Whoa, Craig was much more fundamental back then. Uses circular logic saying the bible says that every man can find god if he tries, therefor there is no excuse, and hell is justified. haha this is exactly why I run from this crazy religion. Believe the bible and its contents or burn forever!!
Man ALL these Christians and Christian apologists are delusional idiots. I would not read any book by a Christian because of how f%^&*()$ delusional they are. Go Richard Carrier.
'I think some new testament scholars hold to the view the disciples saw visions'
You mean the honest, objectable ones 'Bill'? The ones without a religious presupposition? Yet there view does not apply because it does not conform to your view? pfffftt.
The cure for Dr. Craig's theism is calvinism. Wesleyan's cannot defeat calvinists in a theological argument. They are rock and calvinism is paper. Once their theology has been refuted by a more theologically correct christian, they can no longer argue for the minimalistic shiny happy god of the gaps they like to argue for when debating against atheists, well, not without some serious doublethink. So their options are then either: become a paranoid recluse or a non-believer.
Any mind that can believe chemical reactions can create a cell with over 50 highly conserved molecular machines and 600 genes needed just for basic cell division, along with multiple coded language systems to control and direct the process
it's always funny how Craig tells renowned experts in their field that they don't know what their talking about. "Dr. Historian, you don't understand your history."
Even without the theory of evolution, we still get here through random chance, except for the babies conceived artificially in vitro. Just read the genetics chapter in any biology textbook.
Christians in the 21st Century really should give it up as hopeless. Christianity started out as a doomsday cult based on a ghost story about a guy who rose from the dead. Today's christians have pinned their hopes on THAT?
woah... the first thing WLC says is a complete lie. Most historians agree? There is almost no evidence for historical Jesus at all. I think most historians would agree that WLC is full of shit.
@KEGGAE45 I have researched historical Haysoos. Start digging you will find out for yourself, don't take my word for it. He is either lying or uninformed. I believe the former.
@lhurien how exactly did you offend me? i just pointed out the ignorance of your comment, if anything you offended yourself with your exhibition of ignorance
@jmanexpress like i said there is no historical evidence for the existence Haysoos erh Geezus. Even the reference by Josephus, a noted historian is believed to be a forgery. bogus. So WHERE exactly is my comment ignorant? It really makes me laugh when you call me ignorant when you are the one who is lacking knowledge. Xtians are so dumb it's astounding. You don't even understand your own religion. idiot.
@lhurien (PART I )I am more than happy to interact with you but let’s keep it civil and classy shall we? No name calling, that sort of thing doesn’t interest me. The Roman historians Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger all wrote about Christ as an historical person. The passage in antiquities by Josephus which is suspect (interpolation) is one passage, he refers to Jesus elsewhere in his work and you would know that if you studied it.
@lhurien (PART 2) The Talmud which is a commentary of Jewish law makes references to Jesus, calling him a false prophet. And of course the gospels themselves which are rooted in eye witness testimony. To say Jesus never existed would go against the flow of mainstream scholarship
@jmanexpress The gospels were written 30 to 70 years after geezus's death. None of the writers of the gospels knew geezus, you are quite mistaken about the eye witness thing. Don't take my word for it. Read what Bart Ehrman has to say about the gospels. Biblical evidence is non evidence. The bible is pure nonsense. You sound like you have not studied these matters in detail. Talmud 200CE and 500 CE comments after the fact.
Ok, well both seemed like they had an equal opportunity to give their case and it was very clear who came out on top. Craig just isn't any good when taken out of his comfort zone. He uses a script and thought out strategy in his debates and that is why he "wins" most of the time.
No respect from "the other one"? Are you talking about Lee Strobel who is a Christian apologist and wrote the forward to Dr. Criag's book On Guard? This was not a set up, Strobel believes this stuff just as strongly as Criag does.
Wow, I've never seen Craig do so bad in a debate. I think the other posters are right that he isn't very good when taken outside of his pre-planned speeches.
@MomoTheBellyDancer give it a rest.he never says 'cause it did' he gives conclusions that follow from his premises.never a simple cop out answer like that.
Sure he does. For one, he claims infitines are impossibles, but then posits this being that is infinite. Why? Well, because it does! Duh! And then he wonder why non-believers are not swayed by this "logic".
@MomoTheBellyDancer He's correct..There are no infinites(in the physical world)He explains the distinction that he makes between time infinity and God's being infinite.Some of you don't listen very well though.And,i'm sure he's not wondering non-believers aren't swayed by 'this logic'.
Oh, we do listen carefully, but we find Craig's wriggling and sophistry quite tedious. You can't make up a general rule, and then go "oh, but this thing (that I call 'god') doesn't have to abide by those rules, because .. .uh... it just doesn't!" Nobody should take crap like that seriously.
"i'm sure he's not wondering non-believers aren't swayed by 'this logic'."
@MomoTheBellyDancer But,God doesn't have to abide by the rules of the universe(that he created)what sense would it make to be limited by something you created and sit outside of and above? "because .. .uh... it just doesn't!" you actually inserted quotation marks as if this was something he said himself.You've erected a strawman..
"Apparently you don't have a firm grip on the definition of "special pleading""
You're simply making up all kinds of excuses as why your god wouldn't have to abide to the rule that "everything needs a cause". That's special pleading.
@MomoTheBellyDancer I don't have to "make up" anything.Everything i need for this discussion is readily available to me.You've clearly misunderstood premise #1 by the way..Premise #1 is not "everything needs a cause" but rather,it's everything that begins to exist,has a cause.God did not begin to exist,so it would hardly make sense to espouse that he was caused..Please have a look @ the definition of "special pleading"You're using the phrase where it need not be used(Out of context)
"God did not begin to exist,so it would hardly make sense to espouse that he was caused."
So where the heck does your god come from then? And if you tell me he has always somehow existed, why couldn't we say that the universe always existed in one form or the other? At least we have evidence the universe exists, which is more than we can say of your god. Occam's Razor, my friend.
@MomoTheBellyDancer To assert that God came from somewhere,is to suggest that he had a beginning..So,God came from nowhere.He's eternal.There are many reasons the universe could not have always existed.We have pretty strong evidence that the universe had a beginning.But,even without that,i could simply point out that the universe is temporal.and it's physical..And we know that all physical things (come) into and (out) of existance.I can list more examples,but no room here.
@MomoTheBellyDancer No..there are no assertiosn being made here.These conclusions are based on what we've been able to observe.(E.g:the universe appears to be conciously engineered,and not an accidental by-product )Lol.I can see you're not up on things..The universe has been shown to have a definite age..Yes,he's eternal..How do i know that?Because he's timeless,spaceless,and immaterial..A being with these attributes,aren't bound by a law of having a beginning.
@MomoTheBellyDancer lol @ no it doesn't..are you just typing,for the mere sake of disagreeing?anyone who passed 3rd grade science knows that the universe has the appearance of being consciously engineered,and appears to be designed.Even Richard Dawkins admits that it 'appears designed'(but insists that it's not)I know when the 'big bang' was.Are you saying that's not when the universe began?Also,instead of building strawmen,you should state my entire argument.not pick parts out of it.
"nyone who passed 3rd grade science knows that the universe has the appearance of being consciously engineered"
So what? The people in the know agree that the universe does NOT look designed.
"Even Richard Dawkins admits that it 'appears designed'"
Sure, since human beings are pattern-seeking animals. We tend to see design EVERYWHERE. It's with science that we can overcome this flaw in our perception.
Respond to this video... also,you should stop using terms you don't know the meanings of.(e.g:circular reasoning)there is no example of such in my reply.
Do you? I am now responding to your regurgitation of Craig's vapid arguments.
"should stop using terms you don't know the meanings of.(e.g:circular reasoning)there is no example of such in my reply."
Saying "it's eternal because it's timeless" is circular reasoning. In any case, it doesn't help if you support your unfounded assertions with even MORE unfounded assertions.
@MomoTheBellyDancer He's saying that infinity is something that does not exist in the physical world/universe.When he speaks of God being infinite,he's describing the timelessness and the eternality of God.Given this,calling God 'infinite'(A word that i'm not crazy about)is justified..So therefore,it can't rightfully be called "special pleading"
"When he speaks of God being infinite,he's describing the timelessness and the eternality of God"
He suddenly places this "god" in "another reality" (which we have no evidence for), even though it affects our physical universe, just to avoid letting it be subject to the general rule he first concocted. In other words: special pleading.
@MomoTheBellyDancer This is in the argument..There is no suddenly placing God in another reality.The rule that everything that comes into existance,has a cause or reason of it's existance,is not a rule concocted by WLC..You're still misapplying the phrase 'Special pleading'.
"The rule that everything that comes into existance,has a cause or reason of it's existance,is not a rule concocted by WLC"
It doesn't matter where he got it from, it's still not a rule. WLC doesn't seem to understand that you cannot apply common sense to issues like these and get away with it. Experience has shown time and time again that common sense doesn't get us very far in trying to understand how nature works.
@MomoTheBellyDancer Lol..Wow dude...You're seem so desperate,that you'd actually type in facts that cannot be gotten out of logic..Logically,everything that begins,has a cause..If you're right about everything that begins to exist,doesn't necessarily have a cause,then you believe in the supernatural(Because naturally,every finite thing has a cause)I don't have as much faith as you do..
You and WLC are trying to apply common sense to the beginning of the universe, something that happened in the realm of quantum physics where common sense simply does not apply.
"then you believe in the supernatural"
How? I am not not the one who claims some magical sky pixie poofed the universe into beginning, since that only confounds the problem because you will have to explain where THAT comes from.
".You're still misapplying the phrase 'Special pleading'."
Of course the special pleading is not in the made-up rule that everything needs a cause. That's an argument from personal incredulity ("I can't imagine how anything can begin without a cause, so it cant"). The special pleading is in first claiming that something is impossible IN GENERAL, only to invent a god to which it conveniently doesn't apply.
@MomoTheBellyDancer Lol..TALK ABOUT THE ERECTION OF STRAW MEN.. ("I can't imagine how anything can begin without a cause, so it cant")<<<who made this statement?And no,the illustration you gave of special pleading,is wrong from top to bottom..Do you want me to paste the definition and perhaps some examples for you?
It's Craig. It's the whole center piece of his first premise.
"the illustration you gave of special pleading,is wrong from top to bottom"
If Craig admits that his god doesn't need a beginning, then that could also apply to the universe. Craig doesn't want that, so he makes up excuses to exclude his god from that rule. So my assessment of special pleading is SPOT ON.
@MomoTheBellyDancer as for your last part "He claims non-believers are misled by Satan".If he's convinced that non-believers are mislead by satan,then,it stands to reason,that he doesn't need to "wonder why non-believers aren't swayed by his logic". He's already made up his mind.
@MomoTheBellyDancer Lol..Someone is upset now..Be of good cheer Mumu..This is a person you want to believe is a fool,yet you seem to be his biggest fan..They debate him,because they're scholars..And that's what scholars do(Debate their colleagues)
@MomoTheBellyDancer Lol @ not a scholar..I guess it is possible to obtain 4 or 5 college degrees(One being a Ph.D.)Even if you're not a scholar..You're so emotional,you're even willing to bear false witness.Not a admirable quality.
".I guess it is possible to obtain 4 or 5 college degrees(One being a Ph.D.)"
First, has has no science degree, so no expertise in the field, although he claims he can judge cosmological hypotheses on their merits. And if he's a good example of a Ph.D. in Philosophy, then that degree not worth the paper it's printed on.
@MomoTheBellyDancer I don't hold a degree in mathematics,but i'm pretty good with math..I don't own a restaurant or a movie recording studio,but this isn't to say that i'm not qualified to judge whether or not i'm eating a decent meal,or viewing a good movie..Now,whether or not WLC,is a good example of a Ph.D. in philosophy,is not the discussion,and is relative..Have you checked out any of his published works?Or do you only know him from videos of his debates?
Still I doubt you can hold a candle to someone with a Ph. D. in mathematics. You don't need a degree in philosophy though to recognize bullshit arguments when you hear them.
"Have you checked out any of his published works?"
I tried, but the amount of pure bull manure the man piles on is too much for me to handle. That stuff is purely for the sheeple who will simply swallow anything he says wholesale.
@MomoTheBellyDancer You're welcome to have as many doubts as you'd like,but reality isn't dependent upon whether or not you agree with something.But,i also doubt that i can hold a candle to most people who have Ph.Ds in mathematics.But,that's not what i was suggesting,and Wlc has never suggested anything like that either.This is of no issue really.You tried to look @ some of his published material?And the hard logic was too much for you?
"reality isn't dependent upon whether or not you agree with something."
Indeed. and reality does not have to abide to your made-up rule for everything to have a beginning, only to chuck that rule out of the window again when it's inconvenient in trying to explain where your god comes from.
"Goddidit" has never been and never will be any kind of explanation for anything. It's a cop-out, pure and simple.
@MomoTheBellyDancer You're at liberty to research anything he argues btw.Infact,he invites people to research it for themselves.You're seem to be suggesting that everything this man says,is non-sense and invalid,yet,he reigns victorious over most of his interlocuters..Surely someone would have come along and put him in his place if this was the case.
And then he simply ignores everybody who point out that his argument is full of holes.
"You're seem to be suggesting that everything this man says,is non-sense and invalid"
Wow, it took you a while to figure that out. Of course, since WLC admits that he will simply ignore every evidence that goes against his "faith in the holy spirit", it's only fair to label him a delusional fool.
only? given that he's spent his life arguing for God, I'd say he's also a dishonest hack. nonsense such as "faith trumps ALL evidence", "if reason goes against my faith, so much the worse for reason!", etc.,. reveals that his apologetics is nothing but an exercise in insincerity.
WLC = delusional, hypocritical, pathologically disingenuous, repulsive, lying sack of shit, specializing in genocide & infanticide apologetics
"WLC = delusional, hypocritical, pathologically disingenuous, repulsive, lying sack of shit, specializing in genocide & infanticide apologetics "
You forgot annoying. Plain, old, annoying, with that high-pitched voice of his, that gets ever whinier whenever he is driven into a corner during a debate.
heh initially I included 'annoying' right after 'repulsive', however, I figured it'll get too long
but, you're right:
WLC = delusional, hypocritical, pathologically disingenuous, repulsive, ANNOYING lying sack of shit, specializing in genocide & infanticide apologetics
here's Dawkins on Craig's tone of voice: "odiously unctuous, smug and self-satisfied", and on his person: "Craig really is a truly disgusting person in the literal sense: he disgusts."
@AgeOfReasonXXI Thats interesting since Christopher Hitchens said that WLC was a first class scholar and that it was an honor to debate a man of his caliber. Dawkins is a twat that would get crushed in a debate with craig.
@AgeOfReasonXXI LOL the same Sam Harris who said it was an honor to debate Craig? The same Sam Harris who said that Craig puts the "fear of God" into many prominent atheists? Sure buddy, whatever you say. I got news for you. Even the most prominent atheist philosopher recognize the power of Craigs arguments and they respect his intellect. You would do well to follow suit...
@airman122469 No. Is Christopher Hitchens insane? Is Dan Denette insane? Because both of those atheists have called Craig Brilliant. Maybe you're the insane one.
@chansetwo What I think about Craig is irrelevant to the conversation. You called me insane for calling Craig intelligent. I showed you that even the most notorious atheists have immense respect for him and his intellect. So either these prominent atheists are also "insane" or your comment is nonsense. I chose the latter.
@AegeanKing "You called me insane" I did not call you anything. I asked you a simple question. Although, after your response, it is clear you have some type of mental deficiency. "What I think about Craig is irrelevant to the conversation" What conversation? I think you should check yourself into the hospital for a mental examination.
@chansetwo Way to dodge the issue completely by launching ad hominem attacks. A sure sign that you've lost. Let me educate you on how reality works. When two people start communicating on a topic, its called a conversation. Understand?
@AegeanKing "Way to dodge the issue" What issue? I asked you a simple question and you respond with false accusations, avoiding the question entirely. "A sure sign that you've lost" Lost what? "When two people start communicating on a topic, its called a conversation. " We never started communicating on a topic you idiot. I asked you a question; you responded with false accusations. You're doing nothing to repudiate the claim that believers are less inteligent than nonbelievers.
@chansetwo I made a statement. You responded with a question. I responded that I was not insane and that prominent atheists consider Craig to be brilliant. That is called a conversation. Please purchase a merriam-websters dictionary.
@AegeanKing "I responded that I was not insane " Responded to whom and about what? My question said nothing about insanity; although you are working hard to convince me that you are insane. In addition you never answered the one question I did ask you; instead you claim it is not part of some "conversation" I have no part in I don't know who you think you are talking to or what you think you are talking about. Go check yourself into the local mental ward.
@AegeanKing No prominent atheist considers WLC to be brilliant. He´s considered to be a fraud, a joke and an advocate of genocide. He´s considered to be, in formal debates, a master debater by many, but the same people tend to consider formal debates a waste of time since the format is bullshit. As opposed to an open discussion, which WLC refuses to engage in since he always loses them.
@magnusjsolberg You have no idea what you are talking about. All of the prominent atheists, with the exceptions of Dawkins and Krauss, have a vast amount of respect for Craig. Hitchens had a high degree of respect for Craig and called him a rigorous scholar. Denette called Craigs work Brilliant. Craig has been in MANY open discussions and has always crushed the atheists because atheists can not defeat his arguments. You're just a butt-hurt atheist making excuses. Pathetic..
@AegeanKing Dennett (no ´e´ at the end) called WLC´s performance "a virtuoso performance" once, which was obviously referring to the fact that Craig is a performer, not a serious thinker. Sam Harris has said that WLC "Employs high school debating tricks to mislead the audience, falsely summarizes what his opponent has said and falsely claims that certain points have been conceded."
Shelly Kagan crushed Craig in a discussion on morality. Dawkins and Krauss both loathe Craig, like you pointed out.
@AegeanKing And lastly, after their debate, Hitchens said that while WLC was presenting his arguments, he thought to himself "is that all you´ve got??"
@AegeanKing Oh, one more. Victor Stenger, in his new book "The Fallacy of Fine Tuning" states that William Lane Craig simply does not understand physics to any substantial degree. He´s also stated that that Craig "downright lies" and that he refuses to change his arguments even after they´ve been proven false time and time again.
@magnusjsolberg Yes, Craig is such a bad thinker which is why none of his opponents can defeat his arguments and which is why they always lose debates to him. Craig is highly respected among atheist philosophers. that is simply a fact. Daniel Came, an Oxford philosopher and atheist, called Dawkins a coward for not debating Craig. Everybody knows that Craig is a formidable opponent with solid arguments except butt-hurt atheists like urself.
@AegeanKing he is a bad thinker and only the theists think he wins the debates. Kagan had turned him into a stuttering baboon. Solid arguments- you do realize that they have been refuted dozens of times, just b/c WLC refuses to admit it doesnt mean they havent
@atheistcommonsense His "debate" with Kagan was not a debate. It was a discussion. Moreover, Craig was under directions from the host not to turn it into a debate on stage. Secondly, Christopher Hitchens himself ADMITTED defeat to Craig after their debate. Hitchens also called him "a serious and rigorous scholar". So, it is obvious that you are just a butthurt atheist that can not get over the fact that Craig wins all his debates and his opponents respect him.
@AegeanKing "Hitchens also called him 'a serious and rigorous scholar'"
Interestingly the only place that phrase turns up anywhere on the web is here. Link/citation? WLC is a rigorous scholar, for individual facts, where he falls down is his logical connections between those facts. Also, when all else fails he engages in clumsy ad hominems (as here) and baseless assertions starting with, "On the atheist world-view..." for which the only correct close (that he doesn't use) is 'there is no god.'
@AegeanKing lol fuck off with the semantics a discussion is a debate. Either way kagan won. And where does the hitchens thing come from? Just throw that in there y dont you. Watch arif ahmed destroy craig, at one point the audience roared in cheer when ahmed told craig that his arguments may pass at talbot but not cambridge. Bart ehrman beat him on the resurrection as well. I suggest turning the blinders off.
@atheistcommonsense Its not semantic troglodyte, its the facts. A discussion is not a debate. You are so dumb you don't even know how to define a scholarly debate. I suggest turning your brain on and educating yourself on what constitutes a scholarly debate. There is a reason that the Veritas forum asked him SPECIFICALLY not to tun the discussion into a debate.
Says who? We don't know if there are. Craig is simply pulling this out of his ass if he says we have certain knowledge.
"He explains the distinction that he makes between time infinity and God's being infinite."
If infinites exist, there's no room for a god for creating the universe. If they don't, they also don't exist when it comes to his god. Claiming otherwise is still special pleading, no matter what Craig says.
@MomoTheBellyDancer There are no infinites in the physical world/universe.The universe has already been shown to have a beginning(A time when it began)He doesn't pull anything out of his backend.He always gives arguments/explanations of what he asserts.If the physical universe/world is infinite,this would show at best that the supernatural is real.So,we wouldn't be able to rule out that a sort of a God exists.
Craig's Fact 4: That numerous people saw appearances of a risen Jesus. No, Dr Craig, numerous people *purport* to have seen appearances and that their reports are veridical is very much under consideration. In fact, given many est. factors concerning human individual and social psychology, the lack of independent lines of evidence regarding the reports, and the complete lack of evidence attesting to the reliability of the reporters, we have reason to believe the reports are *not* veridical.
I love WLC's facts based account of the resurrection. Fact 1: Most agree that Jesus was executed. Question: "He was crucified, but how do we know he died?" Answer: "Most, though not all, who are crucified die." Retort: "But we know of people who have survived." Response: "Yes, but it is an exceedingly improbable event. So, we can be sure that Jesus died." Retort: "It is even *more* improbable that he resurrected; which is more likely, that he survived crucifixion or that he rose from the dead?"
I don't think Craig was owned at all. Both presented good cases and argued effectively. I think that Craig presented the truth honestly and sincerely.
@double91trouble William Lane Craig would not know the truth if it bit him on the knee. He's an apologist: that he literally has a career twisting facts to meet his pre-ordained conclusions.
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
RE "Son of man"- Clearly, Jesus here is referring to the exalted, eternal figure from the book of Daniel. Also, this was not an isolated incident where the false religious leader accused him of blasphemy...He was similarly charged for healing on the sabbath; he was charged for saying He forgives sins; he was charged for saying to the hypocritical leaders "before Abraham was, I AM".It's impossible to merely consider Jesus a "good man" or a moral teacher- His claims are too fantastic & unlike any
Why God doesnt just appear to everybody use to be a topic i was greatly hung on at a certain point myself. Then reading Genesis a little closer there IS understanding to why not. In the beginning everybody knew God existed yet they all went against him.Its logical that he set up a system that people that want a relationship will be those who believe...Distance makes the heart grow fonder
@plan4urlife That's why when I have kids I'm going to abandon them in a box on the side of the road so they will be MAXIMALLY loved. Pffft...little sinners.
@tkovrtwrld God hasn't abandoned us. He shows His love all the time. Food, water, oxygen, your health, etc., etc., all come from God. Because God doesn't blatantly show His face isn't proof that He doesn't exist.
@plan4urlife No not true. Read a little closer and you will see that God doesn't communicate to no one but his people, or some sort of human messenger who then intern tell others. For example: God told Noah that a flood was coming, and Noah in turn told everyone else; God told Moses to tell Pharaoh to let his people go, God doesn't directly communicate with humans at large. Today we see people telling us how they spoke to god and god told them this and that, does that mean we hate god now?
@plan4urlife Why did God create us so that "distance would make the heart grow fonder?" According to your theology, that's a psychological phenomenon that HE INVENTED. Then he worked around it???
Furthermore, it's a total lie to say that those who "want a relationship are those who believe." Many feel are forced into unbelief and are desperately unhappy to give up their belief. They are forced into unbelief when they are confronted with the evidence that the resurrection DID NOT HAPPEN.
@prescod : It seems little effort was given to see the point and the psychology behind it, like girls really go for the good guys. There is evidence on both sides of the table, you reject the evidence for and agree with evidence against. No denying jesus lived. We have secular documents confirming. Not enough evidence to make anybody give it up. From evidence he did rise and he's coming again. You might wanna look closer at truth. Sorry i didnt make an all caps last statement, i find it corny
@plan4urlife Name 1 secular document that was written within 15 years of Jesus' death. Name 1 secular document written by an eyewitness to ANY of Jesus wanderings and miracles. I'm curious.
@prescod: If I do would it really change anything? For your sake, truly i say to you I wish i would, but I doubt it....anyway my friend here you go, Ignatius of antioch i believe is one. I admitt Im at school studying so my research was half ass, im not to familiar with him but Im using him for your 15 yr time frame.
@plan4urlife You said you were going to provide a secular document. Ignatius of Antioch was a Christian. He was also BORN around the time that Jesus is supposed to have DIED. It is absolutely the case that if strong evidence of the resurrection existed, it would "matter". I'm an ex-Christian and I would be glad to go back if there was evidence that Christianity is not a myth. I have nothing but good memories of church. But I'm not willing to live a lie in order to "fit in" to a nice community.
@jmanexpress The gospels are documents with an agenda, obviously copied from each other, written long after Jesus died. They exist to make the Jesus story plausible and exciting. They have been very successful at that for 1800 years. But that doesn't make them historical documents. They contradict each other, so they are demonstrably not very good historical documents. Watch this video: ?v=MvleOBYTrDE
@prescod : what evidence was so strong against the resurrection that it stopped your faith. What overpowering evidence did you have? I must ask because there is "proof" on both sides of the table. Christianity goes very deep and far back??? There are many reasons to believe the bible, some people build social egos and dont want a fast one pulled and thats understandable..there are many examples.. If you truly want to believe you seem to be to skeptical off the bat to even consider belief
@plan4urlife You ask: "what evidence was so strong against the resurrection that it stopped your faith." The whole new testament was written long after Jesus died, and secular sources do NOT corroborate the Bible's stories that for example tons of dead people arose in Jerusalem or that the land "fell into darkness" or that there was a controversy in the Jewish temple (ejecting the money changers) etc. False Bible implies No Resurrection.
"Craig says that if it's been conclusively proven that the bones of Jesus have been found, this would falsily Christianity. yet elsewhere Craig states that finding the bones of Jesus is logically impossible"
Thats not a contradiction, troll. The host is asking a "what if" question. That does nothing to contradict the arguments he makes for the actual evidence we have. Stop lying about WLC being a fundamentalist. Go play with your flame war minions and leave us rational people alone
* PLEASE DONT READ THIS!In 1971 a guy named Kyle an his girlfriend Emily were in side a house that was said to claim peoples lives if they entered the house.The next morning a guy named Alex saw fingernail marks on the door.if you dont post
@infernvsnecrohag That is such a sad, desperate atheist myth. Craig has torn Kagan's ideas to shreds in print,Kagan was propounding Mill's discredited old social contract theory. Its because Bill Craig has so utterly thumped every atheist, physicist,philosopher and writer he has ever debated that you poor atheists are driven to endlessly bring up that informal chat with Kagan (where Bill was ordered not to do his usual knock-down debate,by the Veritas Forum) because its all you guys have!
@relarerfhjk False. Craigs arguments in print are often nonsense to anyone who is informed on the subject. There is a reason that nobody ever converts to Christianity because of the lucidity of the first cause argument, or because of Craigs argument for the ressurection.
Craig does well in LD debates because he is superb at rhetoric in that format... NOT because his arguments are good. It only sounds good to Christians that already presuppose everything he does.
@infernvsnecrohag Your already wrong with the first sentence.Read the statements of Dr Paul Davies and Sir Fred Hoyle about how fine-tuning convinced them God was real.
Craig doesnt use "rhetoric"(his 5 arguments are very clear and well-known) thats a sad old excuse by atheists who cant take the fact he exposes their arguments as apallingly weak each time he faces them.
His arguments are "good" which is why theyve been published in 100's of academic journals of philosophy. You douche.
@relarerfhjk K, fair enough, 2 out of how many? tell me, why are you a Christian? I'm sure its not for reasons of evidence.
Sure, Craig's been published in academic philosophy journals... and so have all kinds of people with different views from him. Tell me, if Craigs arguments are so good academically, why are the majority of all philosophers still atheists?
@infernvsnecrohag Wrong. I was initially a Christian just because of my parents, I then stopped believing for years,but, after examining the historical evidence for the validity of the gospel accounts when I was introduced to it at a Youth 2000 event, I rediscovered belief in God. I think its both more probable that Christianity is tru AND is the only way life makes sense. Since the 1960's there has been an extraordinary renaissance in Anglo-American Christian philosophy,your wrong.
@relarerfhjk As someone who has studied the new testament thoroughly, it takes a huge degree of confirmation bias to believe that they are actually valid historical accounts. There are some things I will admit, like Jesus was probably a jewish preacher, and he was probably crucified, but saying you can establish the existence of the supernatural, something that we have NO EVIDENCE OF TODAY, based on biased written accounts is insane.
@infernvsnecrohag Furthermore, as a determinist, Harris cant get round the problem of "ought-implies-can", he cant give any grounding for moral DUTIES,conseqentialism can justify eugenics, he confuses universal morality with objective morality, he can't get round the "A=B philosophical dilema which is that there are both possible and actual circumstances where evil people can flourish or evil can coexist with wellbeing which means morality and wellbeing cant be identical
@relarerfhjk Also, I said CHRISTIAN, not deist... theres a big difference between believing that the universe had a god start it, and that that god would have to come to earth to sacrifice himself, to himself to rid us of the unfulfillable law that he created in the first place.
You have to admit, you're supporting a man who basically argues that he has an invisible friend who grants him wishes if he talks to him telepathically through his son who is actually himself.
@infernvsnecrohag Craig's arguments in print are not "nonsense" theyve been praised by leading atheist philosophers like Quentin Smith. Its Kagan's social contract theory which is "nonsnense to anyone informed on the subject". You want me to explain why? It makes morality relative and can therefore justify anything, contracts forged by the majority favour the majority and it cant explain why anything is objectively "wrong" since if moral values are only arrived at by negotiation, theyre illusory
@relarerfhjk I don't even agree with Kagan, I'm just saying he trounced him in that discussion. My personal feeling is along the lines of Sam Harris... morality is DEFINED as something that produces the least amount of net suffering, and we can from that inquire into what is true or not.
Divine command theory is a million times more ludicrous than anything atheists come up with, tell me, why is consentual homosexuality immoral? and how can you possible know WHICH divine command is true?
I like watching him squirm.
MrKillianmcelroy 1 day ago
Hitchens admits defeat? where is that???
Klash92 5 days ago
@Klash92 Doesn't exist.
MrKillianmcelroy 1 day ago
Label this: Two idiots try to gang up on a genius and fail miserably.
Kailoa36 2 weeks ago
@AegeanKing i can define a scholary debate, but there is more than 1 type of debate genius
atheistcommonsense 3 weeks ago
Whoa, Craig was much more fundamental back then. Uses circular logic saying the bible says that every man can find god if he tries, therefor there is no excuse, and hell is justified. haha this is exactly why I run from this crazy religion. Believe the bible and its contents or burn forever!!
Johnf85 3 weeks ago
Man ALL these Christians and Christian apologists are delusional idiots. I would not read any book by a Christian because of how f%^&*()$ delusional they are. Go Richard Carrier.
AnsweringChristians1 1 month ago
A person with an open heart WOW......... now I believe
heathsawyer 1 month ago
I have just found a huge contradiction in WLC's beliefs.
He says in (4.18) that christianity could be falsified and so is dependant on evidence
But everywhere else he says that he knows christianity is true because of the witness of the holy spirit, so independant of any evidence
These are irreconcilable
ZEEECHET 2 months ago 9
'I think some new testament scholars hold to the view the disciples saw visions'
You mean the honest, objectable ones 'Bill'? The ones without a religious presupposition? Yet there view does not apply because it does not conform to your view? pfffftt.
shawndimery 2 months ago
The cure for Dr. Craig's theism is calvinism. Wesleyan's cannot defeat calvinists in a theological argument. They are rock and calvinism is paper. Once their theology has been refuted by a more theologically correct christian, they can no longer argue for the minimalistic shiny happy god of the gaps they like to argue for when debating against atheists, well, not without some serious doublethink. So their options are then either: become a paranoid recluse or a non-believer.
pastafarianprophet 2 months ago in playlist Richard Carrier vs. William Lane Craig
This has been flagged as spam show
Any mind that can believe chemical reactions can create a cell with over 50 highly conserved molecular machines and 600 genes needed just for basic cell division, along with multiple coded language systems to control and direct the process
Is having some cognitive difficulties
toobsucker 3 months ago in playlist Richard Carrier vs. William Lane Craig
Comment removed
toobsucker 3 months ago in playlist Richard Carrier vs. William Lane Craig
This show is rigged, he just spoon fed WLC his common argument.
myksgrl 3 months ago
alvin plantinga, one of america's greatest philosophers....... lol! god helps us ;-)
BozoTheBear 3 months ago
wow, craig saying carrier has a "closed mind, closed heart, and non-functioning cognitive faculties." wtf?
ILuvTilt 3 months ago
Don't you love the special pleading? I swear theists are embarrassing to the human race.
nhbiker1961 3 months ago
So because bronze age goat herders wrote it, then it true? What a deluded moron!
nhbiker1961 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
My 1 page masterpiece DESTROYS atheism. Click on my channel to see...
youneekk 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The host was so annoying!..Dont hold a debate if ur just going to cut them off..Grrrrrr
mellymel51029 3 months ago
it's always funny how Craig tells renowned experts in their field that they don't know what their talking about. "Dr. Historian, you don't understand your history."
Hektor88 3 months ago
Richard Carrier did great in this short exchange!!
KT45 3 months ago
Craig owns all athiests
TheJosh1111111111111 4 months ago
@TheJosh1111111111111 LMAO! Keep on believing that and atheists get another strike. No one owns any one smart pants.
mon2nika 2 months ago
@mon2nika lol, hi.
TheJosh1111111111111 2 months ago
...vertical hold! Hahaaaa!
Mentalese 4 months ago
Dr. Craig always humiliates his opponent that's why Dawkins is avoiding him.
ikawpipa 4 months ago
who is bill?
scar504 5 months ago
Even without the theory of evolution, we still get here through random chance, except for the babies conceived artificially in vitro. Just read the genetics chapter in any biology textbook.
MrAdvancedAtheist 5 months ago
Ive seen dr. Craig live! He is amazing!
abadonslayed 5 months ago
Is dr. Craig wearing lipstick?
abadonslayed 5 months ago
Christians in the 21st Century really should give it up as hopeless. Christianity started out as a doomsday cult based on a ghost story about a guy who rose from the dead. Today's christians have pinned their hopes on THAT?
MrAdvancedAtheist 5 months ago in playlist William Lane Craig
Excellent discussion mr moderator? How could it be, there was only 1 rational person speaking...RC.
lhurien 6 months ago
woah... the first thing WLC says is a complete lie. Most historians agree? There is almost no evidence for historical Jesus at all. I think most historians would agree that WLC is full of shit.
lhurien 6 months ago
@lhurien Wait How do you know most Historians dont agree?
KEGGAE45 6 months ago
@KEGGAE45 I have researched historical Haysoos. Start digging you will find out for yourself, don't take my word for it. He is either lying or uninformed. I believe the former.
lhurien 6 months ago
@lhurien Any Specific Sites?Not on the fact of Jesus not existing but Historians not agreeing with Craig.
KEGGAE45 6 months ago
@lhurien the ignorance of your comment is astounding
jmanexpress 6 months ago
@jmanexpress LMAO so happy to offend you xtian but sometimes the truth hurts.
lhurien 6 months ago
@lhurien how exactly did you offend me? i just pointed out the ignorance of your comment, if anything you offended yourself with your exhibition of ignorance
jmanexpress 6 months ago
@jmanexpress like i said there is no historical evidence for the existence Haysoos erh Geezus. Even the reference by Josephus, a noted historian is believed to be a forgery. bogus. So WHERE exactly is my comment ignorant? It really makes me laugh when you call me ignorant when you are the one who is lacking knowledge. Xtians are so dumb it's astounding. You don't even understand your own religion. idiot.
lhurien 6 months ago
@lhurien (PART I )I am more than happy to interact with you but let’s keep it civil and classy shall we? No name calling, that sort of thing doesn’t interest me. The Roman historians Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger all wrote about Christ as an historical person. The passage in antiquities by Josephus which is suspect (interpolation) is one passage, he refers to Jesus elsewhere in his work and you would know that if you studied it.
jmanexpress 6 months ago
@jmanexpress you started the name calling but we will abandon that for now. with regards to the romans that's all been refuted.
lhurien 6 months ago
@lhurien (PART 2) The Talmud which is a commentary of Jewish law makes references to Jesus, calling him a false prophet. And of course the gospels themselves which are rooted in eye witness testimony. To say Jesus never existed would go against the flow of mainstream scholarship
jmanexpress 6 months ago
@jmanexpress The gospels were written 30 to 70 years after geezus's death. None of the writers of the gospels knew geezus, you are quite mistaken about the eye witness thing. Don't take my word for it. Read what Bart Ehrman has to say about the gospels. Biblical evidence is non evidence. The bible is pure nonsense. You sound like you have not studied these matters in detail. Talmud 200CE and 500 CE comments after the fact.
lhurien 6 months ago
Ok, well both seemed like they had an equal opportunity to give their case and it was very clear who came out on top. Craig just isn't any good when taken out of his comfort zone. He uses a script and thought out strategy in his debates and that is why he "wins" most of the time.
sabeach21 6 months ago
@fuhzer
No respect from "the other one"? Are you talking about Lee Strobel who is a Christian apologist and wrote the forward to Dr. Criag's book On Guard? This was not a set up, Strobel believes this stuff just as strongly as Criag does.
sabeach21 6 months ago
Wow, I've never seen Craig do so bad in a debate. I think the other posters are right that he isn't very good when taken outside of his pre-planned speeches.
sabeach21 6 months ago
"Most historians agree..."
Three words in and Craig has already gotten my goat. Give it back!
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
"It happened cuz it did." - William Lane Craig.
jazz4 6 months ago
@jazz4 where did Dr.craig say that?Can you point me to the video?
THEINFAMOUSFLY 6 months ago
@THEINFAMOUSFLY
"where did Dr.craig say that?"
It's all Craig ever says, but he uses a LOT more words.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer give it a rest.he never says 'cause it did' he gives conclusions that follow from his premises.never a simple cop out answer like that.
THEINFAMOUSFLY 6 months ago
@THEINFAMOUSFLY
"he never says 'cause it did'"
Sure he does. For one, he claims infitines are impossibles, but then posits this being that is infinite. Why? Well, because it does! Duh! And then he wonder why non-believers are not swayed by this "logic".
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer He's correct..There are no infinites(in the physical world)He explains the distinction that he makes between time infinity and God's being infinite.Some of you don't listen very well though.And,i'm sure he's not wondering non-believers aren't swayed by 'this logic'.
THEINFAMOUSFLY 5 months ago
Comment removed
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@THEINFAMOUSFLY
"Some of you don't listen very well though"
Oh, we do listen carefully, but we find Craig's wriggling and sophistry quite tedious. You can't make up a general rule, and then go "oh, but this thing (that I call 'god') doesn't have to abide by those rules, because .. .uh... it just doesn't!" Nobody should take crap like that seriously.
"i'm sure he's not wondering non-believers aren't swayed by 'this logic'."
He claims non-believers are misled by Satan.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer But,God doesn't have to abide by the rules of the universe(that he created)what sense would it make to be limited by something you created and sit outside of and above? "because .. .uh... it just doesn't!" you actually inserted quotation marks as if this was something he said himself.You've erected a strawman..
THEINFAMOUSFLY 5 months ago
@THEINFAMOUSFLY
"what sense would it make to be limited by something you created and sit outside of and above?"
Thanks for this wonderful display of special pleading.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Apparently you don't have a firm grip on the definition of "special pleading"
THEINFAMOUSFLY 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@THEINFAMOUSFLY
"Apparently you don't have a firm grip on the definition of "special pleading""
You're simply making up all kinds of excuses as why your god wouldn't have to abide to the rule that "everything needs a cause". That's special pleading.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer I don't have to "make up" anything.Everything i need for this discussion is readily available to me.You've clearly misunderstood premise #1 by the way..Premise #1 is not "everything needs a cause" but rather,it's everything that begins to exist,has a cause.God did not begin to exist,so it would hardly make sense to espouse that he was caused..Please have a look @ the definition of "special pleading"You're using the phrase where it need not be used(Out of context)
THEINFAMOUSFLY 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@THEINFAMOUSFLY
"God did not begin to exist,so it would hardly make sense to espouse that he was caused."
So where the heck does your god come from then? And if you tell me he has always somehow existed, why couldn't we say that the universe always existed in one form or the other? At least we have evidence the universe exists, which is more than we can say of your god. Occam's Razor, my friend.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer To assert that God came from somewhere,is to suggest that he had a beginning..So,God came from nowhere.He's eternal.There are many reasons the universe could not have always existed.We have pretty strong evidence that the universe had a beginning.But,even without that,i could simply point out that the universe is temporal.and it's physical..And we know that all physical things (come) into and (out) of existance.I can list more examples,but no room here.
THEINFAMOUSFLY 5 months ago
@THEINFAMOUSFLY
"To assert that God came from somewhere,is to suggest that he had a beginning"
Actually, what whole god thing is nothing but a mere assertion.
"He's eternal."
How do you know? How can you say ANYTHING about the properties of something that has never been observed, directly or indirectly?
"We have pretty strong evidence that the universe had a beginning."
Even it that were so (which it isn't), that would still not lead us to any gods.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer No..there are no assertiosn being made here.These conclusions are based on what we've been able to observe.(E.g:the universe appears to be conciously engineered,and not an accidental by-product )Lol.I can see you're not up on things..The universe has been shown to have a definite age..Yes,he's eternal..How do i know that?Because he's timeless,spaceless,and immaterial..A being with these attributes,aren't bound by a law of having a beginning.
THEINFAMOUSFLY 5 months ago
Comment removed
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@THEINFAMOUSFLY
":the universe appears to be conciously engineered"
No, it doesn't. You're just making that one up.
"The universe has been shown to have a definite age"
The Big Bang was 13.7 Billion years ago. That's all we know right now.
"Yes,he's eternal..How do i know that?Because he's timeless,spaceless,and immaterial."
That's circular reasoning.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer lol @ no it doesn't..are you just typing,for the mere sake of disagreeing?anyone who passed 3rd grade science knows that the universe has the appearance of being consciously engineered,and appears to be designed.Even Richard Dawkins admits that it 'appears designed'(but insists that it's not)I know when the 'big bang' was.Are you saying that's not when the universe began?Also,instead of building strawmen,you should state my entire argument.not pick parts out of it.
THEINFAMOUSFLY 5 months ago
@THEINFAMOUSFLY
"nyone who passed 3rd grade science knows that the universe has the appearance of being consciously engineered"
So what? The people in the know agree that the universe does NOT look designed.
"Even Richard Dawkins admits that it 'appears designed'"
Sure, since human beings are pattern-seeking animals. We tend to see design EVERYWHERE. It's with science that we can overcome this flaw in our perception.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
Respond to this video... also,you should stop using terms you don't know the meanings of.(e.g:circular reasoning)there is no example of such in my reply.
THEINFAMOUSFLY 5 months ago
@THEINFAMOUSFLY
"Respond to this video... "
Do you? I am now responding to your regurgitation of Craig's vapid arguments.
"should stop using terms you don't know the meanings of.(e.g:circular reasoning)there is no example of such in my reply."
Saying "it's eternal because it's timeless" is circular reasoning. In any case, it doesn't help if you support your unfounded assertions with even MORE unfounded assertions.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MomoTheBellyDancer also,you should stop using terms you don't know the meanings of.(e.g:circular reasoning)there is no example of such in my reply.
THEINFAMOUSFLY 5 months ago
@THEINFAMOUSFLY
"Please have a look @ the definition of "special pleading""
Craig first claims that infinities are impossible, then he says his god is infinite. That's special pleading, full stop.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer He's saying that infinity is something that does not exist in the physical world/universe.When he speaks of God being infinite,he's describing the timelessness and the eternality of God.Given this,calling God 'infinite'(A word that i'm not crazy about)is justified..So therefore,it can't rightfully be called "special pleading"
THEINFAMOUSFLY 5 months ago
Comment removed
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@THEINFAMOUSFLY
"When he speaks of God being infinite,he's describing the timelessness and the eternality of God"
He suddenly places this "god" in "another reality" (which we have no evidence for), even though it affects our physical universe, just to avoid letting it be subject to the general rule he first concocted. In other words: special pleading.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer This is in the argument..There is no suddenly placing God in another reality.The rule that everything that comes into existance,has a cause or reason of it's existance,is not a rule concocted by WLC..You're still misapplying the phrase 'Special pleading'.
THEINFAMOUSFLY 5 months ago
@THEINFAMOUSFLY
"The rule that everything that comes into existance,has a cause or reason of it's existance,is not a rule concocted by WLC"
It doesn't matter where he got it from, it's still not a rule. WLC doesn't seem to understand that you cannot apply common sense to issues like these and get away with it. Experience has shown time and time again that common sense doesn't get us very far in trying to understand how nature works.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Lol..Wow dude...You're seem so desperate,that you'd actually type in facts that cannot be gotten out of logic..Logically,everything that begins,has a cause..If you're right about everything that begins to exist,doesn't necessarily have a cause,then you believe in the supernatural(Because naturally,every finite thing has a cause)I don't have as much faith as you do..
THEINFAMOUSFLY 5 months ago
@THEINFAMOUSFLY
"Logically,everything that begins,has a cause"
You and WLC are trying to apply common sense to the beginning of the universe, something that happened in the realm of quantum physics where common sense simply does not apply.
"then you believe in the supernatural"
How? I am not not the one who claims some magical sky pixie poofed the universe into beginning, since that only confounds the problem because you will have to explain where THAT comes from.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
Comment removed
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@THEINFAMOUSFLY
".You're still misapplying the phrase 'Special pleading'."
Of course the special pleading is not in the made-up rule that everything needs a cause. That's an argument from personal incredulity ("I can't imagine how anything can begin without a cause, so it cant"). The special pleading is in first claiming that something is impossible IN GENERAL, only to invent a god to which it conveniently doesn't apply.
Please pay attention, will ya.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Lol..TALK ABOUT THE ERECTION OF STRAW MEN.. ("I can't imagine how anything can begin without a cause, so it cant")<<<who made this statement?And no,the illustration you gave of special pleading,is wrong from top to bottom..Do you want me to paste the definition and perhaps some examples for you?
THEINFAMOUSFLY 5 months ago
@THEINFAMOUSFLY
"who made this statement?"
It's Craig. It's the whole center piece of his first premise.
"the illustration you gave of special pleading,is wrong from top to bottom"
If Craig admits that his god doesn't need a beginning, then that could also apply to the universe. Craig doesn't want that, so he makes up excuses to exclude his god from that rule. So my assessment of special pleading is SPOT ON.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer as for your last part "He claims non-believers are misled by Satan".If he's convinced that non-believers are mislead by satan,then,it stands to reason,that he doesn't need to "wonder why non-believers aren't swayed by his logic". He's already made up his mind.
THEINFAMOUSFLY 5 months ago
@THEINFAMOUSFLY
"He's already made up his mind."
Indeed. So why debate this fool?
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Lol..Someone is upset now..Be of good cheer Mumu..This is a person you want to believe is a fool,yet you seem to be his biggest fan..They debate him,because they're scholars..And that's what scholars do(Debate their colleagues)
THEINFAMOUSFLY 5 months ago
@THEINFAMOUSFLY
"And that's what scholars do(Debate their colleagues)"
Craig is not a scholar, though. He is a gibberish-spouting buffoon.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Lol @ not a scholar..I guess it is possible to obtain 4 or 5 college degrees(One being a Ph.D.)Even if you're not a scholar..You're so emotional,you're even willing to bear false witness.Not a admirable quality.
THEINFAMOUSFLY 5 months ago
@THEINFAMOUSFLY
".I guess it is possible to obtain 4 or 5 college degrees(One being a Ph.D.)"
First, has has no science degree, so no expertise in the field, although he claims he can judge cosmological hypotheses on their merits. And if he's a good example of a Ph.D. in Philosophy, then that degree not worth the paper it's printed on.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer I don't hold a degree in mathematics,but i'm pretty good with math..I don't own a restaurant or a movie recording studio,but this isn't to say that i'm not qualified to judge whether or not i'm eating a decent meal,or viewing a good movie..Now,whether or not WLC,is a good example of a Ph.D. in philosophy,is not the discussion,and is relative..Have you checked out any of his published works?Or do you only know him from videos of his debates?
THEINFAMOUSFLY 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@THEINFAMOUSFLY
"i'm pretty good with math"
Still I doubt you can hold a candle to someone with a Ph. D. in mathematics. You don't need a degree in philosophy though to recognize bullshit arguments when you hear them.
"Have you checked out any of his published works?"
I tried, but the amount of pure bull manure the man piles on is too much for me to handle. That stuff is purely for the sheeple who will simply swallow anything he says wholesale.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer You're welcome to have as many doubts as you'd like,but reality isn't dependent upon whether or not you agree with something.But,i also doubt that i can hold a candle to most people who have Ph.Ds in mathematics.But,that's not what i was suggesting,and Wlc has never suggested anything like that either.This is of no issue really.You tried to look @ some of his published material?And the hard logic was too much for you?
THEINFAMOUSFLY 5 months ago
@THEINFAMOUSFLY
"reality isn't dependent upon whether or not you agree with something."
Indeed. and reality does not have to abide to your made-up rule for everything to have a beginning, only to chuck that rule out of the window again when it's inconvenient in trying to explain where your god comes from.
"Goddidit" has never been and never will be any kind of explanation for anything. It's a cop-out, pure and simple.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer You're at liberty to research anything he argues btw.Infact,he invites people to research it for themselves.You're seem to be suggesting that everything this man says,is non-sense and invalid,yet,he reigns victorious over most of his interlocuters..Surely someone would have come along and put him in his place if this was the case.
THEINFAMOUSFLY 5 months ago
@THEINFAMOUSFLY
"he invites people to research it for themselves"
And then he simply ignores everybody who point out that his argument is full of holes.
"You're seem to be suggesting that everything this man says,is non-sense and invalid"
Wow, it took you a while to figure that out. Of course, since WLC admits that he will simply ignore every evidence that goes against his "faith in the holy spirit", it's only fair to label him a delusional fool.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer " it's only fair to label him a delusional fool."
only? given that he's spent his life arguing for God, I'd say he's also a dishonest hack. nonsense such as "faith trumps ALL evidence", "if reason goes against my faith, so much the worse for reason!", etc.,. reveals that his apologetics is nothing but an exercise in insincerity.
WLC = delusional, hypocritical, pathologically disingenuous, repulsive, lying sack of shit, specializing in genocide & infanticide apologetics
AgeOfReasonXXI 5 months ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI
"WLC = delusional, hypocritical, pathologically disingenuous, repulsive, lying sack of shit, specializing in genocide & infanticide apologetics "
You forgot annoying. Plain, old, annoying, with that high-pitched voice of his, that gets ever whinier whenever he is driven into a corner during a debate.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
Comment removed
AgeOfReasonXXI 4 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer "You forgot annoying"
heh initially I included 'annoying' right after 'repulsive', however, I figured it'll get too long
but, you're right:
WLC = delusional, hypocritical, pathologically disingenuous, repulsive, ANNOYING lying sack of shit, specializing in genocide & infanticide apologetics
here's Dawkins on Craig's tone of voice: "odiously unctuous, smug and self-satisfied", and on his person: "Craig really is a truly disgusting person in the literal sense: he disgusts."
AgeOfReasonXXI 4 months ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI Thats interesting since Christopher Hitchens said that WLC was a first class scholar and that it was an honor to debate a man of his caliber. Dawkins is a twat that would get crushed in a debate with craig.
AegeanKing 4 months ago
@AegeanKing Hitchens was wrong. pure and simple.
R. Dawkins, S.Harris, L.Krauss are right about Craig
AgeOfReasonXXI 4 months ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI LOL the same Sam Harris who said it was an honor to debate Craig? The same Sam Harris who said that Craig puts the "fear of God" into many prominent atheists? Sure buddy, whatever you say. I got news for you. Even the most prominent atheist philosopher recognize the power of Craigs arguments and they respect his intellect. You would do well to follow suit...
AegeanKing 4 months ago
@AegeanKing Craig? Intelligent? Are you fucking insane?
airman122469 4 months ago
@airman122469 No. Is Christopher Hitchens insane? Is Dan Denette insane? Because both of those atheists have called Craig Brilliant. Maybe you're the insane one.
AegeanKing 4 months ago
@AegeanKing What has Craig done that you think is "brilliant?"
chansetwo 4 months ago
@chansetwo What I think about Craig is irrelevant to the conversation. You called me insane for calling Craig intelligent. I showed you that even the most notorious atheists have immense respect for him and his intellect. So either these prominent atheists are also "insane" or your comment is nonsense. I chose the latter.
AegeanKing 4 months ago
@AegeanKing "You called me insane" I did not call you anything. I asked you a simple question. Although, after your response, it is clear you have some type of mental deficiency. "What I think about Craig is irrelevant to the conversation" What conversation? I think you should check yourself into the hospital for a mental examination.
chansetwo 4 months ago
@chansetwo Way to dodge the issue completely by launching ad hominem attacks. A sure sign that you've lost. Let me educate you on how reality works. When two people start communicating on a topic, its called a conversation. Understand?
AegeanKing 4 months ago
@AegeanKing "Way to dodge the issue" What issue? I asked you a simple question and you respond with false accusations, avoiding the question entirely. "A sure sign that you've lost" Lost what? "When two people start communicating on a topic, its called a conversation. " We never started communicating on a topic you idiot. I asked you a question; you responded with false accusations. You're doing nothing to repudiate the claim that believers are less inteligent than nonbelievers.
chansetwo 4 months ago
@chansetwo I made a statement. You responded with a question. I responded that I was not insane and that prominent atheists consider Craig to be brilliant. That is called a conversation. Please purchase a merriam-websters dictionary.
AegeanKing 4 months ago
@AegeanKing "I responded that I was not insane " Responded to whom and about what? My question said nothing about insanity; although you are working hard to convince me that you are insane. In addition you never answered the one question I did ask you; instead you claim it is not part of some "conversation" I have no part in I don't know who you think you are talking to or what you think you are talking about. Go check yourself into the local mental ward.
chansetwo 4 months ago
@AegeanKing No prominent atheist considers WLC to be brilliant. He´s considered to be a fraud, a joke and an advocate of genocide. He´s considered to be, in formal debates, a master debater by many, but the same people tend to consider formal debates a waste of time since the format is bullshit. As opposed to an open discussion, which WLC refuses to engage in since he always loses them.
magnusjsolberg 1 month ago
@magnusjsolberg You have no idea what you are talking about. All of the prominent atheists, with the exceptions of Dawkins and Krauss, have a vast amount of respect for Craig. Hitchens had a high degree of respect for Craig and called him a rigorous scholar. Denette called Craigs work Brilliant. Craig has been in MANY open discussions and has always crushed the atheists because atheists can not defeat his arguments. You're just a butt-hurt atheist making excuses. Pathetic..
AegeanKing 1 month ago
@AegeanKing Dennett (no ´e´ at the end) called WLC´s performance "a virtuoso performance" once, which was obviously referring to the fact that Craig is a performer, not a serious thinker. Sam Harris has said that WLC "Employs high school debating tricks to mislead the audience, falsely summarizes what his opponent has said and falsely claims that certain points have been conceded."
Shelly Kagan crushed Craig in a discussion on morality. Dawkins and Krauss both loathe Craig, like you pointed out.
magnusjsolberg 1 month ago
@AegeanKing And lastly, after their debate, Hitchens said that while WLC was presenting his arguments, he thought to himself "is that all you´ve got??"
magnusjsolberg 1 month ago
@AegeanKing Oh, one more. Victor Stenger, in his new book "The Fallacy of Fine Tuning" states that William Lane Craig simply does not understand physics to any substantial degree. He´s also stated that that Craig "downright lies" and that he refuses to change his arguments even after they´ve been proven false time and time again.
magnusjsolberg 1 month ago
@magnusjsolberg Yes, Craig is such a bad thinker which is why none of his opponents can defeat his arguments and which is why they always lose debates to him. Craig is highly respected among atheist philosophers. that is simply a fact. Daniel Came, an Oxford philosopher and atheist, called Dawkins a coward for not debating Craig. Everybody knows that Craig is a formidable opponent with solid arguments except butt-hurt atheists like urself.
AegeanKing 1 month ago
@AegeanKing he is a bad thinker and only the theists think he wins the debates. Kagan had turned him into a stuttering baboon. Solid arguments- you do realize that they have been refuted dozens of times, just b/c WLC refuses to admit it doesnt mean they havent
atheistcommonsense 1 month ago in playlist Of Skeptic Interest
@atheistcommonsense His "debate" with Kagan was not a debate. It was a discussion. Moreover, Craig was under directions from the host not to turn it into a debate on stage. Secondly, Christopher Hitchens himself ADMITTED defeat to Craig after their debate. Hitchens also called him "a serious and rigorous scholar". So, it is obvious that you are just a butthurt atheist that can not get over the fact that Craig wins all his debates and his opponents respect him.
AegeanKing 4 weeks ago
@AegeanKing "Hitchens also called him 'a serious and rigorous scholar'"
Interestingly the only place that phrase turns up anywhere on the web is here. Link/citation? WLC is a rigorous scholar, for individual facts, where he falls down is his logical connections between those facts. Also, when all else fails he engages in clumsy ad hominems (as here) and baseless assertions starting with, "On the atheist world-view..." for which the only correct close (that he doesn't use) is 'there is no god.'
COEXISTential 3 weeks ago
@AegeanKing lol fuck off with the semantics a discussion is a debate. Either way kagan won. And where does the hitchens thing come from? Just throw that in there y dont you. Watch arif ahmed destroy craig, at one point the audience roared in cheer when ahmed told craig that his arguments may pass at talbot but not cambridge. Bart ehrman beat him on the resurrection as well. I suggest turning the blinders off.
atheistcommonsense 3 weeks ago
@atheistcommonsense Its not semantic troglodyte, its the facts. A discussion is not a debate. You are so dumb you don't even know how to define a scholarly debate. I suggest turning your brain on and educating yourself on what constitutes a scholarly debate. There is a reason that the Veritas forum asked him SPECIFICALLY not to tun the discussion into a debate.
AegeanKing 3 weeks ago
@magnusjsolberg Btw, that book is not new and craig has addressed it already in his podcasts.
AegeanKing 1 month ago
@AegeanKing I want to respond to something you said, but i will send you a PM for it, since I wanna be a bit thorough.
Hektor88 3 months ago
@THEINFAMOUSFLY
"There are no infinites(in the physical world)"
Says who? We don't know if there are. Craig is simply pulling this out of his ass if he says we have certain knowledge.
"He explains the distinction that he makes between time infinity and God's being infinite."
If infinites exist, there's no room for a god for creating the universe. If they don't, they also don't exist when it comes to his god. Claiming otherwise is still special pleading, no matter what Craig says.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer There are no infinites in the physical world/universe.The universe has already been shown to have a beginning(A time when it began)He doesn't pull anything out of his backend.He always gives arguments/explanations of what he asserts.If the physical universe/world is infinite,this would show at best that the supernatural is real.So,we wouldn't be able to rule out that a sort of a God exists.
THEINFAMOUSFLY 5 months ago
Craig's Fact 4: That numerous people saw appearances of a risen Jesus. No, Dr Craig, numerous people *purport* to have seen appearances and that their reports are veridical is very much under consideration. In fact, given many est. factors concerning human individual and social psychology, the lack of independent lines of evidence regarding the reports, and the complete lack of evidence attesting to the reliability of the reporters, we have reason to believe the reports are *not* veridical.
Paraconsistant 6 months ago
I love WLC's facts based account of the resurrection. Fact 1: Most agree that Jesus was executed. Question: "He was crucified, but how do we know he died?" Answer: "Most, though not all, who are crucified die." Retort: "But we know of people who have survived." Response: "Yes, but it is an exceedingly improbable event. So, we can be sure that Jesus died." Retort: "It is even *more* improbable that he resurrected; which is more likely, that he survived crucifixion or that he rose from the dead?"
Paraconsistant 6 months ago
Nailed him! Christian fail at the end...nice work of this sucka!
BalazarsBrain 7 months ago
I don't think Craig was owned at all. Both presented good cases and argued effectively. I think that Craig presented the truth honestly and sincerely.
double91trouble 7 months ago
@double91trouble William Lane Craig would not know the truth if it bit him on the knee. He's an apologist: that he literally has a career twisting facts to meet his pre-ordained conclusions.
prescod 6 months ago
Willian Craig got so owned!!
alobo2000 7 months ago
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 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shieldsff
"Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears"
Why, does he finally offer actual evidence for the existence of god? If not, I'm not interested.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
RE "Son of man"- Clearly, Jesus here is referring to the exalted, eternal figure from the book of Daniel. Also, this was not an isolated incident where the false religious leader accused him of blasphemy...He was similarly charged for healing on the sabbath; he was charged for saying He forgives sins; he was charged for saying to the hypocritical leaders "before Abraham was, I AM".It's impossible to merely consider Jesus a "good man" or a moral teacher- His claims are too fantastic & unlike any
shieldsff 8 months ago
Why God doesnt just appear to everybody use to be a topic i was greatly hung on at a certain point myself. Then reading Genesis a little closer there IS understanding to why not. In the beginning everybody knew God existed yet they all went against him.Its logical that he set up a system that people that want a relationship will be those who believe...Distance makes the heart grow fonder
plan4urlife 8 months ago
@plan4urlife That's why when I have kids I'm going to abandon them in a box on the side of the road so they will be MAXIMALLY loved. Pffft...little sinners.
tkovrtwrld 8 months ago 6
@tkovrtwrld wow richard carrier really tore him a new one here.
SHIBBYiPANDA 7 months ago
@tkovrtwrld God hasn't abandoned us. He shows His love all the time. Food, water, oxygen, your health, etc., etc., all come from God. Because God doesn't blatantly show His face isn't proof that He doesn't exist.
terminat1 6 months ago in playlist Christian Apologetics - Craig
@tkovrtwrld :better than than teaching them God doesnt exist, but not father of the year material-sim
plan4urlife 6 months ago
@plan4urlife No not true. Read a little closer and you will see that God doesn't communicate to no one but his people, or some sort of human messenger who then intern tell others. For example: God told Noah that a flood was coming, and Noah in turn told everyone else; God told Moses to tell Pharaoh to let his people go, God doesn't directly communicate with humans at large. Today we see people telling us how they spoke to god and god told them this and that, does that mean we hate god now?
Landofjello 7 months ago
@plan4urlife Why did God create us so that "distance would make the heart grow fonder?" According to your theology, that's a psychological phenomenon that HE INVENTED. Then he worked around it???
Furthermore, it's a total lie to say that those who "want a relationship are those who believe." Many feel are forced into unbelief and are desperately unhappy to give up their belief. They are forced into unbelief when they are confronted with the evidence that the resurrection DID NOT HAPPEN.
prescod 6 months ago
@prescod : It seems little effort was given to see the point and the psychology behind it, like girls really go for the good guys. There is evidence on both sides of the table, you reject the evidence for and agree with evidence against. No denying jesus lived. We have secular documents confirming. Not enough evidence to make anybody give it up. From evidence he did rise and he's coming again. You might wanna look closer at truth. Sorry i didnt make an all caps last statement, i find it corny
plan4urlife 6 months ago
@plan4urlife Name 1 secular document that was written within 15 years of Jesus' death. Name 1 secular document written by an eyewitness to ANY of Jesus wanderings and miracles. I'm curious.
prescod 6 months ago
@prescod: If I do would it really change anything? For your sake, truly i say to you I wish i would, but I doubt it....anyway my friend here you go, Ignatius of antioch i believe is one. I admitt Im at school studying so my research was half ass, im not to familiar with him but Im using him for your 15 yr time frame.
plan4urlife 6 months ago
@plan4urlife You said you were going to provide a secular document. Ignatius of Antioch was a Christian. He was also BORN around the time that Jesus is supposed to have DIED. It is absolutely the case that if strong evidence of the resurrection existed, it would "matter". I'm an ex-Christian and I would be glad to go back if there was evidence that Christianity is not a myth. I have nothing but good memories of church. But I'm not willing to live a lie in order to "fit in" to a nice community.
prescod 6 months ago
@prescod Why can't you accept the gospels?
jmanexpress 6 months ago
@jmanexpress The gospels are documents with an agenda, obviously copied from each other, written long after Jesus died. They exist to make the Jesus story plausible and exciting. They have been very successful at that for 1800 years. But that doesn't make them historical documents. They contradict each other, so they are demonstrably not very good historical documents. Watch this video: ?v=MvleOBYTrDE
prescod 6 months ago
@jmanexpress
"Why can't you accept the gospels? "
Because there is no evidence any if it is true, and they show the tell-tale signs of having been made up.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@prescod : what evidence was so strong against the resurrection that it stopped your faith. What overpowering evidence did you have? I must ask because there is "proof" on both sides of the table. Christianity goes very deep and far back??? There are many reasons to believe the bible, some people build social egos and dont want a fast one pulled and thats understandable..there are many examples.. If you truly want to believe you seem to be to skeptical off the bat to even consider belief
plan4urlife 5 months ago
@plan4urlife You ask: "what evidence was so strong against the resurrection that it stopped your faith." The whole new testament was written long after Jesus died, and secular sources do NOT corroborate the Bible's stories that for example tons of dead people arose in Jerusalem or that the land "fell into darkness" or that there was a controversy in the Jewish temple (ejecting the money changers) etc. False Bible implies No Resurrection.
prescod 5 months ago
"Craig says that if it's been conclusively proven that the bones of Jesus have been found, this would falsily Christianity. yet elsewhere Craig states that finding the bones of Jesus is logically impossible"
Thats not a contradiction, troll. The host is asking a "what if" question. That does nothing to contradict the arguments he makes for the actual evidence we have. Stop lying about WLC being a fundamentalist. Go play with your flame war minions and leave us rational people alone
chriswnorris7 8 months ago
'If you don't accept my God, you're either close-minded, or your cognitive faculties are not functioning properly.'
Wow, really? I don't get how he manages to slip this type of shit past his opponents in debates, I really don't.
GiantSandles 9 months ago
I work as an editor for tv. Wow whoever slapped this thing together did a horrible job. It's sad some have to resort to that.
Skad8erateher 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
* PLEASE DONT READ THIS!In 1971 a guy named Kyle an his girlfriend Emily were in side a house that was said to claim peoples lives if they entered the house.The next morning a guy named Alex saw fingernail marks on the door.if you dont post
humneeet 9 months ago
Craig does well in formal debate format... but is pretty weaksauce in discussion style situations.
That's why Shelly Kagan so easily desposed of him. It was more a discussion than a debate.
infernvsnecrohag 9 months ago 6
@infernvsnecrohag That is such a sad, desperate atheist myth. Craig has torn Kagan's ideas to shreds in print,Kagan was propounding Mill's discredited old social contract theory. Its because Bill Craig has so utterly thumped every atheist, physicist,philosopher and writer he has ever debated that you poor atheists are driven to endlessly bring up that informal chat with Kagan (where Bill was ordered not to do his usual knock-down debate,by the Veritas Forum) because its all you guys have!
relarerfhjk 8 months ago
@relarerfhjk False. Craigs arguments in print are often nonsense to anyone who is informed on the subject. There is a reason that nobody ever converts to Christianity because of the lucidity of the first cause argument, or because of Craigs argument for the ressurection.
Craig does well in LD debates because he is superb at rhetoric in that format... NOT because his arguments are good. It only sounds good to Christians that already presuppose everything he does.
infernvsnecrohag 8 months ago
@infernvsnecrohag Your already wrong with the first sentence.Read the statements of Dr Paul Davies and Sir Fred Hoyle about how fine-tuning convinced them God was real.
Craig doesnt use "rhetoric"(his 5 arguments are very clear and well-known) thats a sad old excuse by atheists who cant take the fact he exposes their arguments as apallingly weak each time he faces them.
His arguments are "good" which is why theyve been published in 100's of academic journals of philosophy. You douche.
relarerfhjk 8 months ago
@relarerfhjk K, fair enough, 2 out of how many? tell me, why are you a Christian? I'm sure its not for reasons of evidence.
Sure, Craig's been published in academic philosophy journals... and so have all kinds of people with different views from him. Tell me, if Craigs arguments are so good academically, why are the majority of all philosophers still atheists?
infernvsnecrohag 8 months ago
@infernvsnecrohag Wrong. I was initially a Christian just because of my parents, I then stopped believing for years,but, after examining the historical evidence for the validity of the gospel accounts when I was introduced to it at a Youth 2000 event, I rediscovered belief in God. I think its both more probable that Christianity is tru AND is the only way life makes sense. Since the 1960's there has been an extraordinary renaissance in Anglo-American Christian philosophy,your wrong.
relarerfhjk 7 months ago
@relarerfhjk As someone who has studied the new testament thoroughly, it takes a huge degree of confirmation bias to believe that they are actually valid historical accounts. There are some things I will admit, like Jesus was probably a jewish preacher, and he was probably crucified, but saying you can establish the existence of the supernatural, something that we have NO EVIDENCE OF TODAY, based on biased written accounts is insane.
infernvsnecrohag 7 months ago
@infernvsnecrohag Furthermore, as a determinist, Harris cant get round the problem of "ought-implies-can", he cant give any grounding for moral DUTIES,conseqentialism can justify eugenics, he confuses universal morality with objective morality, he can't get round the "A=B philosophical dilema which is that there are both possible and actual circumstances where evil people can flourish or evil can coexist with wellbeing which means morality and wellbeing cant be identical
relarerfhjk 7 months ago
@relarerfhjk Also, I said CHRISTIAN, not deist... theres a big difference between believing that the universe had a god start it, and that that god would have to come to earth to sacrifice himself, to himself to rid us of the unfulfillable law that he created in the first place.
You have to admit, you're supporting a man who basically argues that he has an invisible friend who grants him wishes if he talks to him telepathically through his son who is actually himself.
infernvsnecrohag 8 months ago
@infernvsnecrohag Craig's arguments in print are not "nonsense" theyve been praised by leading atheist philosophers like Quentin Smith. Its Kagan's social contract theory which is "nonsnense to anyone informed on the subject". You want me to explain why? It makes morality relative and can therefore justify anything, contracts forged by the majority favour the majority and it cant explain why anything is objectively "wrong" since if moral values are only arrived at by negotiation, theyre illusory
relarerfhjk 7 months ago
@relarerfhjk I don't even agree with Kagan, I'm just saying he trounced him in that discussion. My personal feeling is along the lines of Sam Harris... morality is DEFINED as something that produces the least amount of net suffering, and we can from that inquire into what is true or not.
Divine command theory is a million times more ludicrous than anything atheists come up with, tell me, why is consentual homosexuality immoral? and how can you possible know WHICH divine command is true?
infernvsnecrohag 7 months ago