Th1sWasATriumph likes to lie about William Lane Craig

[BlakeRudy]

Science agrees that the universe and time itself had a beginning. Anything that comes into being must have a cause. God exists beyond space-time without cause, thus never came into being. Simple logical argument.

[lordrazr]

Is this a rebuttal or what? If so epic fail. If someone refutes another's arguments, you reiterate the original arguments. You dont have your own arguments? Or you cant pick out what twat said wrong? I would be careful when calling other people idiots, especially after watching this video!!!

[Mathenaut]

This...You're just repeating what WLC says. Instead of a reply to the criticism, you just post more invalid stuff as if it somehow addresses it. It doesn't.

We already know what WLC says, and the arguments against him are rather thorough. You'll need more than just more WLC to stand against that.

[phookadude]

If god is good the what mind concieved of good so that god could exsit?

[Capuano231]

People bash and lie and Craig because they know he is right. They thought Atheism could never be disproved! Oh no, they thought they would own Theists in everything, and then Dr Craig came in and made Atheists basically look like the crazy ones. And they can't admit it.

[HonestTechnoAtheist]

rationalresponseguy loves to lie about the people he misrepresents. Nothing about any of your videos needs the word rational to describe them.

[StopSpamming1]

Does repeating Craig's nonsense make it better? If thiswasatriumph made a mistake, show it and point out the truth.

[Satarack]

@StopSpamming1 thiswasatriumph made a categorical error where he said, "if everything has to have a cause, what's the cause of God?"

But that is not the principal of sufficient reason. The Principal of sufficient reason is, "everything that happens must have a cause." In this case, the thing that happens is beginning to exist. If beginning to exist never happens, there is no need for a cause. An eternal entity can be said to never have begun to exist; they simply always did exist.

[StopSpamming1]

@Satarack

How about a different explanation?

The "begin" to exist is a primitive cop-out to cater for the god which needs to be presented later. The historical argument, postulated by less skilled apologists, did not have this yet.

And if there is a super-natural being, why do YOU need to define it YOUR way to suit YOUR needs?

[Satarack]

@StopSpamming1 I'm not defining it. God's properties follow necessarily from logic. The timelessness of God is necessary for God to be able to create time. If he depended on time, he could not be the creator of time or else that would be a circular argument.

[StopSpamming1]

@Satarack

Why are you kidding yourself?

} "timelessness of God is necessary"

Yes, because YOU need it to be that way.

You don't realise anymore how deep you have your head buried that you define reality according to what you want it to be.

[Satarack]

@StopSpamming1 Lol, so you reject logic then? Apparently you get to decide what christianity is for YOUR convenience, you hypocrite.

If God is the creator, he created time.

To create time, God must have existed causally prior to time, lest we create a logical contradiction of a circular argument.

Therefore God is timeless.

But you have an apriori conviction to deny anything I say anyway. You're attacking a straw man, but you don't care I guess.

[StopSpamming1]

@Satarack

No, you don't understand logics.

You can't say "god created time" without first proving that this particular god existed and was able to create time.

So you first say: god existed. Then you say: time exists. And then you say: because time exists, this proves god exists. Do you see your logical dilemma?

But don't worry, people have tried to come up with arguments and nobody has managed.

[MasterOhSo]

I didn't hear a single thing that would resemble a lie concerning WLC....so what do you find to be false? To say that the constituant particals that you are comprised of are very very old and formed in the hearts of a stars would imply that you began to exist at their formation...how far back would you like to follow that reasoning? The alternative is that we "magically" POPPED into BEING certainly makes more sense doesn't it? That last sentance was sarcasum...peace be with.

[Mathenaut]

Wait...So you cut out the entire rebuttal, just to past over with the same argument that the video is refuting?

I don't see how this addresses the video it is responding to.

[jcgadfly]

so you buy Craig's special pleading?

[jcgadfly]

RRG?

[Mathesonguy]

Is Craig trying to make an arguement for thr the flying spaghetti monster?

His arguements never come close to proving Yahweh, or even a "personnal creator" as he tries to weasel word in there.

I think Craig is making up arguements for a deist god. Thats not going to turn people to Jebus, unless they are very credulous.

Fortunately for him, most christians are, else they wouldn't be christians.

[corthew]

So we are something's imagination?

[StevePinto3]

His argument is still flawed because he's making conjectures about a cause that, by his definition of being outside of space and time, even he can't begin to grasp.  To then say that he knows something about it is contradictory. Also, most of the attributes he ascribes to God (and lets face it, that's exactly what he's talking about) are contradictory to themselves. Anything outside of time and space can't have any actual kind of "power", as that requires change.

[raoskaos]

Funny how Craig assumes that minds are something more than a brain state(physical), and says that concepts exists objectivly, as a "thing".

Haven't seen a number these days walking in the street, have you ???

[Bodomchills]

It's refreshing to see that someone pays close attention to the videos posted by atheists on youtube. Keep it up rationalresponseguy! Your efforts are both enlightening and entertaining.

[rationalresponseguy]

@Bodomchills Thank you, sir!

[ZackTheProtestant]

Wow, does anyone take this guys videos seriously? EVERYTHING THAT BEGINS TO EXIST HAS A CAUSE." That is the most amateur mistake an atheist can make when criticizing this argument.

[rationalresponseguy]

@ZackTheProtestant It's around the internet. Atheists believe nothing actually exists. And they naively cite the firs law of thermodynamics as proof!

[corthew]

@rationalresponseguy Actually, atheists just don't believe a god exists. The question of the truth behind the existence of the universe is explored by them using things they can prove. Not things that can only be conceptualized.

Some of them anyway. Others don't really care how the universe came to be. They just don't appreciate someone telling them they will die and go to hell, without being able to qualify the claim with evidence. A book isn't evidence.

[ChickenHawk110]

@rationalresponseguy

"Atheists believe nothing actually exists"

Sigh. No. They scrutinize the concept that tangible objects "BEGIN" to exist, and its got NOTHING to do with "belief"

In a sense everything has always existed. Why would you misrepresent that little fact for? A more suitable correction for your poorly worded quote would be "Atheists believe nothing actually BEGINS to exist, but rather always has existed in some form"

Not not too sure of the little details, or just dishonest?

[wayn3h]

@rationalresponseguy

Atheists don't all have the same views about the universe you fucking idiot.

[wayn3h]

@rationalresponseguy

Are you being serious? I hope not because that is the stupidest thing I've read today.

[Th1sWasATriumph]

@rationalresponseguy Absolutely. Nothing really exists. Science proved that.

[uvauva2]

@rationalresponseguy

Holy crap... that was absolutely horrible...

I'll really have to file that under Dunning-Kruger...

[josephchoi]

@ZackTheProtestant

show me one thing that actually begins to exist. We're not talking about rearrangement of matter, but a creation. Unlike most people, Craigonites think things literally pop into existence out of nothing all the time.

[Birdieupon]

Lol what a total douchebag! He actually commits the most common schoolboy error of mis-quoting the premiss as "everything that exists needs a cause" instead of "BEGINS TO exist".

This is the same clown who named his Dr Craig "rebuttals" after movies in order to try to give them some sense of reverence (trouble is, like a typical hollywood B movie, they're full of bluster and void of any intellectual content).

Thanks, rationalresponseguy, for exposing the dimness of these "Bright" bulbs!

[rationalresponseguy]

@Birdieupon It's not hard exposing these idiots. It's just sad that they think they have a slam bang argument against William Lane Craig. In my estimation, Th1sWasATriumph is nearly as dishonest and shallow as theowarner whom I just caught in making another dumb comment: watch?v=xnTpKa00N8Y and watch?v=Jo3CkLad2bc

[drcraigvideos]

As I watched the first 30 seconds of this video I couldn't help but shake my head. It's sad what lengths atheists will go to do a blatant dishonest assessment of William Lane Craig.

[1n354a]

@drcraigvideos I don't think that it takes an atheist to dismantle Craig's position...

[ChickenHawk110]

@drcraigvideos

Yeah, its also sad that you block free discussion on your uploaded videos.

Censoring just like a good little creobot.