or account that makes something clear.
2.A reason or justification given for an action or belief.
THEORY
A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained
THUMBS UP PPL IF U AGREE
dobiefan100 9 months ago
@dobiefan100 Don't tell me you really believe Craig on his "You don't need an explanation to an explanation" bullshit? Theories should be backed up also by more basic theories. That is why Dawkins questioned the ID Theory - to push us to show what theories support it. By accepting that ID is the best explanation, without even questioning it, then it would make it a fundamental belief, not a theory.
eldrinirdle 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this was informative & helpful discussion;.I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more strident claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" .The article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is given to general atheistic social perspectives
shieldsff 9 months ago
if craig studied quantum physics instead of the bible we'd all have less headaches.
6hundred3score6 9 months ago
@jvsm1971 what are you on about theory you do know even william lane craig accepts evolution and even if people never prove wether there is a god or not we do know all the religions are made by men which is why there are so many why pick one religion over another
mcdinkity 10 months ago
@mc u didn't answer my question.As far as I have understood,WLCraig believes even IF evolution is proved,it still wouldn't intefere with his faith but he even said himself,there are appalling flaws in this tested re-tested theory.It's a matter of faith for all- including u!By faith, u believe there is no God - because you're still waiting for the scientist to prove it.U find it incredible that people believe in God without proof & yet u believe by faith God doesn't exist-that's hypocracy to me.
jvsm1971 10 months ago
if there really is a god why does he hide and make it look as if he dosnt exist
mcdinkity 10 months ago
@mc He has revealed Himself physically upon the earth AND He reveals Himself to ANYONE who truly and honestly seeks Him. Again, I cant put anyone in front of you and say "here is God"... you must seek to find Him yourself with all your heart and mind... and He assures us all, He will show Himself. I believe He already did this when He became flesh and dwelt amongst men.. Jesus Christ. So, for me, that question you asked has been answered and by FAITH I believe Jesus is God..and by FAITH u dont.
jvsm1971 10 months ago
@jvsm1971 well im sorry but that aint proof for me historians cant agree wether jesus actually existed or not and why are his stories the same as earlier gods why dosnt he answer prayers why all the death and destruction and why so many religions
mcdinkity 10 months ago
@mcdinkity exactly!u and I weren't around when the records claim Jesus was around,some scholars say He was a man that truly existed...others say He didn't exist at all.. a fairy tale-so you see,by FAITH because you and I were not there to see Him with our own eyes and witness His miracles and hear Him with our own ears... we have chosen based on what we have been told... to believe or not believe!Your whole belief system is faith based and not grounded on one piece of sciene(by ur own admission)
jvsm1971 10 months ago
@jvsm1971 - sorry, but that makes no sense. None of us were also around for say, Julius Cesare, Michael Angelo,. Shakespear, George Washington, A. Lincoln,etc..... just because we were not physically there doesn't mean that we cannot accept credible historical accounts as true.... It's the same with the person of Jesus who has a strong and well-established historical basis in history.
shieldsff 9 months ago
@shieldsff My point is that it's by faith we believe all accounts that Jesus truly existed. you and I were not there, so by faith we believe those accounts to be the truth. That was my point. And I totally agree with you, the sources of reliable credible historical records prove Jesus truly existed, and by faith I believe it. God Bless.
jvsm1971 9 months ago
@mcdinkity So many religions - yep. But Jesus Christ is NOT a religion. He promises a RELATIONSHIP with anyone who desires to know Him and the TRUTH. Religion is mans attempt to reach "God".. but it's nothing more than a cheap counterfeit of the real thing - relationship. Jesus Christ died for you because He loves you - He didn't die for a religion or to start a religion. If you study it, u will discover Jesus Christ HATED religion in His day and it was the religious leaders who wanted Him dead.
jvsm1971 10 months ago
@jvsm1971 we'll just have do agree to disagree you believe religion and i think its ridiculous i see no evidence if jesus did exist then he was only a man he couldnt be anything else
mcdinkity 10 months ago
@mcdinkity google proving historic jesus-dmc members and you can look up angelica zambrano her testimony is very interesting
matrixlone 9 months ago
Dr. Craig is awesome.
observer75 10 months ago
Clouds form because of Utiehip-XXajsdaaw 1134. I don't know what that is, but it doesn't matter, because you don't need to explain the explanation.
BlckSbthMan 10 months ago
@mcdinkity How about I talk about Mohammed and Islam... and what they teach/preach... creeped out by that too? or Buddhism? or Hare Krishna? or is it only the Jesus thing? If it's only Jesus that freaks you out... then that's enormous.
jvsm1971 10 months ago
@jvsm1971 na all religion is creepy we dont need it its a load of crap just made up to control people
mcdinkity 10 months ago
@mcdinkity how many have you actually sat down and talked with? Or have you judged by what other people have said? The chances of you meeting a "creepy" christian are slim to none.... what has freaked you out is that they believe Jesus Christ is Lord of all and will judge those who have willfully rejected the only provision He made to save mankind from the selfdestructive effects of a fallen heart. It's the heart of man that Jesus Christ came to heal, restore, renew. Jesus Christ is not creeepy.
jvsm1971 10 months ago
@jvsm1971 see there you go with the creepy jesus talk thats exactley what im on about bible nuts cant help themselves total creepy weirdos
mcdinkity 10 months ago
@mcdinkity The Gospel is creeping you out.because it's conviction in your heart that is freaking you out... somewhere deep deep down in that heart of yours.... there is a question you're being forced to ask, and that is, "could all this be true, and if it's true, what does that mean for me"... Truly, if the Gospel wasn't freaking you out, it wouldn't matter how many people rambled on about Jesus - you simply wouldn't give a hoot... but it's affecting you, and you need to get to the bottom- WHY?
jvsm1971 10 months ago
@jvsm1971 i dont question wether religion is true historians and scientists have debunked it its all just made up
mcdinkity 10 months ago
@mcdinkity That's not the truth. History has actually validated the historical events in the bible AND science has provoked more questions than ever before regarding the origin of life and the universe. Science hasn't answered ANY of the questions, such as HOW did the universe come to be? WHY did it happen? HOW does life begin? WHAT is the purpose of life? WHAT happens AFTER we die? Can you provide scientific answers to those questions? You will be the first if you can..Plenty of theories only.
jvsm1971 10 months ago
@jvsm1971 First of all, history has only validated the supposed "historical events in the bible" in the sense that some of the stories have a kernal of actual truth to them. Secondly, the search for greater knowledge will inevitably lead to more questions; the more we learn, the more we understand what we don't know yet. And just because science hasn't answered ALL of the questions doesn't mean that it hasn't answered ANY questions.
ArcanaKnight 10 months ago
@Arca That simply is not the truth regarding our ancient past and the bible.If you want to swallow that one, then feel free, but you are simply(willfully)deceiving yourself.Your life, your choice. Science cannot prove something that is "supernatural". HOW could it ever? God is outside of this dimension - the God that we are discussing is SPIRIT. HOW does science test this or prove this? &for people to believe throughout the world - why not?What can u say to me that "proves" God isnt there?
jvsm1971 10 months ago
@jvsm1971 "Science cannot prove something that is 'supernatural'" Of course that assumes that the answer to those questions is supernatural, though the only reason you've given for that assumption is that science hasn't answered them as of yet. Have you never heard of "god of the gaps"? Our not yet knowing the answer to a particular question doesn't mean that we will never know, nor is it a valid excuse to interject some (by your own admission) untestable claim to answer it.
ArcanaKnight 10 months ago
@ArcanaKnight The funny thing is, the God of the bible PROMISES to reveal Himself to anyone who seeks Him with ALL their HEART.The God of the bible is very clear about making Himself KNOWN to the individual. He claims He is a personal God who wants a relationship with His creation.And He proves His existence through His word and especially through bible prophecy which cant be dismissed.How can science prove the existence of God? It's by faith anyone believes- not science.
jvsm1971 10 months ago
@jvsm1971 Funny thing that, how god only "reveals himself" to those who already believe in him. Another funny thing? How the so-called miracles attributed to god dropped off precipitously in quality as we became better able to record, analyze, and share information with others; he used to burn down cities and turn people to salt, and now can only manage to occasionally show up on a piece of toast.
ArcanaKnight 10 months ago
The "bible prophesy" of yours absolutely can be dismissed. Every one of them was either so vague that they could be true of almost any time in history, or were written after the event they were supposed to be prophesying.
ArcanaKnight 10 months ago
Nothing times Nobody equals everything?!!!!....how can that be!
kdcox1205 10 months ago
(cont.) You need to recognize that an arrowhead looks as it does so that it can pierce flesh, is attached to some type of shaft, has weight, etc. Science ALWAYS needs an explanation; the NATURE of the explanation must be significant, though. Though Dr. Craig is intelligent, this argument didn't seem to be to me.
bottomlesschad 11 months ago
@bottomlesschad I think Craig's point is just that a given explanation can be the best, even if it creates more questions, like believing in God or in a hypothetical tribe of ancient people. We are justified in believing in something even if holding that belief creates new questions or needs explaining.
jmmanley 10 months ago
Severe problem with Dr. Craig's argument of explanations for me. Quite simply, when he gives an example of people recognizing arrowheads as designed, you in fact DO need an explanation. Problem is, you don't need the explanation that he gives as an example (ie: where arrowhead creators are from, what they looked like, etc.). The explanation isn't about the hair colour of the inventors. Rather, you need an explanation about why something shaped like an arrowhead likely has a designer (cont.).
bottomlesschad 11 months ago
@thetraceur123 I used the word cosmos to refer to the multiverse, not to our universe. Moreover, im parodying Craig. I cannot claim that the multiverse is eternal and always been there. But he does it with god and scape from the eternal regression problem by postulating that we dont need an explanation of the explanation.
vrrs0988 11 months ago
is this really the best of Christian apologetics...? hoooo-li-shit...
Bkkhngr81 11 months ago
@Bkkhngr81 Tell me then, if God didn't, then what did?
jvsm1971 10 months ago
@jvsm1971 I don't know; nobody does yet.
Bkkhngr81 10 months ago
@Bkkhngr81 what do you mean "nobody does yet"? Can you tell me what would make you "know" there is a God?
jvsm1971 10 months ago
The cosmos is eternal and always has been there. Thats the explanation. Dont ask why this is the explanation because we dont need an explanation of the explanation. Craig is high on religious impulses,lol.
vrrs0988 11 months ago
@vrrs0988 Nope, the Universe were created in the Big Bang, ca 15 billion years ago.
thetraceur123 11 months ago
I've found that William Lane Craig, doesn't seem to like the idea that the universe quite possibly came from nothing. The concept that nothing created something is in Quantum Physics to a very basic form, known as anti-matter, and that anti-matter itself pulses back and forth from one form to anther just as all matter pulse from one form to another, and yet with the "observer effect" concludes to one form. Too complex for us humans to grasp at this point, but in due time.
quixmith 11 months ago
The problem with Craigs first dismissal is that WE HAVE SEEN PEOPLE BEFORE, SO WE CAN INFER THEM AND DON'T HAVE TO ASK WHERE THEY CAME FROM. With a God, the 'who designed the designer' is a flaw as it creates an infinite regress unless we solve it by explaining the nature of the said God.
TheBiddleMan 11 months ago
@TheBiddleMan yes but he used a good example of an alien species. in that case we could know nothing of the alien species, and possibly never know. but if we found complex machinery, then the best explanation would be that it had been designed.
amapmwt 11 months ago
@amapmwt But we know enough about the universe to grant the existence of aliens. We don't know that much about a God or God/s.
TheBiddleMan 11 months ago
@TheBiddleMan whether we can grant the existence of aliens is irrelevant. if you found machinery on the moon, it wouldnt matter whether you knew aliens existed or not, the greatest probable explanation would be it had been manufactured by some intelligence. such a discovery could even infer the existence of aliens before we had any. this is why some infer there is a god because of the observed design in the universe.
amapmwt 11 months ago
If you watch this video long enough it creates the visual illusion that Craig is speaking from behind a wall of plexi-glass.
Am I the only one who sees this????
djs259 11 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Actually, the humorous thing here is science offers the explanation without infinite regress. As Hawking has shown in his work, quantum mechanics, super gravity, quantum gravity, and string theory point to a unified, self-contained explanation of a self-creating universe. You just have to have some education to understand the elegant solution that science offers instead of being an ignorant, superstitious savage.
scottzellar 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You worship an imaginary evil god and yet you tell non believers to go to a mental institution. If you want to see insanity look at yourself in the mirror. Again why do you worship an imaginary evil god.? Give me an intelligent explanation in order to prove that you are not a fruit cake. Some how I don't think you can otherwise you would have had no hesitation in providing an explanation.
DrMontague 1 year ago
@DrMontague you have all your facts wrong lol. you come to these conclusion on bias because you must, its the only thing supporting your atheism. you dont actually take the facts for what they are. stop being a troll and go get an education about the things of which you speak before you make any conclusions at all you uneducated iq-less youtube troll.
amapmwt 11 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@amapmwt The god you believe must have wanted the recent so so called natural disasters to happen. He could have prevented these disasters which have claimed the lives of thousands ,therefore he has to be evil. BTW you claim I have all my facts wrong!Which facts? You are claiming the Old Testament doesn't state that god demanded gay and lesbians be stoned to death? Check it out you will find that I am right. Perhaps you believe the recent natural disasters are not facts either?!
DrMontague 11 months ago
@DrMontague
god made nature, nature caused disasters, god wont work for us, he already gave us life and i suppose that all the pollution now is god`s fault and not humans screwing around, if you want to debate check my new account RedStreak40
mgmga1 9 months ago
@mgmga1 That is like claiming god lit the blue touch paper and retreated and let the universe and earth to his laws of physics. . Then his laws of physics are evil. The evidence is that that the earth is 4.5 billion years old ,even before man came on scene it was full of natural disasters. If god does not intervene then he is evil. We can see from the craters on the moon and other planets that the solar system had a violent beginning. Nothing to do with man but an insane god?!
DrMontague 9 months ago
@DrMontague
you dont seem to be comprehending what im telling you and your argument is silly, so god is evil for creating the universe, physics, oxygen, clouds, and us but didnt prevent NATURAL disasters???? God only made us and the world, he does not get in the way of disasters like tornadoes, also, if you had a brain, dying is not the end in this belief, also, by the time evolution even happend at all, by the time it took for us to come the sun would have died, simple science :P
mgmga1 9 months ago
@mgmga1 My argument is not silly in the least. The writer of the story of Job in the bible goes to great lengths to try and persuade us your imaginary god's non intervention is justified. He fails miserably. The Old Testament is full of god 's evil. He demanded that human's should stone to death homosexuals and burn alive women found not to be virgins on their wedding night. So much for his love. Further I think you need to research what we know of the universe and evolution.
DrMontague 9 months ago
@DrMontague
ok...you keep repeating the same reply to everyone your losing the debate to...what if you read the bible and actually know all the details about the homosexual story that you misunderstood so greatly
mgmga1 9 months ago
@mgmga1 I repeat myself because they are powerful arguments against your bull shit and delusion that your imaginary god is only full of love and compassion. He is also full of evil, vengeance, and hatred. This is the reason they miss big chunks out of the bible in the education system i.e. they cherry pick. There is nothing difficult to understand about god's demands he clearly states homosexuals must be killed.
DrMontague 9 months ago
@amapmwt I do have a good education mate, from a top university in the UK. I don't really like to bring education up but fucktards like you are fond of telling everyone who isn't deluded yourself that they are uneducated. Again your imaginary god is an evil piece of shit who you created in your own image.
DrMontague 9 months ago
@DrMontague its not a matter of being educated its a matter of hatred ,people who use bad language like yourself is clearly hateful of believers regardless of their stance good or bad.im guessing your an atheist and if so why are you wasting your time trying to convince people that there is no god ?perhaps your unsure of your own atheistic view.
prime440 9 months ago
@prime440 These are debating channels. What do you think this video is about?! It's a video which the guest speakers i.e. f atheists and theists putt forward their arguments. I too-as an atheist.- put forward my argument i.e. that the god of the Old Testament is evil. If you don't like debating and find it uncomfortable when your deluded beliefs are challenged then my advice is to stay away. I know several theists both friends and family I certainly don't hate them.
DrMontague 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@prime440 I call you a fucktard because you have the the audacity to call anyone who intellectually challenge your deluded beliefs as uneducated. Again the God of the Old Testament clearly showes his evil. If you believe that drowning babies and children is not evil act then you have what is known as affection-less psychopathy.
DrMontague 9 months ago
@amapmwt What facts have I got wrong? Name one fact I have got wrong?
DrMontague 9 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Isaiah 45: 7
“I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.”
See your imaginary god even admits he created evil. . Do fucking retard creationists ever read the bible?! BTW Giving negative votes will only make people curious. HA ha ha.
DrMontague 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
“…the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil…” Genesis 3: 22. As a human who knows good and evil, I judge the biblical god to be evil by definition.
Obviously creationists cannot distinguish between good and evil because their brains are damaged beyond repair. How do I know this? Well it is clear as the noon day sun that their imaginary god is evil yet they cannot see it never mind justify it.
DrMontague 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Notice how Dr. William Lane Craig never wxplains why his imaginary god is an evil satistic piece of shit.
DrMontague 1 year ago
to respond to this guy's argument:
"You don't have to explain the explanation" - Actually you do. Finding explanations of explanations is what science is about.
dgr812 1 year ago
Well, that was a terrible waste of time.
You cannot make a very effective material analogy when talking about existence. It is not a watch, tomahawks, or machinery on the moon.
Take out the analogies, and you are left with is him saying that Design needs no explanation because it is clearly the best choice, so it needs no defense.
Whereas scientific theories are constantly looking for their own explanations, seeking truth in proving themselves wrong.
Summary:
Belief/Faith < Seeking Truth
chachowantafanta