William Lane Craig briefly discusses his view on Annihilationism

[linuxisbetter0]

My favorite part was the ending:

"I'm an atheist but you're a genius..."

[THClypse]

Im very happy you got this footage from Dr. Lane Craig about Conditionalism. This helped alot

[CloverfieldMonster95]

@adamXcore hey. fellow harcore music listener sup bro? lol

I am a Christian too. I subbed.

[atbigdog24002]

yes! WLC is such a boss haha nice video

[hrobertb]

Hey thanks for this video, this is great.

[TheHonestTheist]

"I'm an atheist but you're a genius" nice line to end on ^^

[lorelainoah]

In the end God always wins. Jussssst saying.

[SHIBBYiPANDA]

@lorelainoah having to send 2/3rds of everyone you've ever made to Hell can hardly be called winning.. Especially when most of them would convert if you simply sent an angel to them or something..

[Capuano231]

The guy at the end "I'm and Atheist but your a genious!" Lol

[boricuajoker]

If the the debate was a deist vs. an atheist, I might be compelled to say Hitchens lost, but like Hitchens infers at times, even if u show God exist you still have all your work ahead of you since, you don't claim his existence alone, you claim to know what he thinks, and the specific God, from a specific religion.

Theists, even the most benign ones are idiots.

[lukeism2]

hell is one of the most disgusting man made things in the history of mankind

[berettaNZ]

For some reason the comment that I posted earlier today is now missing, so here goes again: Bill Craig here misquotes 2 Thessalonians when he says that they shall suffer "eternal exclusion" from God's presence. It doesn't say that. It says "everlasting destruction." This is one example where Bill ought to have simply said "you know what, I haven't really invested enough time to speak as an authority on that subject. I have an opinion, but I admit that I haven't studied it a lot."

[berettaNZ]

Actually he misquotes 1 Thessalonians. It's not "eternal exclusion." It's everlasting destruction (olethros).

[jenglis9]

The description says, "This was filmed after he destroyed Christopher Hitchens in a debate at Biola Univ "

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!

[adamXcore]

@jenglis9 Hitchens didn't put forth any argument at all in the debate, could not refute any of Criag's arguments and was overall just a charming, witty know-nothing.

[jenglis9]

@adamXcore , i think that is a major problem in craigs debate strategy, in that he comes and assumes the opponent MUST answer the questions he puts forth in the manner he puts forth. Its very conceited and even marcissistic. He always is coming back to something like "I have put forth these questions which have not been answered to my liking", whereas the opponent has no requirement to grant him such a silly wish. The opponent will say his own words, not be prodded by a lesser man.

[MrIdrovetheepb]

@adamXcore :)

[uuduu7]

I read the Bible to my friends to train myself as a stand-up comedian..

its ridiculously funny..

[uuduu7]

Fucken !

if a watch can only be made by humans, who made humans then ?

Fucken.. if humans can only be made by god, who made god then ?

Fucken.. if god is outside the plane of time no need for a begining, who made the whatever which is outside the plane of time then ?

FUCKEN to all those Christian glib-talk !

[uuduu7]

Fucken !

What do you mean a crazy lunatic god created this great world?

[uuduu7]

I always take pity on pathetic small men, but I hope my remarks can make pple like u grow and be more mature as a real man..

[uuduu7]

It feels warm and cosy and arrogant when u keep yourself inside the safety of a tiny room with a small window view, isn't it..

Hitchens went into a Christian Institute to debate a Christian apologetic protected by a Christian host in a debate sponsored by Christian org, openly in front of a Christian audience.. He is a bigger man than your snide little remarks..

you are spreading little thumbtacks with your little sneaky moves to slow down the strides of a big courageous man as Hitchens..

[uuduu7]

How many comments that u could not handle have u censored ?

You are a tiny chihuahua who barks against the big dogs behind the confines of your little metal gate..

[uuduu7]

Putting a censorship for yr comment section indicates insecurity with dissenting opinions, inability to accept a debate with great minds, lack of self confidence..

a reflection of immaturity and lack of generosity. You are a small person i presume..

[uuduu7]

adamXcore,

"destroyed Christopher Hitchens"

hmmm..

[Ear4Beauty]

The gentleman asked for a book on the topic. I would have recommended two:

"Eternal Suffering of the Wicked and Hades" by Robert Govette "The Last Assize" by G.H. Lang

[TheHonestTheist]

"I'm an atheist but you're a genius"

lol! :P

[lord69z]

Anyone talking "scriptural" bullshit is a loon in my opinion.

Fuking magic fantasy thinking.

Go back to the Dark Ages.

[drcraigvideos]

That's a nice shot of Dr. Craig's hand!

[adamXcore]

Did any of you guys who've commented actually get to see the debate? I saw the debate streamed live as it occured.

It was painful to watch Hitchens skirt nearly EVERY point Craig made.

[geoffreyefloyd]

i saw it many times until my pw stopped working. He totally owned Hitchens, and I don't think that dawkins will ever debate WLC after seeing that.

[akamola]

What rubbish !!!!!!! Hitchens mopped the floor with his bible hugging ass !!!!! Seriously, all craig did was make biblical references for most of the debate !!!! And theists are running out of good arguments anyways !!!! Mark my words, religion will die one day, the only reason it has survived so far is because it is, as Marx said quite polemically, "an opiate of the masses". He was right, religion is nothing but a drug, and too much drugs is bad for your health !!!!!!!

[adamXcore]

Ok, so you clearly didn't watch the debate then. WLC is DEFINITELY not a "bible hugging ass". Only someone who blindly reads Christopher Hitchens and other "new atheist" propaganda and mistakes their writings for actual philosophical argumentation would make such a juvenile misjudgment like that, Akamola.

Go look for the debate somewhere online, I'm sure it's streaming somewhere. Craig never refers to Bible verses to prove an external point. He's a professionally trained philosopher.

[agentssith]

Giving Craig maximum credit, he must be aware of all the refutations to his tired theistic arguments; he just 'doesn't believe them'. All Hitch had to do therefore was to mention argument from incredulity and Craig is destroyed.

There is no such thing as a rationalist fundamentalist and Craig's position is fundamentalist. And one with very little integrity. Where does jesus talk about the Cosmological argument? There is no end to apologists' constant covering of their god's ass.

[adamXcore]

The argument from incredulity is incredibly weak and really advances nothing.

Covering their god's ass? Jesus doesn't talk about the cosmological argument because the cosmological argument only supports theism, not specifically Yahweh. And Scripture is in line with Big Bang cosmology, however, which is why I feel Craig finds the argument so compelling.

[agentssith]

"The argument from incredulity is incredibly weak and really advances nothing."

There are two possibilities: either Craig is aware of the refutations of Cosmological. Ontological, Teleogical et al. arguments or he is not. If he is aware of them, he argues from incredulity, a very powerful argument. If he is unaware of them he is plain stupid.

The Lord of the Rings is in line with Big Bang Cosmology, which is why I find Craig's arguments so UN-compelling.

[adamXcore]

As for your first statement, I'd like to point out a third possibility which you don't seem to be aware of: He is aware of the alleged refutations, but finds them lacking any strong points. A weak "refutation" cannot undermine a strong argument.

And atheist mockery isn't as funny as atheists think it is.

[Birdieupon]

1. Kalam Cosmological Argument, requires no scripture;

2. Fine Tuning Argument, requires no scripture;

3. Moral Objectivity Argument, requires no scripture;

4. Historicity of Resurrection argument, requires scripture but subjects it to skeptical academic scrutiny;

5. Direct Experience Argument, requires no scripture.

Disagree with the content of these arguments all you want, but somehow I think you're more interested in making empty accusations and breaking your keyboard holding down SHIFT 1.

[akamola]

1) Kalam argument- RUBBISH. everything that began to exist has a cause ?? Vaccum exists, what's the cause of that ???

2) Fine tuning - UTTER RUBBISH !!!! Anybody who observes the universe and our planet knows that the universe is not fined tuned !!!!

3) Moral objectivity - Again, total bullshit !!!! Anthropologists and biologists all around the world have PROVEN that morality is a product of our evolution, and not DIVINE PROVIDENCE !!!!!

[adamXcore]

1) Vacuums were caused by the Big Bang

2) Even atheists concede to the fine tuning argument. Read atheist Paul Davies', "The Goldilocks Enigma"

3) Anthropologists and biologists have suggested, not proven, that morality arose evolutionarily to aid survival. A suggestion is not a proof.

[akamola]

1) Vaccums are caused by the big bang ?? IT"S OFFICIAL, I AM ARGUING WITH A MORON !!!!!!! Vaccums are caused because of an abscence of matter, not the big bang, which is THE SCATTERING OF MATTER THROUGHOUT THE COSMOS !!!! Please, do us all a favor and stop discussing science.

2) The Goldilocks enigma ?? Discounting the fact that no noble creator would keep the earth on a "knife's edge", 80 % of our planet is inhabitable, places that are habitable are filled with diseases, natural disasters ...

[adamXcore]

1) Before you insult me, think about what it is that I'm saying. Were there vacuums before the big bang?No. There was nothing before the Big Bang.

So by saying the Big Bang causes vaccuums, I'm not technically wrong, as they didn't exist prior to the Big Bang.

2) Typical atheist rhetoric, dismissing a book that you haven't even read.

[akamola]

... Human conflicts and suffering. Not to mention the human species is likely to go extinct within the next 2000 years. This is an intelligent design to you ???

3) Morality is a consequence of evolution, this is not a suggestion, morality is innate amongst us and constantly changes, THAT IS A FACT !!! And there is tonnes of evidence to back it up. E.G. Just 100 years ago, it would have been moral to own a slave, now it isn't !!!! Morality EVOLVES, it is not god given !!!

[adamXcore]

We were intelligently designed at the beginning. I'd go into details further, but someone like you would just discredit any biblical history since it ruffles your feathers.

We are slowly decaying. But we weren't always like this.

3) You've just shown clearly that you've no conception of what the moral argument is. Is it embarrassing arguing points you don't understand? I don't have the balls to do what comes so easily to you.

As for there being "TONNES" (tons) of evidence, cite it.

[akamola]

4) Reserruction of christ argument - This is unequivocally, unquestionably the biggest load if crap ever !!!! First of all, there is no historical evidence of christ and all the information about his existence comes from biblical scriptures !!! And the reserruction has been disproven so well it's not even funny !!! Anybody who believes the reserruction actually happened is a nescient tool !!!!!!!!

5) Direct experience - You can't be serious with that ??? 2 words - PSYCHOLOGICAL DISORDER !!!!!!

[adamXcore]

4) There are numerous non-Christian sources that testify to Jesus' existence, the earliest being from Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, in his Testimonium Flavanium. Read, "The Jesus Legend", by Paul Rhodes Eddy and Gregory A. Boyd for further details.

5) That's all you got? An ad hominem? You are to atheism, akamola, what Shirley Phelps-Roper is to theism. Are you proud of this?

[akamola]

Take tht and blow it out of your ass !!!!! You dumb religious looney !!!!!!!

[Birdieupon]

See, you're starting to engage with the arguments now, so my respect for you has gone up... just a little anyway. You'd probably be more likely to prove yourself as rational if you didn't shout and curse so much.

So, now that we've actually got you to start debating, how about we start with your claim:

"Anthropologists and biologists all around the world have PROVEN that morality is a product of our evolution, and not DIVINE PROVIDENCE !!!!!"

please link me to the proof :-)

Cheers!

[akamola]

Link you the proof ??? Read Steven pinker's Blank slate or How the mind works. Or read the evolution of morality by Richard joyce.

BTW, earning your respect ???? Bitch, I don't give a fuck about you or your sorry ass "respect" !!!!! You could burn in "HELL" for all I care ??? And i don't really respect people who spew non-sense about the rhetoric of others instead of sticking to the subject !!!! You don't deserve MY RESPECT !!!! This is my style of typing, you don't like it, FUCK OFF !!!!

[Birdieupon]

lol, good luck replicating your genes is all I'm going to say to that.

[Birdieupon]

p.s. also, just thought I'd mention I'm not actually a relgious person (you simply jumped to that assumption). I'm only challenging you because I want to find out how much substance there is to your arguments. So far, I'm very unimpressed, espeically with all these "!!!!!!!"s that we're getting from you. Try writing your points down in cold logical steps rather than heated, childish ranting. Over to you now, friend :-)

[Christianjr4]

LOL@ "I'm an Atheist, but you're a genius". Darn, I wish I was there. Thanks for uploading this.

[bcmalloy]

Lane is a sophisticated bullshit artist

1. no evidence for any god, let alone the christian one

2. no evidence that Christianity is "the true religion" see point 1

3. Evidence that all holy books are man made, are riddled with factual errors and no supernatural claims in any of them work when tested eg: two Christians praying can achieve anything is one small example Are all conveniently ignored.

The claim he beat hitchens is simply insane, think for 2 secs what that would mean.

[diuryl]

@bcmalloy

you mean no evidence that fits YOUR world has ever been presented by WLC or any other chirstian right?

[adamXcore]

@bcmalloy Did you watch the debate? He presented the Kalam cosmological argument, which demonstrates the necessity of a pre-natural cause of the universe. Then the moral argument, which demonstrates that if ethics truly are meaningful, then they necessarily require an objective foundation, i.e. God. Then the historical argument for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, which is a strong inductive argument. His evidence was more than satisfactory.

[sonic8005]

@adamXcore I would like to handle the moral argument very briefly. If there was a god as you believe, then might literally makes right and that's the entirety of what dictates right and wrong well over reason or logic or empathy. I.E. with a god any and all actions are given the idea that God wants it therefore it's right. In the Old Testament we have the murder of children who are prisoners of war and the keeping of young women for the soldiers, under God's orders, this is just one example.

[imita01]

@adamXcore... hahahahaha.... uh..

1. So what is the cause that created your creator? If indeed everything needs a cause? (I.E.. Your brain is "God" looped)

2. The general reason for we have morals is not due to a creator... it is from the experiences of ancestors that have been passed down way before any Abrahamic God showed up.

3. Historical argument.., so when was jesus crucified the day of passover as in johnny's gospel or the day after passover as in marky mark's gospel?

FAIL=christianity

[adamXcore]

@imita01

1) You've distorted the first premiss. It is "everything which begins to exist has a cause", not "everything has a cause".

2) If morals are, at bottom, built on nothing but the whims of humans, then there is nothing objectively right or wrong. Humans aren't anything special. We're evolved primates. There is no reason for our being (on atheism). What we do or don't do, praise or condemn, etc is equally as amoral as the goings-on of earthworms. On atheism, evil doesn't exist.

[adamXcore]

Respond to this video... 3. The exact date of the crucifixion seems to be Friday 3, AD 33, though some scholars have speculated whether or not that date is accurate. Mark's gospel was written first, so its likely that is John who's misreporting the date here.

[AgentSmithClan]

@bcmalloy

Man, I've talked to agnostics and honest seekers admit that Craig destroys most of the people he debates. If everything he claims is so silly, outdated, and without evidence, then how come he never gets beaten in these debates? If the Kalam Cosmological Argument has been refuted, how come "expert atheists" can't debunk it. Dawkins says it's just because he's a "good debater", and while he is good that can't account for noone being able to answer his arguments.

[RayTech70]

@bcmalloy Whatch the debate beween Craig and Hitchens... One can easily tell that Hitchins only arms himself with the minutiae of religions when he bashes them. For example, in other debates or interviews he has stated he could not understand where Christians get the notion that they are immune to going to Hell. The other party would mention John 3:16 and Hitchens would bite, scowling, and say: "That is a lie!"

Craig is the best because he's very well acquainted with physics and religion.

[taz0k2]

Shite!

Why does he quote Bible?

Isn't that a book made in the iron age by the Christian cult?

[adamXcore]

Not at all.

[taz0k2]

Then who wrote it, and when?

I am quite sure that it came from the iron age, and was written by the people who started the Christian cult that was prevalent from then on until the enlightenment movement, or something like that.

Maybe this is just a joke??

[adamXcore]

Educated eyewitnesses documented what is now called the New Testament.

And Christianity is not a cult. That's what I was referring to.

[adamXcore]

Akamola, did you remove your reply to this? I could have sworn you wrote something about the NT authors being uneducated.

[akamola]

So in conclusion, you have provided me with quotes form 1 semi-historian and one historian whose combined works would result in 30-40 books, and they have only mentioned Jesus thrice, 1 account is widely known to be a forgery, 1 account is semi-authentic and 1 account is only aimed at describing the beliefs of christians, as opposed to actually validating his existence. This is nothing but conjencture, and the fact this is the foundation of your argument shows how hebetudinous you are.

[adamXcore]

You disregard the evidence because you don't like it. I find this as intellectual suicide.

[akamola]

I think you should stick to arguing with someone who is within your intellectual range, like possibly 5-11 year old toddlers or maybe senile senior citizens. You are such a chump, I feel sorry for you !!!!! And I stick to my assertation that PERSONAL DIVINE EXPERIENCES = PSYCHOLOGICAL DISORDER !!!!!! You don't like that, you can KISS BY ASS !!!!!!

[adamXcore]

Akamola, are you 7?

[TheHonestTheist]

what is your verdict now? Is the punishment in hell eternal? And if so, how is that fair and good?

[adamXcore]

Hell is not eternal. The Greek word rendered "eternal" is the Greek word "aionios", which is where we get our word "aeon" (or "eon").

An eon is a long time, but is not forever.

Jude 1:7 uses "aionios" in context which clearly shows that it isn't meant as eternal. It speaks of Sodom and Gomorrah being destroyed with "aionios" fire.

Those cities aren't still aflame today. In fact, they've ceased to exist.

The context of the usage refers to their destruction having an eternal nature.

[TheHonestTheist]

Interesting, but what does Dr Craig think?

[adamXcore]

I didn't get too far as you can tell by the videos. Judging from his debates and what he's written, however, he strongly disagrees.

This is really the only thing I seem to disagree with him on. He holds to the old traditional Wesleyan view, while I'm actually reading the words in the original Greek and interpreting them in context.

We disagree, but we're brethren, and I sincerely hope he and I both study this more. =]

[TheHonestTheist]

So it's not certain, either one of you could be wrong.

[CondorDM]

Yes i actually know Craigs cases very well but they have been killed in past speeches Dawkins has given. I thought that was common knowledge sorry.

Now the recent cases Craig has made have been destroyed, whats to debate, maybe they could dueld but it be a shame to watch Craig shoot blanks while getting rounds crushed into him, it would bore me to be honest.

[Birdieupon]

How has Dawkins "killed" Craig's arguments? I have never seen Dawkins respond to arguments such as the Kalam, for example, whereas I have seen Craig totally shred the central argument from The God Delusion in both writings and videos.

Could you please share with us the sources where you have seen/read Dawkins refute Craig?

Also, if it is the case that Dawkins has done this, then it makes me all the more disappointed that he never accepted Craig's invitation to debate him several years ago.

[geoffreyefloyd]

wow I wish you had more of this! I wanted to hear what Dr.Craig said to that one guy who said, Dr.Craig I'm an atheist, but you're a genius haha...

[ryand4]

There needs to be a debate between hitchens and christianity regarding the affirmation of christianity as one true religion....does god exist is an argument that could be one by a theist....its whether or not christianity is true is the mroe important topic.... and i think hitchens would win that debate

[pomeroy82]

These people are fucking dangerous! This guy is the worst I've ever seen of the whole Christian Apologist gang... THEY WANT TO END THE WORLD! And they will unless the rest of us don't start marginalizing them into obscurity.

[philosophy7575]

pomeroy82

I feel bad for you. Honestly. That you would live under the delusion that William Lane Craig is dangerous is just really sad.

[pomeroy82]

So typical of you Christians... thinking people really give a fuck what you think... Your solipsism is outrageous!.. And you call me the delusional one.. ha thats a laugh! Keep your pity for yourself asshole... Craig is a piece of shit and you are a retarded piece of shit for buying into is circular reasoning and lies... The consequences of what he says give FALSE legitimacy to religious fundamentalists. GROW THE FUCK UP!

[adamXcore]

writing in caps lock doesn't make you right.

[adamXcore]

Your McCarthyism is entertaining, but grossly inaccurate.

[akamola]

This is great, a man who thinks Jesus actually existed thinks I'm grossly innaccurate !!!!!! Brilliant !!!!!!!

[adamXcore]

So is that all it takes to prove that someone doesn't exist, akamola? You just have to claim they never did, even though there exists evidence to the contrary.

Read a book, akamola. Read many books. The history and evidence is out there. I've referred you to some mild literature so far.

[akamola]

Read many books ??? I wouldn't give that advice to anybody if I were you, since I don't think it is likely that you follow what you preach !!!!! Instead of telling me to read a book, why don't you try to show me the evidence that disproves me ??? That should be more helpful.

[adamXcore]

I'm supposed to provide you with evidence via YouTube comments, which limit my words to 500 characters or less? Reading the book I mentioned earlier would obviously contain more detailed information, but i'll try to sketch out a few generally for you here.

Jesus is written about in non-Christian historian Flavius Josephus' records, titled "Antiquities of the Jews", in 18.63-64 before the end of the first century, making his account one of the most reliable secular references extant.

[adamXcore]

Josephus writes,

"At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of many deeds, a teacher of persons who receive truth with pleasure. He won over many of the Jews and the Greeks. And when Pilate condemned him to the cross, the leading men among us having accused him, those who loved him from the first did not cease to do so. And to the present the tribe of Christians, named after this person, has not disappeared."

-Flavius Josephus,

"Antiquities of the Jews"

[adamXcore]

Then there is also the Roman historian Tacitus (again, a non-Christian) who writes in his history, "Annals":

"Therefore to squelch the rumor [that the burning of Rome had taken place by order], Nero supplied (as culprits) and punished in the most extraordinary fashion those hated for their vice, whom the crowd called "Christians". 'Christus', the author of their name, had suffered the death penalty during the reign of Tiberius under Pontius Pilate..."

-Tacitus,

"Annals"

[akamola]

Now, coming to your evidence regarding the existence of "Christ", the evidence you have provided does not hold any water whatsoever. Josephus' testamonium flavianum has been debunked as a forgery by almost all historians, and in his 20 volume Antiquities of the jew, there is only one semi-authentic passage that refers to him to the brother of James the just. So 20 volumes of work and only 1 vague reference to jesus ??? This is supopsed to be your evidence ??? Man, you're a chump !!!

[akamola]

Also, the jesus mentioned in Josephus' work is Jesus Bar damneus, the son of the high priest at the time, NOT JESUS OF NAZERETH !!!!!!!!! As far as tacticus goes, his account his account was written only talks about the Roman persecution of CHRISTIANS, and once again, in the 16 books that he wrote, he only mentions Jesus in one passage, to provide some background into the beliefs of the christians who were persecuted by nero. He doesn't validate the existence of jesus in any way !!!!!

[adamXcore]

The evidence actually is valid, and should you care to research it further you'll discover why.

To claim that it is ahistorical simply on the basis of it's parsimony reveals your prejudicial bias against it, and nothing more.

"The Jesus Legend" by Paul Rhodes Eddy and Gregory A. Boyd goes into great detail regarding why Josephus' Testimonium is not a forgery.

What has been called into question were PARTS of the passage which seemed non-Josephus (the phrase "He was the Christ...") etc

[akamola]

BTW, the antiquities of the Jews is only semi-historical. The book talks about adam and eve, jewish slaves in egypt, abraham teaching science to egyptians and the miracles of moses. So claiming that this is evidence for anythinig is just as accurate as saying Elvis isn't dead !!!!

[adamXcore]

Again, your anti-biblical bias.

If you're going to discuss this intelligently, at least try.

[jp2007ms]

Weird that he talks about John 3:16 at exactly 3:16

[taz0k2]

Holy fuck, that's awesome!

[starshkr46]

@jp2007ms A true act of God!

[ClumsyRoot]

The fundamental grotesqueness of Christianity never fails to stun me.

[BobbyColePopMusic]

Craig has NEVER beaten Hitchens in a debate.

[taz0k2]

Precisely.

Hitchens owned some of Craig's points.

The problem with Craig and Christians is that Craig simply has to say "you did not counter my argument" no matter how much Hitchens owned him, and Christians fall for it.

Craig is never satisfied with ANY argument against his ideas.

[Birdieupon]

Which points, specifically, did he own?

[taz0k2]

lol

[adamXcore]

Well maybe Craig would be satisfied with the rebuttals if they were both logically consistent and the best explanation in light of all evidences.

Thus far, none have been.

[adamXcore]

@taz0k2 Nonsense. He is never satisfied because the replies are never coherent defeaters, not because he simply dismisses them because he does not like them. I challenge you to show me one example where he has dismissed someone's rebuttal when the rebuttal has been a coherent defeater.

[AgeOfReasonXXI]

@adamXcore you're an idiot. Craig always denies that his arguments are defeated in debates (for ex. with Stenger) and especially in print and insists that his "case" for god is unrefuted. one can understand his dishonesty: if he is to aknowledge his failure, he'd be admitting he's wasted most of his life on this religios nonsense. craig is nothing but a desparate insane spin doctor hypocrite. but god loves him you see,and will reward him for his service. and that's all he cares about. pathetic

[adamXcore]

@AgeOfReasonXXI This is a common misunderstanding. A lot of people don't realize that the alleged refutations of his arguments have actually been refuted themselves, later, by Craig. So when Craig comes out with his KCA argument (for example), then Quenten Smith comes out with his rebuttal, that's where most skeptics stop looking. They see Craig's argument, then a counter-argument by a skeptic, and then they stop paying attention. If you'll go to Craig's site, you can read all of his articles

[AgeOfReasonXXI]

@adamXcore alright, here's refutation of the KCA:

if "beginning to exist" in the 1st premise is defined broadly--meaning not necessarily creation ex nihilo, in which case for ex. humans begin to exist even though they are just pre-arrangement of preexisting matter-- then the premise is clearly false: during radioactive decay alpha and beta particles come into existence spontaneously (without a cause). When faced with this objection Craig claims that this is not creation ex nihilo (which is...

[AgeOfReasonXXI]

@adamXcore ....something the premise doesn’t specify) bc it doesn’t add to the total amount of matter/energy in the Universe. Fine. So we define “beginning to exist” in the strict sense--as creation ex nihilo—in which case the premise is totally baseless since we’ve never seen anything being created out of nothing so we’ve got no idea whether it needs a cause. And even worse, if we grant the 2nd premise that the Big Bang is such kind of creation, then the whole argument becomes circular....

[AgeOfReasonXXI]

@adamXcore .....since “everything” in the 1st premise would stand for “the Universe”. So depending on how you define the 1st premise- it’s either false or baseless (in which case the arg bites its tail)

the only way Craig could "carry out" his argument is by equivocating on the two definitions of “beginning to exist” and by appealing to intuition. Perhaps that’s why, as Graham Oppy writes in one of his refutation of Kalam, it is “totally unconvincing to any thoughtful atheist” :))

[adamXcore]

@AgeOfReasonXXI which are (often) refutations of rebuttals to the arguments he has advanced. So you're actually just mistaken when you think he's been refuted. His arguments haven't been refuted. Over the course of time they've changed, appropriately (as new evidence becomes available and thus leads to a need for academic revision), but that doesn't at all take away from the force of the argument itself.

[hawke123]

@AgeOfReasonXXI: Ad-hominems. Wonderful.

[CondorDM]

Well he may have beaten Hitchens in a debate but every single case Craig made, Richard Dawkins has ripped apart, watch Dawkins 2009 speech at Oklahoma University.

Craig is like a loaded gun aimed at Atheism I have heard, it must be loaded with blanks.

[philosophy7575]

CondorDM

"every single case Craig made, Richard Dawkins has ripped apart, watch Dawkins 2009 speech at Oklahoma University."

Craig has written dozens upon dozens of books and articles. Have you really studied all of these to know that Dawkins has ripped "every single case"? I find it very hard to believe that you have.

You overestimate Dawkins. Craig challenged him to a debate and Dawkins declined.

Peace-