Another example of facts manipulation attempt. Given this argumentation, any thesis is correct until proved wrong. The church will defend their thesis despite any facts until they figure out how to make those facts support their beliefs. Then they will claim that they've always thought so.
How many people suffered or even died because they had evidence for Earth orbiting around Sun and not vice versa. How many centuries did it take for the church to accept the fact? And this is just one example.
@ImJoeYeah (cough)... you misspelled "IDEEOT" ... + there are indications that heavy elements such as gold should not be present that far away in the solar system .... + I think that when the video was recorded Pluto was still considered a planet (it was changed on August 24, 2006; it is now a dwarf planet)
A Universe fine tuned for the development of intelligent life - Really Dr Lane ? Even on our own tiny speck of a planet if one climbs to 6000 mtrs most life will die, 70% of the earths surface is water in which all terrestrial life , including humans cannot live. On our home planet most areas are off-limits to intelligent life surviving. As far as we can see at present there is nowhere in the universe that can support life. Yes about as fine tuned as winding a watch with a sledge hammer.
"Is there gold on Pluto" is not analogous to is there a god. We know that Pluto and gold exist. A better question would be: Is there a horde of universe creating dwarfs, who by the way created this very universe through their mysterious technology, living on Pluto? To me this is a more plausible explanation to the origins of the universe. Perhaps Craig will have a change of heart and start worshiping the little plutonians. He may even be able to visit them someday or at least send a probe.
Here is what I think about the question of wether or not a god exists. It's really VERY simple.
Theist: A god exists.
Me: I don't believe you.
I don't believe that a god exists. That's IT. That is why I call myself an "atheist". I know, a lot of people define "atheism" in different ways. Fuck it then. I'm a person who doesn't believe in a god then, not an atheist.
All I'm doing is telling people who believe in a god that I don't agree with their belief. derp fucking derp...
Yeah, humans have the entire universe all figured out. We know the creator of everything. Hey idiots, we don't even know 100% of our OWN PLANET yet. Human arrogance and ignorance is the basis for belief in a god and religion.
The alleged characteristic of the omni-presence of your god necessarily dictates the presence of evidence of his existence. The absence of necessary evidence demonstrates the non existence of your god. Of course you can move the goal post and quible over the definitions of "there" and "presence".
One of the things that seems left out here is how enormously self-efficacious it is to imagine a god who made us in his image. Humans never talk about a god who has a special relationship with bears or donkeys. They go on and on about the god who loves man. Coincidence? Before you even get to the evidence, you should consider the philosophical presumptions.
To consider the Maximum Universe at the Beginning as Heat , Energy ,Mass deployed to an Expansion and Cooling, thus coalescing into Star and then Life, that is not "Evolution" but the dying embers of the origins reflecting some innate capacity to spur memories or fractal designs of the first order. Then Evolution would be the wrong description , for it is only a Lateral Transfer of innate design from the burgeoning mass to the isolated phenomenon that is only repeating , not creating itself
@CarmineFragione cosmology and evolution are totally different concepts, you not understanding this difference makes you seem uneducated on the matter.
Say we sent a Model T Ford into space and some other alien civilization found it. They could retool to build more of these Fords and over time refine their process and then we could ask, to what degree does the alien factory end up looking &working like the original Ford factory. But in that analysis of duplicity, it cannot be ignored that the Medium of reproducing the design , required both Intelligent Technique and the Will to accomplish it. So the Model T cannot be just left to Evolve.
The Atheists need to focus on taking our humanity away from the world , as so exceptional as to be merely an evolved emergence, which of course they cannot then explain how that comes to be, but anyway, by taking the mind away from the matter, then they can make the matter appear Godless. If God is not a participant in the every moment of the conscious existence, then of course there is no God, but God is the Source of Intelligence, that is not Random, but Eternally the Source of Life.
What the Atheists do, is to unconsciously for some of them and consciously for many of them, to take out of the picture our own existence and sentience value and then conclude what is left of the Universe as meaningless voids of random events. But where in Nature is that "Scientific Application" permitted ? That is a human measure being taken to cleave away ourselves from the world and then conclude there is no meaning . God is inside our minds as the Father of Intelligent Beings.
As Human Beings are as the finishing product and progeny of the Universe, concluded in Design ,capable of reviewing the aspects of the world and making desired judgments of what seems good or bad, out of the very system we came through to exist, then that reveals that the Universe cannot be just totally and conclusively a machinery or mechanistic without a value system. The arousal of values is a testament that Intelligence is that integral part of existence that is aware of what values mean
The very plausibility of the Universe being able to exist as a stage for value judgments to the one hand as "good" and the opposite as "bad" is the very proof that the Universe is not haplessly a Machine without sense of Moral Consequence and that then the Intelligent Mind existing in the Universe, if there be no God, then the human mind should be responsive only to stimuli of an organic material sense & not be occupied with Values, that are in themselves detached from any Mechanistic answer
On top of all that. In light of all the new information that technology has provided. Many of the claims made by one group are not holding up. While the other side is becoming solid. If you took away religion would the world stop as we know it? If you take away science and technology would the world stop as we know it? Keep in mind that technology is anything created by a beaing to make life easier. Language, writing, tools, a/c are examples.
I think the thing that gets me the most is watching someone talk about how their is no proof in what he belives in. But some how that is proof? But knowing their is no proof and i think about the millions of lives lost. All the horrors of the dark ages, the black death, all the poor jews, witches, and anyone who spoke against it. Or someone telling someone else that they are going to HELL and judge them. All in the name of somehting that can not be proven.
Well this argument is a play on words. I can say that aliens made us. Their are people who wrote it in their religions. Several actually with some evidence. SO since their is not any proof it is not real it can be true? It is not really about what you can prove it is about what can be disproved. Millions of ideas have been proven wrong because of science through history.
According to Craig it isn't reasonable to disbelieve things just because they don't have any evidence to support them. (absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence)
So does he believe in every god? There's equally no evidence for any of them, so how is he justified in limiting his belief to one?
I would never argue Craig's contention that we are the products of a supernatural creation source. He could be right, but just because it is of the "supernatural" does not automatically mean he has permission to stick his "Christian god" label on it. And I'm still waiting for him to provide evidence that ties Christianity to this or any supernatural power. Supposed evidence provided by him and the Christian community has been pathetically weak in this regard. I'd better not hold my breath LOL
(Edit, *is or is not statement ) What we wind up with is 33% chance of accident (although with the sheer magnitude of fine tuning, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt) or 66% chance of some kind of "help". I just thought of this scenario, so, let me know if there is a flaw.
@canibalcorpse73 What is this talk of chance and accident? do you believe this whole universe was made deliberately and specifically just for us humans?LOL I forgot "break away from the question and embrace the answer.FaithinGod" LOL any evidence?
You give 2 choices, deliberately deceptive or incorrect? Clearly, you have not put much thought into this. I'll take door number three out of the other thousands of choices. You cling to the near impossibility of chance, I will stand firm with intelligence. Here's a simple breakdown to consider. 1. Intelligent design=33%(either there is or is not) 2.Intelligent design using evolution = 33% 3.Pure cosmic accident = 33%. Basic logic leaves you with a 33 % success rate.
@canibalcorpse73 Those are the two choices regarding your comments (firm ground claim). You have made an absolute statement that is based entirely on blind faith. You have no evidence. I don't have to prove a negative position. I'm not the one making outrageous and unrealistic claims without evidence. You must present evidence that is confirmed and tested for accuracy before your belief can be considered reasonable. Belief does not equate to knowledge.Your "breakdown" is also dishonest.
Formulating atheism as the non-position of mere disbelief is futile in a debate room, because -with the modern atheistic cowardice- theists only require one argument to stand above the atheist.
It's evident that defending atheism today is like trying to win a race with no car.
@IloveYOUviruses Arguements in debate rooms. If you are going to make a theistic claim and "stand above atheists" you need EVIDENCE. It's as simple as that. "atheistic cowardice" LOL "disbelief is futile" LOL so resistance is futile?? LOL Bring on the evidence!
@TheHonestRoger The evidence was already pointed out by Craig and defended on his public debates, publications and books. Meanwhile, atheism remains as mere disbelief with no arguments thus, insuficient for making a rational case in a debate room.
Even your comment reveals that modern atheism has no valid arguments.
@IloveYOUviruses Craigs evidence for a christian god is hardly solid. His "evidence" is all based on the bible being the word of god and there are many valid arguements against that. Atheism makes no claim,it simply says we dont believe these theistic claims from various religions because of lack of evidence
@TheHonestRoger With Christ resurection is enough, even atheist scholar Bart Ehrman acknowledges 3 events of the new testament as historical facts, namely, the crucifixion, the strong faith of the disciples and post-mortem Jesus appereances, for this, the only reasonable explanation is that God raised Jesus from the dead; Bart's absurd excuse is that miracles are impossible because God does not exist and therefore God does not exist.
Clearly with the resurrection alone, our car wins every race.
@IloveYOUviruses crucifixion doesn't prove resurrection,niether does a disciple's faith.As for the post-mortem Jesus appearances,what evidence do you have of these?
@TryTheRedPill As the closest historical refernces to Jesus of Nazareth, the four gospels plus the letters are a very reliable source for history, nevertheless, facts as the crucifixion or the strong faith of the apostles are attested by roman and jewish historians. Is too sad that your non-position of disbelief is only supported by your ignorance of Tacitus, plinio, Josephus and other historians of the 1st and 2nd century.
So, without any evidence for atheism, theism easly wins every race.
Even if all scholars agreed they are genuine, these works only serve as evidence that a *man* named Jesus may have existed. They provide ZERO evidence demonstrating this man named Jesus was the product of a supernatural source. The crucifixion also (if true) only proves a man named Jesus was crucified, nothing more. And so what if the apostles had faith. There are people with extreme faith today yet this in no way proves ties to the supernatural.
@TryTheRedPill As I said earlier " even atheist scholar Bart Ehrman acknowledges 3 events of the new testament as historical facts, namely, the crucifixion, the strong faith of the disciples and post-mortem Jesus appereances"
Hallucination theories fail, conspiracy fails, and any other theory fails except fo the one given by the apostles: that God raised Jesus from the dead, cuz witnesses wouldn't offer their lives unless they actually saw (and knew) our Lord Jesus resurrected.
@IloveYOUviruses I can accept that a man named Jesus may have lived and then been crucified.Many people were crucified. I can accept that the disciples had strong faith.Many people have strong faith. However,huge claims such as "that God raised Jesus from the dead" needs big evidence.Tacitus and Josephus in their writings do not support resurrection claims and niether does Bart D. Ehrman.
@IloveYOUviruses " witnesses wouldn't offer their lives unless they actually saw (and knew) our Lord Jesus resurrected...."
I can easily post modern day examples of mortal human beings with no supernatural powers who had more than enough sway and influence over their followers that they (followers) were more than happy to risk or give their lives for their leader and their beliefs under any circumstances to prove their faith. The faith of the apostles argument is weak!
@TryTheRedPill Here is your mistake, the apostles didn't had faith in an observable recent event, they lived in the time of the passion of the Christ or Messiah as Isaiah calls Him, and you can't decieve an actual witness, a witness wouldn't die for a Messiah they knew didn't raised from the dead, so, obviously, they knew that Jesus was raised from the dead or at least confirmed that Joseph's tomb was empty (Ehrman acknowledged this fact also)
@TheHonestRoger You've mischaracterized his evidence (which he didn't get to in this vid). They're not based on taking the Bible as God's word. If you disagree with him, cool... do so on the terms of his own arguments, rather than one you made up to put in their place. Of the arguments where he even MENTIONS the bible, they're (1) references to older SOURCE material which predate the biblical form, (2) sources that unbelieving scholars accept as valid, (3) not based on their being God's word
@TheHonestRoger But you just made claims. You claimed that Craig's evidence is weak. And you also claim that there are many "valid" arguments against the Bible being the word of GOD. That in and of itself is a claim. The Atheist CLAIMS there is a lack of evidence just as the theist CLAIMS there is a presence of evidence. So lets not dilute ourselves, we all make claims.
@TheHonestRoger So do you believe God exists, or do you believe God does not exist? Or do you believe there is insufficient evidence for either claim?
I stand on firm ground while you waver with the uncertainty of nature. Your axiom is either a huge accident, or an even bigger "I don't know". My axiom is an immaterial, unchanging, universal presence of unimaginable brilliance. Your only defense is ignorance. I hope one day you break away from question and embrace answer. Faith in God in no way means to ever stop learning, but will give you a solid foundation with which to learn from.
@canibalcorpse73 Your imaginary friend is not "firm ground." You are either deliberately deceptive or simply incorrect. Because theists have no evidence to support their position, they are forced to concede to "I don't know" or become a recognisable fraud. Your hypothesis asserts knowledge where there is none. The beauty of Science is it's self-correcting. Erroneous claims are revealed, mistakes are admitted, and corrected. Theists are forced to remain ignorant of reality "or else."
For me, good evidence is this, I can have an atheist contradicting themselves within minutes. I on the other hand, will not. The only way an atheist can avoid contradicting themselves is to immediately give up the idea that they actually know anything. That in and of itself is very telling.
@canibalcorpse73 I encourage you to make your best attempt. Someone contradicting themselves is not evidence that a god exists nor does it determine the validity of Evolution.
Atheism doesn't require evidence, it's merely a lack of belief in god(s). The burden of proof lies with the claimant. In this case, the claimant is one who asserts gods existence. Before you can claim god exists, you must have proper evidence or your claims can be easily dismissed or ignored.
@gregrutz 99% of atheist arguments involve demanding "proof" using some form of the scientific method. What they don't understand is that the scientific method is completely useless to answer questions of metaphysics or morality. It's like trying to use a thermometer to measure shoe size. Just because you don't get a reading doesn't mean the shoe isn't there.
His argument applies to 3000 thousand plus dieties and every mystical creature that has ever existed. The absence of evidence for unicorns is not evidence of abscence of unicorns. hahahaha
@chrismx24 Wow, you aren't really that smart after all. If you look up the word "Unicorn" in the Noah Webster Dictionary (which is the first dictionary that the Webster dictionary came out with), you would see that it is not referring to the mythical creature, it is referring to the 'monoceros.' The name (monoceros) is often applied to the rhinoceros. Please do some research before you scoff at the Bible.
@flameboy1236 hahaha sorry I don't keep up with 200 year old dictionaries hahaha That will always be funny to me, but that's besides the point I wasn't referring to anything biblical. I was actually referring to the mythical horse. The point I was making, which you chose to ignore, is that craigs arguments apply to made up fairy tale animals haha but if it makes you feel better just substitute in spaghetti monsters, leprechauns, or whatever fairy tale creature you like. Glad I could educate you.
@chrismx24 You've misunderstood the second part of the lecture. For epistemologists, the absence of evidence DOES count as evidence of absence in cases where "if a given entity did exist, we should EXPECT to see evidence of its existence." So absence of evidence of unicorns counts against their existence. As for the "3000 deities" claim, in a case for bare theism one doesn't have to make a case for a particular God, just that a deity (simpliciter) exists. As usual, Youtube users attack strawmen.
@chrismx24 , if you see his debates on the validity of Christianity or if you read anything he wrote on the subject, you may change your mind. for now you have only taken and argument that applies to a general subject and tried to use it to a very specific one. do you even see the incompatibility here? read more, learn more and only when you have exhaustively studied the matter, then come with such a pompous attitude in making claims that you know almost nothing of. cheers! ;)
@flotopo Last time I commented on this page was a few months ago so I don't exactly know what argument you are making. If you're saying my logic was wrong somewhere please point it out (the incompatibility you speak of supports my argument, by the way). If you're just trying to insult me because I taught your other buddy a thing or two then you can have yourself a nice day. I know what it's like to hold on to something that deep down you know isn't true. I used to be religious myself you know!
1. I do not want to insult you, but you do have a pompous attitude. 2. Like another user here, I will say again that the argument Craig has made was not in support of any deity in particular, which is why I found your remark arrogant. You simply misused what Craig said in order to show how smart you are. 3. What I believe in it's true and I guess you might be the one emotionally disappointed in God that you stopped believing. 4. Open your mind to the truth, it will set you free. ;)
@flotopo In reverse order. 4: I did open my mind to the truth and it did set me free. That's why I apply logic to all arguments that come my way (wish you did the same). 3: Fuck yeah I was disappointed! It's exactly the same feeling you get when you learn Santa isn't real. It's saddening but I got over it. 2: So Craig wasn't trying to support any deity? I don't want to watch the video again but I think I remember him trying to prove his god or some nonsense of the like. 1: May very well be true.
Dr. Schlezic is wrong. Dr. Craig is right, technically at least, that the absence of evidence is not necessarily the evidence of absence. The operative word in that statement is "necessarily." The absence of evidence that ought to be found, i.e. evidence that the universe was created by a top-down intelligent process, is indeed evidence of the absence of such a creater.
Atheism can survive without evidence cuz they don't need evidence, but being alone in a corner lacking a belief in God prevents them from calling themselves "thinkers", and intellectually keeps'em from raising sound objections against relligion.
It seems that in the end, atheism is back in the last chair where it is supossed to be.
These ''thinkers'' you speak of have a stable platform to base their beliefs upon. They actually have a backbone to raise an argument with. The evidence is abundent. As for the evidence of any Deity, there is none. You have to provide evidence of a Deity to even debate if said Deity exist. And faith is not a legitimate aphorism to use in a debate. For instance, i could have faith in the invisible unicorn that governs the world. You can't disprove my belief but it is illogical.
This is where the quagmire begins. Logic aside, Atheism is not an organized belief like religious dogma. It is a lack of belief in Deities for a number of reason that include 1) Not enough evidence, 2) Illogical, 3) Defies science and or reality and finnally 4) Have tried many beliefs and all are irrelevant. Not all Atheist agree on exactly the same concepts unlike most Theistic beliefs, and they dont have to. They are just agree on one main aphorism, ''There are no Deities''.
@HambleThornberry That's my point, you can have your point and be very convinced of it, but sadly, there's no sound argument for atheism, maybe for agnosticism...
Mr. Craig fails to mention the hidden supposed assumption of atheists, which is that they all think the only evidence of a god's nonexistence is the absence of evidence for this god. Not all atheists think this, in fact, it's more complex than the simplicity he fashions it out to be. This clip is better titled "Dr. Slyzick's evidence for atheism."
@deathmetal931 4. Think outside the box, you hold your atheistic position and demand proof to believe in God, but that's exactly the same that some theists do, and others may find compelling evidence in all the points mentioned by Craig specially, personal experiences independant of your opinion.
5. Using the logic of the Bible, this corrupted world is going to die and God will terminate all evil once and for all.
@deathmetal931 1. you are quoting Hawking in a conditional.
2. The BGV theorem states (since 2003) that an expanding universe had an absolute beginning, 8 years later the theorem remains flawless.
3. You may be refering to fanatic relligious who want to convert every peasant despite what they say, as a Christian, I believe that God allows freedom of belief, so He provides evidence but not "proof" (unless you ask Him for it telling Him that your enviroment made skeptic or whatever).
@deathmetal931 Thank you deathmetal, sometimes I forget my good manners. I agree that there's a faith side in respect to the God position.
I also agree that outside this solar system, everything seems kinda chaotic, but that's an indicator that our planet might be unique (at least in this galaxy), nevertheless, the fact that we are typing digital letters in a LCD screen proves that nature is fine tuned to permit at least one planet adequate for intelligent life and scientific exploration.
Trying to prove a god does not exist is like trying to prove that there's not a teapcup floating around 51 pegasi and then trying to prove that there was never any trace of it.
I'm sure if the same argument were presented to the theist with some other figment of the imagnation rather than a god, e.g. that some form of mushroom magically giving way to the universe would be considered false without a second thought.
Dear Atheists: Since neither of us have any solid, scientific expiation as to what the fuck we are doing here; don’t you think your Catholic-bashing is a bit premature; seeing that you have no plausible alterative? Is it really so absurd for us to assume an ‘answer’ to conscience-existence while you present only the most sincere ‘questions?’ You are the preverbal Hair trying to keep up with the Tortoise. BTW: Any insurance-actuary will tell you it’s better to be covered while price shopping.
As soon as he said "evidence for atheism" he clearly shows he doesn't know (or doesn't care?) what atheism actually is. This man is supposed to be a philosoper, and can't even grasp the basics of what he is talking about. I'm amazed that anyone takes him seriously
@KamasutraButterfly dude, it's public debate, even if the atheist apologist doesn't want to defend his posture, the public wants to know if there are good reasons to be an atheist, and clearly there is none.
@IloveYOUviruses First of all, an atheist "defends" his position by saying that theistic claims have not met their burden of proof. There is nothing at all about atheism that needs to be defended because atheism isn't a "thing", atheism is simply saying: "I don't belive in god". Atheism makes no claims that anyone can defend. It is the theistic claims that needs to be defended and proven, not an atheist's claims to the contrary
@Kamasutra Actually, he's right, you're wrong. Atheism claims that there is no God or gods. It is a belief and a worldview. Christianity claims that there is a God. Christianity is a belief and a worldview. In fact, atheism is often doctrine. Doctrine that teaches there is no God. [In communist countries, for example] Anyway, I know "Atheism isn't true" sounds funny, but basically all that is saying is ''the belief that there is no God is false.'' God Bless
@THEGLASSOFMILK2 Atheism = the LACK OF BELIEF in a god. No more, no less, I'm really getting tired of trying to explain this to people! Some atheists are certain there is no god, others say they don't know or/and don't care either way. But what they have in common is the LACK OF BELIEF, which is why you can't simply assume that every single atheist would claim that there is no god
@KamasutraButterfly webster dictionary it, dictionary(dot)com it, oxford dictionary it. It is the BELIEF that no god exists. It is a BELIEF. It is a WORLD view. You must be thinking agnostic....lol those are 3 totally separate and reliable sources and they all give essentially the same definition. None give your agnostic-like definition. =)
@THEGLASSOFMILK2 Okay, then the dictonary is wrong and needs to be rewritten. You see, unlike you I actually have the ability to think for myself and think rationally instead of just following what some book says, wether it be the bible or webster's dictionary. Btw, I actually included the "strong atheist" position in my definition below (sorry if you missed it) and said that that was one of the positions an atheist could take, but it's not a requirement for an atheist to take that position
@KamasutraButterfly The dictionary is wrong?!? lol what the heck! It [atheism] has one definition and it is the same across the board in standard dictionaries! Sorry........................you can't just change a word's meaning to be whatever you want it to be.............this is the weirdest argument I have ever heard.....
@THEGLASSOFMILK2 So if I tell you that I don't believe in god, but I'm not 100% sure about whether god exists or not, what am I? I am still an atheist because I clearly don't believe in god, I am also agnostic because I'm not sure wether god exists or not. I am an agnostic atheist if I assume that position. You can't say I am NOT an atheist, because anyone who doesn't believe in god IS AN ATHEIST! You can be a gnostic or an agnostic atheist, just as you can be a gnostic or agnostic theist
@THEGLASSOFMILK2 *Sigh*..... No, because to the question "Do you BELIVE in god or gods?" there is only to answers: yes or no. My answer is "No, I do not BELIVE in god". And that answer makes me..... makes me.... that's right, AN ATHEIST, YOU TOOL!!!
@KamasutraButterfly No, because if you fully answered you would say "No, I don't believe in a god/gods, but I it is still possible they exist," <<< that is agnostic. Atheist is "THERE ARE NO GOD/GODS,"
@THEGLASSOFMILK2 Gnosticism and agnosticism is about knowledge, theism and atheism is about belief. Beliefs and knowledge are two different things.... with me so far? That's why I can say "I do not believe in god, but don't claim to know it for a fact", and call myself an agnostic atheist. This really shouldn't be this hard for you to understand, and I'm starting to suspect that you're just not willing to try and understand it
@KamasutraButterfly I know what you're trying to say; it makes sense when you say it...but it does not fit the definition of atheist or atheism. That is the problem...and because of this, you are an agnostic only.
@KamasutraButterfly PS this is why Richard Dawkins himself has said he is actually agnostic, but he is "99.999999% sure that God does not exist" He explains that it is unscientific for one to be an atheist because you can never truly prove that something does not exist. Atheism makes the claim that god does not exist. But anyways, know that God DOES exist. God Bless
@THEGLASSOFMILK2 Yes, and he also says the same thing about unicorns and santa claus, you're missing the point completely! He says it is unscientific to say with 100% certainty that there is no god, that does not mean the existence of god suddenly becomes more likely than before. You clearly have no idea what Dawkins meant, because you completely missed his point
@KamasutraButterfly Exactly, atheism is a personal statement of disbelief, but for those who understand the fine-tunning in nature, the reality of objective moral values, etc, atheism poses an absurd statement of faith against the evidence.
@IloveYOUviruses First of all, atheism has nothing to do with all these things. But every attempt to prove all those things falls short anyway. You simply assert that nature is "finely tuned" (what would a non-finetuned universe look like by the way?), you assert that there is objective moral values etc. If you can't prove it you have no business in telling atheists that their position is "absurd"
@KamasutraButterfly Do I have to educate you? Infinitesimal changes in the gravitational constant, and it would be impossible to form stars in BigBang model, similarly, changes in the initial entropy of the universe, or in the rate of expansion would have rendered the bigbang model as an obvious fraud.
U can have your position of disbelief against a Creator but that's indefensible in a public debate. Meanwhile, nature seems to conspire to support arguments from design and objective morality.
@IloveYOUviruses LOL, I wonder who it is that needs an education.... I mean really, is this the best you got? How about a picture of god? How about god revealing himself to us all at the same time, THAT would be something! But no, you're best attempt at proving his existence seems to be: "if the constants of the universe were a little different we wouldn't exist"..... is that supposed to convince me of something? And aren't you going to acknowledge the point I made in my last comment at all?
@KamasutraButterfly Dude, you showed ignorance about the fine-tuning in nature. And that's not "supposed" to convince you, cuz you are free to believe ANYTHING but it shows that the atheistic chance-of-the-gaps position is absurd.
Should the public invoque multiverses by faith? Or should they say that it's a conspiracy of nature? either way, atheism remains with no evidence and against the evidence.
@IloveYOUviruses I don't take ANYTHING on faith, and neither should anyone else. I'm not showing ignorance about the "fine-tuning", it's you who fails to provide me with any evidence for that claim. You're basically saying "if the universe was a little different we would not be here".... that's not proof of anything! The universe isn't adapted for us, we have adapted to the universe. If you want to say that the universe was created with us in mind, please provide some evidence. LAST CHANCE!
@KamasutraButterfly This is sad, not only you display ignorance but stupidity...
"The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life." -S.Hawking
As I said, atheism remains with no evidence and against the evidence.
@IloveYOUviruses But it is strange that mr. Hawking is not a devout believer, ey? Have you ever wondered about why that is? Why is it that Hawking, a man you say knows about the "fine-tuning of the universe" does not, I repeat: DO NOT see the hand of god in it? What do you make of that information? Can you answer me why Hawking isn't a believing christian, if this fine tuning is so evident to him? And even if he was a believer that wouldn't make any difference, that is called appeal to athourity
I appeal to the FACTSmentioned by Hawking, Penrose, Hoyle, P.Davies, D.page...
You appeal to Hawking's position about God to justify yourself.
It seems that you are the one appealing to authority, showing once again that there are no good reasons to take the atheistic position, as this video already demonstrated.
@IloveYOUviruses But my whole point was that these facts do NOT point to a creator, you first have to provide som evidence for the claim that god created the universe. And I'm sorry, but you have convinced me of nothing. The only thing you've said so far is "the universe is 'fine-tuned', therefore a god created it". That's an assumption, backed up by NO evidence at all. You clearly don't know what appeal to athority is, you don't seem to know what atheism is about, and you missed the point again
@KamasutraButterfly ...well, objective morality is evident for most ppl who know the basic guide within us about right and wrong, you can reject such argument by saying that rape is not objectively wrong, and that given other conditions, it could have survival value and whatever, but it's up to you to deny objective morality and isolate yourself in the absurd atheistic niche.
1universe even had a beginning,created i don't think so 2god to make the universe,he would have to be more complex 3 time and energy are forever(us universe 5god is apart of universe or he is not,if not just a delusion6can pick up any object and drop it,it will fall.if you re-played that forever,god is going to stop it 7god doing super natural things.god could make superman real 8all babies are atheist 9god came from nothing,made the whole universe,what would he made everything from himself!
@CallumTheDinosaur I never said we can't rule anything out, of course we can, we can rule out that the Earth is flat can't we? If you believe in something that automatically means you don't believe the opposite otherwise you could be an atheist and a theist at the same time.
@CallumTheDinosaur No it means we can't rule out the possibility until we disprove it, we can't say God does not exist until we disprove it. And of course if something has the possibility to exist we can believe in its existence. For example many evolutionary biologists believe that life began on the backs of crystals but we have no evidence of this, nor have we disproved it.
His premise is wrong: there is a cornucopia of evidence for atheism, he just doesn't want to accept it because the evidence would blow his fallacy ridden arguments out of the water.
@ILiveForScience I believe you should watch the entire discussion, the debater for atheism did not bring your "cornucopia of eviedence for atheism" to light and thus the statement of dr Craig is correct. Perhaps you can answer Kalams Cosmological argument, a very good argument for God. =) Then you can answer how someone can make a prediction in the Bible more than 2500 years ago that is true in every detail? (Daniel and Revelation). =)
@Mekelsior a) If you arrange it in the correct order, you can make the Bible say whatever you like. A mathematician once applied a numerical code to the Bible and got "Mary Had a Little Lamb", which I'm fairly sure the writer/writers didn't intend. If you want to make the Bible say something to fit what you want to believe, you can. It's the same for many holy scriptures (such as the Qur'an).
@Mekelsior b) The Kalam Cosmological argument brings up two obvious questions. 1: If everything has a cause, then what caused God? 2: If you say "nothing caused God, he/she/it is eternal", then why can't the Universe be eternal as well as the oscillating universe theory suggests?
@ILiveForScience The Kalam Cosmological argument does not say everything has a cause, it states, everything that has a beginning has a cause. God doesn't have a beginning by definition, therefore He does not have a cause. Saying the universe is eternal is problematic because of what we know about the universe, it is changing in negative ways, it is eroding so to speak. This means that everything in the universe is finite, a universe composed of finite things cannot exist for eternity.
Please site a single peer-reviewed study that demonstrates the universe is losing or gaining energy. This is the only way to support a claim that the universe is "eroding" and will someday "end", or to claim that it used to have less or no energy and thus had a "beginning".
Space expands and heat is lost, but space = energy too, so total system energy is not changing. The universe (as a system of energy) could therefore be eternal (just not perpetually in its current state).
Craig, you ignorant f*ck-*ss... There need be no evidence for a DEFAULT POSITION.
Atheists do not claim "God does not exist". We simply do not believe in God because there is insufficient evidence to support such an extraordinary claim "God does exist" (your position).
Atheism cannot be "true" or "false", since it is not a statement of claimed fact, simply the rejection of one.
Craig has to be one of the most intellectually dishonest apologists out there.
@Lowraith Unfortunately many atheists themselves don't seem to understand that, as evidenced (for example) by atheists "debating" craig on God's existence and reasons why atheism 'is true' (same thing.) I'm no big Craig fan, just saying. You can't sweepingly speak for all atheism anymore than a so called theist can speak for all of religion.
Craigs arguments are perfectly valid against some atheists, against others perhaps not.
@Lowraith Excuse me but atheism is defined as: someone who denies the existence of god.
This means they say he does not exist, so if I were to say to you "God exists!" you would most likely reply "No he does not" because you are denying his existence. You are trying to confuse the position of atheists like most modern atheists do when they are presented with irrefutable logic that asserts his existence is more probable than improbable (which is in itself evidence as WLC asserts).
Agnostic Atheist answer: "I do not believe in a God, but I don't claim there is none." (default)
Gnostic Atheist answer: "There is no God."
Agnostic Theist answer: "I believe in God, but I guess you can't KNOW til you meet Him."
Gnostic Theist answer: "God DOES exist."
I'm the 1st one (default position, nil claim). You are trying to paint all of us as the minority 2nd (negative position, claim of absence). Atheism = No Belief. Gnostic = I KNOW.
@Lowraith I would like to correct your definition of the agnostic theist, we believe God exist, we also believe we can be assured that God does exist, but we cannot prove that God does exist to any outsider, there is always room for doubt. The gnostic theist does as you say know God exist and believe that knowledge is enough to be saved. Statement number 1, the agnostic atheist is that based on faith,. =)
Agnostic - Noun: A person who believes that nothing is known _or can be known_ of the existence or nature of God/anything beyond material phenomena. (The idea that KNOWLEDGE can't be obtained regarding a transcendent subject. Doesn't deal with BELIEF in the subject.)
Gnostic - Adjective: Of or relating to knowledge, esp. esoteric mystical knowledge. (Refers to the belief that knowledge is possible or already obtained.)
"Statement number 1, the agnostic atheist is that based on faith"
I fail to see how. Keep in mind that:
"I do not accept claim A" =/= "I believe claim A to be false"
"I do not believe in God" =/= "I believe there is no God"
-1 (There is no God) - - - 0 (I do not believe) - - - 1 (God is real)
Atheism is everything less-than AND equal-to 0 faith in God. 0 is the default position for any claim. Do not confuse the negative belief (a subset of atheism) as the full definition of atheism.
but in the case of there being no evidence of gold on pluto, we can test for gold on pluto whilst we cannot test to see if god is real. and also there being evil in the world is an absence for god's existence
Just the faithful hope that you're right, creating the biased delusion that you're absolutely sure you are; as with followers of the thousands of other religions.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but absence of evidence is the likeliness of it being false. It is a changeable thing depending if evidence is put forth, then when its proven we acknowledge the existence of it. We cannot say something is if there is no evidence, but we can say it is unlikely. There is no evidence for god, faeries, Santa clause, whatever, therefore, it is unlikely they exist, if we follow this man's logic, then maybe Santa Clause, unicorns, etc, exist.
@ateopuertorico "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but absence of evidence is the likeliness of it being false."
That seems wrong to me.
Let's say there is a big box. Now, I tell you that there is a stone in the box. Let's further assume you haven't looked into the box. So, for you there is an absence of evidence. Does this simple fact make it likely that my statement is false? I don't think so, do you?
This idiot's fame is totally based on shifting the burden of proof and moving the goal post. How anyone can listen to him and think he is making sound rational arguments is beyond me.
Another example of facts manipulation attempt. Given this argumentation, any thesis is correct until proved wrong. The church will defend their thesis despite any facts until they figure out how to make those facts support their beliefs. Then they will claim that they've always thought so.
How many people suffered or even died because they had evidence for Earth orbiting around Sun and not vice versa. How many centuries did it take for the church to accept the fact? And this is just one example.
softwaria 1 week ago
*inspected*
2eelShmeal 1 month ago
1:40 This is such a pile of dog shit... Talk about a poor analogy....
We can see the entire area between Earth and Venus therefore it can be (in theory at least) inspect.
We can't inspect the whole universe. It's just not the same. Totally disingenuous. He knows better.
2eelShmeal 1 month ago
LOLOL JOKES ON YOU. PLUTO ISNT A PLANET ANYMORE OLOLOL WHAT AN IDEEOT
ImJoeYeah 1 month ago
@ImJoeYeah (cough)... you misspelled "IDEEOT" ... + there are indications that heavy elements such as gold should not be present that far away in the solar system .... + I think that when the video was recorded Pluto was still considered a planet (it was changed on August 24, 2006; it is now a dwarf planet)
ravenmarius 1 month ago
A Universe fine tuned for the development of intelligent life - Really Dr Lane ? Even on our own tiny speck of a planet if one climbs to 6000 mtrs most life will die, 70% of the earths surface is water in which all terrestrial life , including humans cannot live. On our home planet most areas are off-limits to intelligent life surviving. As far as we can see at present there is nowhere in the universe that can support life. Yes about as fine tuned as winding a watch with a sledge hammer.
jontibloom 1 month ago
Atheism doesn't need any evidence. It makes no claims and professes no knowledge. Religion, on the other hand, does.
solitaryman098 1 month ago
The only evidence for not believing in unicorns is the fact that there is no evidence they exist.... No shit.
TheDazmatron 1 month ago
"Is there gold on Pluto" is not analogous to is there a god. We know that Pluto and gold exist. A better question would be: Is there a horde of universe creating dwarfs, who by the way created this very universe through their mysterious technology, living on Pluto? To me this is a more plausible explanation to the origins of the universe. Perhaps Craig will have a change of heart and start worshiping the little plutonians. He may even be able to visit them someday or at least send a probe.
heatmourning33 1 month ago
You don't need evidence for a negative, you only need evidence for a positive. If there is evidence for the positive, then the negative is rejected.
AbstractReaIity 2 months ago
Here is what I think about the question of wether or not a god exists. It's really VERY simple.
Theist: A god exists.
Me: I don't believe you.
I don't believe that a god exists. That's IT. That is why I call myself an "atheist". I know, a lot of people define "atheism" in different ways. Fuck it then. I'm a person who doesn't believe in a god then, not an atheist.
All I'm doing is telling people who believe in a god that I don't agree with their belief. derp fucking derp...
Zentz29 2 months ago
1. There is evidence for expansion, it's happening now.
2. Would you invest your life in getting gold mining equipment to Pluto before proving there is gold there? NOPE.
3. Origin from nothing. Strawman.
4. Fine tuning. Ad ignorantiam.
5. Realm of moral and aesthetic values. MADE UP.
6. Resurrection. Irrelevant. David Copperfield cut himself in half, and he's not God.
7. Personal fellowship with God. Come on - 'I know he's real, so he's real!' That's just silly.
In conclusion, he's full of shit.
IamSpydaMic 3 months ago
I've got to get to Pluto!
SanEverett 3 months ago
Yeah, humans have the entire universe all figured out. We know the creator of everything. Hey idiots, we don't even know 100% of our OWN PLANET yet. Human arrogance and ignorance is the basis for belief in a god and religion.
Michael55443 4 months ago
Craig is a master of double talk. I don't see how he keeps his linguistic gymnastics straight.
rosshetrick 4 months ago
americans are funny. still delivering convoluted speeches about god's existence like a bunch of bored french aristocrats from the 18th century.
SalvadorDali22 4 months ago
@SalvadorDali22 Your post is what is funny if not for the tragedy of your education..
SanEverett 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The alleged characteristic of the omni-presence of your god necessarily dictates the presence of evidence of his existence. The absence of necessary evidence demonstrates the non existence of your god. Of course you can move the goal post and quible over the definitions of "there" and "presence".
tapesquare 4 months ago
One of the things that seems left out here is how enormously self-efficacious it is to imagine a god who made us in his image. Humans never talk about a god who has a special relationship with bears or donkeys. They go on and on about the god who loves man. Coincidence? Before you even get to the evidence, you should consider the philosophical presumptions.
drumrnva 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Haha, this is funny since in this debate he got ripped a new, god sized, verbal asshole. High school kid could out debate this man...
DeusExWolksvagen 5 months ago
Comment removed
DeusExWolksvagen 5 months ago
To consider the Maximum Universe at the Beginning as Heat , Energy ,Mass deployed to an Expansion and Cooling, thus coalescing into Star and then Life, that is not "Evolution" but the dying embers of the origins reflecting some innate capacity to spur memories or fractal designs of the first order. Then Evolution would be the wrong description , for it is only a Lateral Transfer of innate design from the burgeoning mass to the isolated phenomenon that is only repeating , not creating itself
CarmineFragione 6 months ago
@CarmineFragione cosmology and evolution are totally different concepts, you not understanding this difference makes you seem uneducated on the matter.
ExcaliburClan 6 months ago
Say we sent a Model T Ford into space and some other alien civilization found it. They could retool to build more of these Fords and over time refine their process and then we could ask, to what degree does the alien factory end up looking &working like the original Ford factory. But in that analysis of duplicity, it cannot be ignored that the Medium of reproducing the design , required both Intelligent Technique and the Will to accomplish it. So the Model T cannot be just left to Evolve.
CarmineFragione 6 months ago
The Atheists need to focus on taking our humanity away from the world , as so exceptional as to be merely an evolved emergence, which of course they cannot then explain how that comes to be, but anyway, by taking the mind away from the matter, then they can make the matter appear Godless. If God is not a participant in the every moment of the conscious existence, then of course there is no God, but God is the Source of Intelligence, that is not Random, but Eternally the Source of Life.
CarmineFragione 6 months ago
What the Atheists do, is to unconsciously for some of them and consciously for many of them, to take out of the picture our own existence and sentience value and then conclude what is left of the Universe as meaningless voids of random events. But where in Nature is that "Scientific Application" permitted ? That is a human measure being taken to cleave away ourselves from the world and then conclude there is no meaning . God is inside our minds as the Father of Intelligent Beings.
CarmineFragione 6 months ago
As Human Beings are as the finishing product and progeny of the Universe, concluded in Design ,capable of reviewing the aspects of the world and making desired judgments of what seems good or bad, out of the very system we came through to exist, then that reveals that the Universe cannot be just totally and conclusively a machinery or mechanistic without a value system. The arousal of values is a testament that Intelligence is that integral part of existence that is aware of what values mean
CarmineFragione 6 months ago
The very plausibility of the Universe being able to exist as a stage for value judgments to the one hand as "good" and the opposite as "bad" is the very proof that the Universe is not haplessly a Machine without sense of Moral Consequence and that then the Intelligent Mind existing in the Universe, if there be no God, then the human mind should be responsive only to stimuli of an organic material sense & not be occupied with Values, that are in themselves detached from any Mechanistic answer
CarmineFragione 6 months ago
On top of all that. In light of all the new information that technology has provided. Many of the claims made by one group are not holding up. While the other side is becoming solid. If you took away religion would the world stop as we know it? If you take away science and technology would the world stop as we know it? Keep in mind that technology is anything created by a beaing to make life easier. Language, writing, tools, a/c are examples.
superhoodc 6 months ago
I think the thing that gets me the most is watching someone talk about how their is no proof in what he belives in. But some how that is proof? But knowing their is no proof and i think about the millions of lives lost. All the horrors of the dark ages, the black death, all the poor jews, witches, and anyone who spoke against it. Or someone telling someone else that they are going to HELL and judge them. All in the name of somehting that can not be proven.
superhoodc 6 months ago
Well this argument is a play on words. I can say that aliens made us. Their are people who wrote it in their religions. Several actually with some evidence. SO since their is not any proof it is not real it can be true? It is not really about what you can prove it is about what can be disproved. Millions of ideas have been proven wrong because of science through history.
superhoodc 6 months ago
According to Craig it isn't reasonable to disbelieve things just because they don't have any evidence to support them. (absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence)
So does he believe in every god? There's equally no evidence for any of them, so how is he justified in limiting his belief to one?
dimbulb23 6 months ago
Criag is a true "spin doctor." His reasoning is both masterful and circular.
callinshumen 7 months ago
I would never argue Craig's contention that we are the products of a supernatural creation source. He could be right, but just because it is of the "supernatural" does not automatically mean he has permission to stick his "Christian god" label on it. And I'm still waiting for him to provide evidence that ties Christianity to this or any supernatural power. Supposed evidence provided by him and the Christian community has been pathetically weak in this regard. I'd better not hold my breath LOL
TryTheRedPill 7 months ago
(Edit, *is or is not statement ) What we wind up with is 33% chance of accident (although with the sheer magnitude of fine tuning, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt) or 66% chance of some kind of "help". I just thought of this scenario, so, let me know if there is a flaw.
canibalcorpse73 7 months ago
@canibalcorpse73 What is this talk of chance and accident? do you believe this whole universe was made deliberately and specifically just for us humans?LOL I forgot "break away from the question and embrace the answer.FaithinGod" LOL any evidence?
TheHonestRoger 7 months ago
You give 2 choices, deliberately deceptive or incorrect? Clearly, you have not put much thought into this. I'll take door number three out of the other thousands of choices. You cling to the near impossibility of chance, I will stand firm with intelligence. Here's a simple breakdown to consider. 1. Intelligent design=33%(either there is or is not) 2.Intelligent design using evolution = 33% 3.Pure cosmic accident = 33%. Basic logic leaves you with a 33 % success rate.
canibalcorpse73 7 months ago
@canibalcorpse73 Those are the two choices regarding your comments (firm ground claim). You have made an absolute statement that is based entirely on blind faith. You have no evidence. I don't have to prove a negative position. I'm not the one making outrageous and unrealistic claims without evidence. You must present evidence that is confirmed and tested for accuracy before your belief can be considered reasonable. Belief does not equate to knowledge.Your "breakdown" is also dishonest.
antitheisthumanist 7 months ago
the theory of religion strikes again
worrdawgg1952 7 months ago
Formulating atheism as the non-position of mere disbelief is futile in a debate room, because -with the modern atheistic cowardice- theists only require one argument to stand above the atheist.
It's evident that defending atheism today is like trying to win a race with no car.
IloveYOUviruses 7 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses Arguements in debate rooms. If you are going to make a theistic claim and "stand above atheists" you need EVIDENCE. It's as simple as that. "atheistic cowardice" LOL "disbelief is futile" LOL so resistance is futile?? LOL Bring on the evidence!
TheHonestRoger 7 months ago
@TheHonestRoger The evidence was already pointed out by Craig and defended on his public debates, publications and books. Meanwhile, atheism remains as mere disbelief with no arguments thus, insuficient for making a rational case in a debate room.
Even your comment reveals that modern atheism has no valid arguments.
IloveYOUviruses 7 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses Craigs evidence for a christian god is hardly solid. His "evidence" is all based on the bible being the word of god and there are many valid arguements against that. Atheism makes no claim,it simply says we dont believe these theistic claims from various religions because of lack of evidence
TheHonestRoger 7 months ago 2
@TheHonestRoger With Christ resurection is enough, even atheist scholar Bart Ehrman acknowledges 3 events of the new testament as historical facts, namely, the crucifixion, the strong faith of the disciples and post-mortem Jesus appereances, for this, the only reasonable explanation is that God raised Jesus from the dead; Bart's absurd excuse is that miracles are impossible because God does not exist and therefore God does not exist.
Clearly with the resurrection alone, our car wins every race.
IloveYOUviruses 7 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses crucifixion doesn't prove resurrection,niether does a disciple's faith.As for the post-mortem Jesus appearances,what evidence do you have of these?
TheHonestRoger 7 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses "Clearly with the resurrection alone, our car wins every race."
And to prove the Resurrection you would need to reference the bible. And that would probably go something like this:
"See....the resurrection did happen (holding open bible), it says so right here!"
Ya you're in a race all right, with yourself and going in a circle. LOL
TryTheRedPill 7 months ago
@TryTheRedPill As the closest historical refernces to Jesus of Nazareth, the four gospels plus the letters are a very reliable source for history, nevertheless, facts as the crucifixion or the strong faith of the apostles are attested by roman and jewish historians. Is too sad that your non-position of disbelief is only supported by your ignorance of Tacitus, plinio, Josephus and other historians of the 1st and 2nd century.
So, without any evidence for atheism, theism easly wins every race.
IloveYOUviruses 7 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses Tacitus and Josephus??
Even if all scholars agreed they are genuine, these works only serve as evidence that a *man* named Jesus may have existed. They provide ZERO evidence demonstrating this man named Jesus was the product of a supernatural source. The crucifixion also (if true) only proves a man named Jesus was crucified, nothing more. And so what if the apostles had faith. There are people with extreme faith today yet this in no way proves ties to the supernatural.
TryTheRedPill 7 months ago
Comment removed
IloveYOUviruses 7 months ago
Comment removed
IloveYOUviruses 7 months ago
@TryTheRedPill As I said earlier " even atheist scholar Bart Ehrman acknowledges 3 events of the new testament as historical facts, namely, the crucifixion, the strong faith of the disciples and post-mortem Jesus appereances"
Hallucination theories fail, conspiracy fails, and any other theory fails except fo the one given by the apostles: that God raised Jesus from the dead, cuz witnesses wouldn't offer their lives unless they actually saw (and knew) our Lord Jesus resurrected.
IloveYOUviruses 7 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses I can accept that a man named Jesus may have lived and then been crucified.Many people were crucified. I can accept that the disciples had strong faith.Many people have strong faith. However,huge claims such as "that God raised Jesus from the dead" needs big evidence.Tacitus and Josephus in their writings do not support resurrection claims and niether does Bart D. Ehrman.
TheHonestRoger 7 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses " witnesses wouldn't offer their lives unless they actually saw (and knew) our Lord Jesus resurrected...."
I can easily post modern day examples of mortal human beings with no supernatural powers who had more than enough sway and influence over their followers that they (followers) were more than happy to risk or give their lives for their leader and their beliefs under any circumstances to prove their faith. The faith of the apostles argument is weak!
TryTheRedPill 7 months ago
@TryTheRedPill Here is your mistake, the apostles didn't had faith in an observable recent event, they lived in the time of the passion of the Christ or Messiah as Isaiah calls Him, and you can't decieve an actual witness, a witness wouldn't die for a Messiah they knew didn't raised from the dead, so, obviously, they knew that Jesus was raised from the dead or at least confirmed that Joseph's tomb was empty (Ehrman acknowledged this fact also)
IloveYOUviruses 7 months ago
@TheHonestRoger You've mischaracterized his evidence (which he didn't get to in this vid). They're not based on taking the Bible as God's word. If you disagree with him, cool... do so on the terms of his own arguments, rather than one you made up to put in their place. Of the arguments where he even MENTIONS the bible, they're (1) references to older SOURCE material which predate the biblical form, (2) sources that unbelieving scholars accept as valid, (3) not based on their being God's word
123suckamc 6 months ago
@TheHonestRoger But you just made claims. You claimed that Craig's evidence is weak. And you also claim that there are many "valid" arguments against the Bible being the word of GOD. That in and of itself is a claim. The Atheist CLAIMS there is a lack of evidence just as the theist CLAIMS there is a presence of evidence. So lets not dilute ourselves, we all make claims.
205whiteboy 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheHonestRoger So do you believe God exists, or do you believe God does not exist? Or do you believe there is insufficient evidence for either claim?
camilo101 4 months ago
@TheHonestRoger read daniel chapter 8
it perfectly prophesies Alexander the great
conraddoavil 3 months ago
@conraddoavil read Jules Verne. He perfectly "prophesies" space travel to the moon
TheHonestRoger 3 months ago
@conraddoavil does he also predict the sputnik?
conraddoavil 3 months ago
@conraddoavil Did daniel predict skylab?
TheHonestRoger 3 months ago
@TheHonestRoger . . . how do you get that from reading that chapter
conraddoavil 3 months ago
@conraddoavil didn't daniel have lots of crazy visions besides the flying unicorn goat?
TheHonestRoger 3 months ago
I stand on firm ground while you waver with the uncertainty of nature. Your axiom is either a huge accident, or an even bigger "I don't know". My axiom is an immaterial, unchanging, universal presence of unimaginable brilliance. Your only defense is ignorance. I hope one day you break away from question and embrace answer. Faith in God in no way means to ever stop learning, but will give you a solid foundation with which to learn from.
canibalcorpse73 7 months ago
@canibalcorpse73 Your imaginary friend is not "firm ground." You are either deliberately deceptive or simply incorrect. Because theists have no evidence to support their position, they are forced to concede to "I don't know" or become a recognisable fraud. Your hypothesis asserts knowledge where there is none. The beauty of Science is it's self-correcting. Erroneous claims are revealed, mistakes are admitted, and corrected. Theists are forced to remain ignorant of reality "or else."
antitheisthumanist 7 months ago
For me, good evidence is this, I can have an atheist contradicting themselves within minutes. I on the other hand, will not. The only way an atheist can avoid contradicting themselves is to immediately give up the idea that they actually know anything. That in and of itself is very telling.
canibalcorpse73 7 months ago
@canibalcorpse73 I encourage you to make your best attempt. Someone contradicting themselves is not evidence that a god exists nor does it determine the validity of Evolution.
Atheism doesn't require evidence, it's merely a lack of belief in god(s). The burden of proof lies with the claimant. In this case, the claimant is one who asserts gods existence. Before you can claim god exists, you must have proper evidence or your claims can be easily dismissed or ignored.
antitheisthumanist 7 months ago
@bellhog246 there is no way to measure god he doesn't exist however you can measure god in peoples minds through observing brain activity.
TheDrewpdog 7 months ago
This guy is not a creationist. He is not that retarded
TheDrewpdog 7 months ago
Did Craig actually suggest their is such a thing as an immediate experience of personal fellowship with the Christian god??
Wow, I wonder which sleeve he would pull the argument for that one out of. LOL
TryTheRedPill 7 months ago
Why do creationists always get it backwards.
There is no evidence for God, end of argument.
gregrutz 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gregrutz 99% of atheist arguments involve demanding "proof" using some form of the scientific method. What they don't understand is that the scientific method is completely useless to answer questions of metaphysics or morality. It's like trying to use a thermometer to measure shoe size. Just because you don't get a reading doesn't mean the shoe isn't there.
bellhog246 7 months ago
His argument applies to 3000 thousand plus dieties and every mystical creature that has ever existed. The absence of evidence for unicorns is not evidence of abscence of unicorns. hahahaha
Did anyone else see through that bullshit?
chrismx24 7 months ago 8
@chrismx24 Unicorns? Is that the best you got? Unicorns?
flameboy1236 7 months ago
@flameboy1236 Asking three questions? is that the best you got? asking three questions?
chrismx24 7 months ago
@chrismx24 Wow, you aren't really that smart after all. If you look up the word "Unicorn" in the Noah Webster Dictionary (which is the first dictionary that the Webster dictionary came out with), you would see that it is not referring to the mythical creature, it is referring to the 'monoceros.' The name (monoceros) is often applied to the rhinoceros. Please do some research before you scoff at the Bible.
flameboy1236 7 months ago
@flameboy1236 hahaha sorry I don't keep up with 200 year old dictionaries hahaha That will always be funny to me, but that's besides the point I wasn't referring to anything biblical. I was actually referring to the mythical horse. The point I was making, which you chose to ignore, is that craigs arguments apply to made up fairy tale animals haha but if it makes you feel better just substitute in spaghetti monsters, leprechauns, or whatever fairy tale creature you like. Glad I could educate you.
chrismx24 7 months ago
@chrismx24 You've misunderstood the second part of the lecture. For epistemologists, the absence of evidence DOES count as evidence of absence in cases where "if a given entity did exist, we should EXPECT to see evidence of its existence." So absence of evidence of unicorns counts against their existence. As for the "3000 deities" claim, in a case for bare theism one doesn't have to make a case for a particular God, just that a deity (simpliciter) exists. As usual, Youtube users attack strawmen.
123suckamc 6 months ago
@chrismx24 I think you missed the second half of his argument ..
hasenj 5 months ago
@chrismx24 I think you missed the second half of his argument ..
hasenj 5 months ago
@chrismx24 , if you see his debates on the validity of Christianity or if you read anything he wrote on the subject, you may change your mind. for now you have only taken and argument that applies to a general subject and tried to use it to a very specific one. do you even see the incompatibility here? read more, learn more and only when you have exhaustively studied the matter, then come with such a pompous attitude in making claims that you know almost nothing of. cheers! ;)
flotopo 1 month ago
@flotopo Last time I commented on this page was a few months ago so I don't exactly know what argument you are making. If you're saying my logic was wrong somewhere please point it out (the incompatibility you speak of supports my argument, by the way). If you're just trying to insult me because I taught your other buddy a thing or two then you can have yourself a nice day. I know what it's like to hold on to something that deep down you know isn't true. I used to be religious myself you know!
chrismx24 1 month ago
@chrismx24,
1. I do not want to insult you, but you do have a pompous attitude. 2. Like another user here, I will say again that the argument Craig has made was not in support of any deity in particular, which is why I found your remark arrogant. You simply misused what Craig said in order to show how smart you are. 3. What I believe in it's true and I guess you might be the one emotionally disappointed in God that you stopped believing. 4. Open your mind to the truth, it will set you free. ;)
flotopo 1 month ago
@flotopo In reverse order. 4: I did open my mind to the truth and it did set me free. That's why I apply logic to all arguments that come my way (wish you did the same). 3: Fuck yeah I was disappointed! It's exactly the same feeling you get when you learn Santa isn't real. It's saddening but I got over it. 2: So Craig wasn't trying to support any deity? I don't want to watch the video again but I think I remember him trying to prove his god or some nonsense of the like. 1: May very well be true.
chrismx24 1 month ago
how can you have evidence for atheism that question is stupid ¬¬
bellyzbad 7 months ago
Dr. Schlezic is wrong. Dr. Craig is right, technically at least, that the absence of evidence is not necessarily the evidence of absence. The operative word in that statement is "necessarily." The absence of evidence that ought to be found, i.e. evidence that the universe was created by a top-down intelligent process, is indeed evidence of the absence of such a creater.
Kailoa36 8 months ago
Atheism can survive without evidence cuz they don't need evidence, but being alone in a corner lacking a belief in God prevents them from calling themselves "thinkers", and intellectually keeps'em from raising sound objections against relligion.
It seems that in the end, atheism is back in the last chair where it is supossed to be.
IloveYOUviruses 8 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses
You''ll be an easy one to debate with. Seems unintelligent.
HambleThornberry 8 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses
These ''thinkers'' you speak of have a stable platform to base their beliefs upon. They actually have a backbone to raise an argument with. The evidence is abundent. As for the evidence of any Deity, there is none. You have to provide evidence of a Deity to even debate if said Deity exist. And faith is not a legitimate aphorism to use in a debate. For instance, i could have faith in the invisible unicorn that governs the world. You can't disprove my belief but it is illogical.
HambleThornberry 8 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses
This is where the quagmire begins. Logic aside, Atheism is not an organized belief like religious dogma. It is a lack of belief in Deities for a number of reason that include 1) Not enough evidence, 2) Illogical, 3) Defies science and or reality and finnally 4) Have tried many beliefs and all are irrelevant. Not all Atheist agree on exactly the same concepts unlike most Theistic beliefs, and they dont have to. They are just agree on one main aphorism, ''There are no Deities''.
HambleThornberry 8 months ago
@HambleThornberry That's my point, you can have your point and be very convinced of it, but sadly, there's no sound argument for atheism, maybe for agnosticism...
IloveYOUviruses 8 months ago
Mr. Craig fails to mention the hidden supposed assumption of atheists, which is that they all think the only evidence of a god's nonexistence is the absence of evidence for this god. Not all atheists think this, in fact, it's more complex than the simplicity he fashions it out to be. This clip is better titled "Dr. Slyzick's evidence for atheism."
nlytend1 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@deathmetal931 4. Think outside the box, you hold your atheistic position and demand proof to believe in God, but that's exactly the same that some theists do, and others may find compelling evidence in all the points mentioned by Craig specially, personal experiences independant of your opinion.
5. Using the logic of the Bible, this corrupted world is going to die and God will terminate all evil once and for all.
IloveYOUviruses 8 months ago
Comment removed
IloveYOUviruses 8 months ago
@deathmetal931 1. you are quoting Hawking in a conditional.
2. The BGV theorem states (since 2003) that an expanding universe had an absolute beginning, 8 years later the theorem remains flawless.
3. You may be refering to fanatic relligious who want to convert every peasant despite what they say, as a Christian, I believe that God allows freedom of belief, so He provides evidence but not "proof" (unless you ask Him for it telling Him that your enviroment made skeptic or whatever).
IloveYOUviruses 8 months ago
@deathmetal931 Thank you deathmetal, sometimes I forget my good manners. I agree that there's a faith side in respect to the God position.
I also agree that outside this solar system, everything seems kinda chaotic, but that's an indicator that our planet might be unique (at least in this galaxy), nevertheless, the fact that we are typing digital letters in a LCD screen proves that nature is fine tuned to permit at least one planet adequate for intelligent life and scientific exploration.
IloveYOUviruses 8 months ago
Trying to prove a god does not exist is like trying to prove that there's not a teapcup floating around 51 pegasi and then trying to prove that there was never any trace of it.
I'm sure if the same argument were presented to the theist with some other figment of the imagnation rather than a god, e.g. that some form of mushroom magically giving way to the universe would be considered false without a second thought.
SeasonsOfBlue 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dear Atheists: Since neither of us have any solid, scientific expiation as to what the fuck we are doing here; don’t you think your Catholic-bashing is a bit premature; seeing that you have no plausible alterative? Is it really so absurd for us to assume an ‘answer’ to conscience-existence while you present only the most sincere ‘questions?’ You are the preverbal Hair trying to keep up with the Tortoise. BTW: Any insurance-actuary will tell you it’s better to be covered while price shopping.
mdstalla 8 months ago
As soon as he said "evidence for atheism" he clearly shows he doesn't know (or doesn't care?) what atheism actually is. This man is supposed to be a philosoper, and can't even grasp the basics of what he is talking about. I'm amazed that anyone takes him seriously
KamasutraButterfly 8 months ago
@KamasutraButterfly dude, it's public debate, even if the atheist apologist doesn't want to defend his posture, the public wants to know if there are good reasons to be an atheist, and clearly there is none.
IloveYOUviruses 8 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses First of all, an atheist "defends" his position by saying that theistic claims have not met their burden of proof. There is nothing at all about atheism that needs to be defended because atheism isn't a "thing", atheism is simply saying: "I don't belive in god". Atheism makes no claims that anyone can defend. It is the theistic claims that needs to be defended and proven, not an atheist's claims to the contrary
KamasutraButterfly 8 months ago
@Kamasutra Actually, he's right, you're wrong. Atheism claims that there is no God or gods. It is a belief and a worldview. Christianity claims that there is a God. Christianity is a belief and a worldview. In fact, atheism is often doctrine. Doctrine that teaches there is no God. [In communist countries, for example] Anyway, I know "Atheism isn't true" sounds funny, but basically all that is saying is ''the belief that there is no God is false.'' God Bless
THEGLASSOFMILK2 8 months ago
@THEGLASSOFMILK2 theism*** not Christianity lol =)
THEGLASSOFMILK2 8 months ago
@THEGLASSOFMILK2 Atheism = the LACK OF BELIEF in a god. No more, no less, I'm really getting tired of trying to explain this to people! Some atheists are certain there is no god, others say they don't know or/and don't care either way. But what they have in common is the LACK OF BELIEF, which is why you can't simply assume that every single atheist would claim that there is no god
KamasutraButterfly 8 months ago
@KamasutraButterfly webster dictionary it, dictionary(dot)com it, oxford dictionary it. It is the BELIEF that no god exists. It is a BELIEF. It is a WORLD view. You must be thinking agnostic....lol those are 3 totally separate and reliable sources and they all give essentially the same definition. None give your agnostic-like definition. =)
THEGLASSOFMILK2 8 months ago
@THEGLASSOFMILK2 Okay, then the dictonary is wrong and needs to be rewritten. You see, unlike you I actually have the ability to think for myself and think rationally instead of just following what some book says, wether it be the bible or webster's dictionary. Btw, I actually included the "strong atheist" position in my definition below (sorry if you missed it) and said that that was one of the positions an atheist could take, but it's not a requirement for an atheist to take that position
KamasutraButterfly 8 months ago
@KamasutraButterfly The dictionary is wrong?!? lol what the heck! It [atheism] has one definition and it is the same across the board in standard dictionaries! Sorry........................you can't just change a word's meaning to be whatever you want it to be.............this is the weirdest argument I have ever heard.....
THEGLASSOFMILK2 8 months ago
@THEGLASSOFMILK2 So if I tell you that I don't believe in god, but I'm not 100% sure about whether god exists or not, what am I? I am still an atheist because I clearly don't believe in god, I am also agnostic because I'm not sure wether god exists or not. I am an agnostic atheist if I assume that position. You can't say I am NOT an atheist, because anyone who doesn't believe in god IS AN ATHEIST! You can be a gnostic or an agnostic atheist, just as you can be a gnostic or agnostic theist
KamasutraButterfly 8 months ago
@KamasutraButterfly No you're an agnostic.
THEGLASSOFMILK2 8 months ago
@THEGLASSOFMILK2 *Sigh*..... No, because to the question "Do you BELIVE in god or gods?" there is only to answers: yes or no. My answer is "No, I do not BELIVE in god". And that answer makes me..... makes me.... that's right, AN ATHEIST, YOU TOOL!!!
KamasutraButterfly 8 months ago
@KamasutraButterfly No, because if you fully answered you would say "No, I don't believe in a god/gods, but I it is still possible they exist," <<< that is agnostic. Atheist is "THERE ARE NO GOD/GODS,"
THEGLASSOFMILK2 8 months ago
@THEGLASSOFMILK2 trying to reason with a closet agnostic? Or just exposing their madness?
IloveYOUviruses 8 months ago
@THEGLASSOFMILK2 Gnosticism and agnosticism is about knowledge, theism and atheism is about belief. Beliefs and knowledge are two different things.... with me so far? That's why I can say "I do not believe in god, but don't claim to know it for a fact", and call myself an agnostic atheist. This really shouldn't be this hard for you to understand, and I'm starting to suspect that you're just not willing to try and understand it
KamasutraButterfly 8 months ago
@KamasutraButterfly I know what you're trying to say; it makes sense when you say it...but it does not fit the definition of atheist or atheism. That is the problem...and because of this, you are an agnostic only.
THEGLASSOFMILK2 7 months ago
@KamasutraButterfly PS this is why Richard Dawkins himself has said he is actually agnostic, but he is "99.999999% sure that God does not exist" He explains that it is unscientific for one to be an atheist because you can never truly prove that something does not exist. Atheism makes the claim that god does not exist. But anyways, know that God DOES exist. God Bless
THEGLASSOFMILK2 8 months ago
@THEGLASSOFMILK2 Yes, and he also says the same thing about unicorns and santa claus, you're missing the point completely! He says it is unscientific to say with 100% certainty that there is no god, that does not mean the existence of god suddenly becomes more likely than before. You clearly have no idea what Dawkins meant, because you completely missed his point
KamasutraButterfly 8 months ago
@KamasutraButterfly Yes, he does...... we're talking about the definition of atheism...
THEGLASSOFMILK2 8 months ago
@KamasutraButterfly Exactly, atheism is a personal statement of disbelief, but for those who understand the fine-tunning in nature, the reality of objective moral values, etc, atheism poses an absurd statement of faith against the evidence.
IloveYOUviruses 8 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses First of all, atheism has nothing to do with all these things. But every attempt to prove all those things falls short anyway. You simply assert that nature is "finely tuned" (what would a non-finetuned universe look like by the way?), you assert that there is objective moral values etc. If you can't prove it you have no business in telling atheists that their position is "absurd"
KamasutraButterfly 8 months ago
@KamasutraButterfly Do I have to educate you? Infinitesimal changes in the gravitational constant, and it would be impossible to form stars in BigBang model, similarly, changes in the initial entropy of the universe, or in the rate of expansion would have rendered the bigbang model as an obvious fraud.
U can have your position of disbelief against a Creator but that's indefensible in a public debate. Meanwhile, nature seems to conspire to support arguments from design and objective morality.
IloveYOUviruses 8 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses LOL, I wonder who it is that needs an education.... I mean really, is this the best you got? How about a picture of god? How about god revealing himself to us all at the same time, THAT would be something! But no, you're best attempt at proving his existence seems to be: "if the constants of the universe were a little different we wouldn't exist"..... is that supposed to convince me of something? And aren't you going to acknowledge the point I made in my last comment at all?
KamasutraButterfly 8 months ago
@KamasutraButterfly Dude, you showed ignorance about the fine-tuning in nature. And that's not "supposed" to convince you, cuz you are free to believe ANYTHING but it shows that the atheistic chance-of-the-gaps position is absurd.
Should the public invoque multiverses by faith? Or should they say that it's a conspiracy of nature? either way, atheism remains with no evidence and against the evidence.
IloveYOUviruses 8 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses I don't take ANYTHING on faith, and neither should anyone else. I'm not showing ignorance about the "fine-tuning", it's you who fails to provide me with any evidence for that claim. You're basically saying "if the universe was a little different we would not be here".... that's not proof of anything! The universe isn't adapted for us, we have adapted to the universe. If you want to say that the universe was created with us in mind, please provide some evidence. LAST CHANCE!
KamasutraButterfly 8 months ago
@KamasutraButterfly This is sad, not only you display ignorance but stupidity...
"The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life." -S.Hawking
As I said, atheism remains with no evidence and against the evidence.
IloveYOUviruses 8 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses But it is strange that mr. Hawking is not a devout believer, ey? Have you ever wondered about why that is? Why is it that Hawking, a man you say knows about the "fine-tuning of the universe" does not, I repeat: DO NOT see the hand of god in it? What do you make of that information? Can you answer me why Hawking isn't a believing christian, if this fine tuning is so evident to him? And even if he was a believer that wouldn't make any difference, that is called appeal to athourity
KamasutraButterfly 8 months ago
@KamasutraButterfly So now you know the mind of Hawking?
I appeal to the FACTSmentioned by Hawking, Penrose, Hoyle, P.Davies, D.page...
You appeal to Hawking's position about God to justify yourself.
It seems that you are the one appealing to authority, showing once again that there are no good reasons to take the atheistic position, as this video already demonstrated.
IloveYOUviruses 8 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses But my whole point was that these facts do NOT point to a creator, you first have to provide som evidence for the claim that god created the universe. And I'm sorry, but you have convinced me of nothing. The only thing you've said so far is "the universe is 'fine-tuned', therefore a god created it". That's an assumption, backed up by NO evidence at all. You clearly don't know what appeal to athority is, you don't seem to know what atheism is about, and you missed the point again
KamasutraButterfly 8 months ago
@KamasutraButterfly ...well, objective morality is evident for most ppl who know the basic guide within us about right and wrong, you can reject such argument by saying that rape is not objectively wrong, and that given other conditions, it could have survival value and whatever, but it's up to you to deny objective morality and isolate yourself in the absurd atheistic niche.
IloveYOUviruses 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1universe even had a beginning,created i don't think so 2god to make the universe,he would have to be more complex 3 time and energy are forever(us universe 5god is apart of universe or he is not,if not just a delusion6can pick up any object and drop it,it will fall.if you re-played that forever,god is going to stop it 7god doing super natural things.god could make superman real 8all babies are atheist 9god came from nothing,made the whole universe,what would he made everything from himself!
IMINTHEMOMENTRU 8 months ago
William Lane Craig is good at what he does, he is good at screwing with peoples words and pulling things out of his ass that he knows nothing about.
treasuredroperX 8 months ago
@CallumTheDinosaur I never said we can't rule anything out, of course we can, we can rule out that the Earth is flat can't we? If you believe in something that automatically means you don't believe the opposite otherwise you could be an atheist and a theist at the same time.
philosophizer149 8 months ago
@CallumTheDinosaur No it means we can't rule out the possibility until we disprove it, we can't say God does not exist until we disprove it. And of course if something has the possibility to exist we can believe in its existence. For example many evolutionary biologists believe that life began on the backs of crystals but we have no evidence of this, nor have we disproved it.
philosophizer149 8 months ago
His premise is wrong: there is a cornucopia of evidence for atheism, he just doesn't want to accept it because the evidence would blow his fallacy ridden arguments out of the water.
ILiveForScience 8 months ago
@ILiveForScience I believe you should watch the entire discussion, the debater for atheism did not bring your "cornucopia of eviedence for atheism" to light and thus the statement of dr Craig is correct. Perhaps you can answer Kalams Cosmological argument, a very good argument for God. =) Then you can answer how someone can make a prediction in the Bible more than 2500 years ago that is true in every detail? (Daniel and Revelation). =)
Mekelsior 8 months ago
@Mekelsior a) If you arrange it in the correct order, you can make the Bible say whatever you like. A mathematician once applied a numerical code to the Bible and got "Mary Had a Little Lamb", which I'm fairly sure the writer/writers didn't intend. If you want to make the Bible say something to fit what you want to believe, you can. It's the same for many holy scriptures (such as the Qur'an).
ILiveForScience 8 months ago
@Mekelsior b) The Kalam Cosmological argument brings up two obvious questions. 1: If everything has a cause, then what caused God? 2: If you say "nothing caused God, he/she/it is eternal", then why can't the Universe be eternal as well as the oscillating universe theory suggests?
ILiveForScience 8 months ago
@ILiveForScience The Kalam Cosmological argument does not say everything has a cause, it states, everything that has a beginning has a cause. God doesn't have a beginning by definition, therefore He does not have a cause. Saying the universe is eternal is problematic because of what we know about the universe, it is changing in negative ways, it is eroding so to speak. This means that everything in the universe is finite, a universe composed of finite things cannot exist for eternity.
philosophizer149 8 months ago
@philosophizer149
Please site a single peer-reviewed study that demonstrates the universe is losing or gaining energy. This is the only way to support a claim that the universe is "eroding" and will someday "end", or to claim that it used to have less or no energy and thus had a "beginning".
Space expands and heat is lost, but space = energy too, so total system energy is not changing. The universe (as a system of energy) could therefore be eternal (just not perpetually in its current state).
Lowraith 8 months ago
lol this is ridiculous. what a bullshit artist.
csstacticslalala 8 months ago
Craig, you ignorant f*ck-*ss... There need be no evidence for a DEFAULT POSITION.
Atheists do not claim "God does not exist". We simply do not believe in God because there is insufficient evidence to support such an extraordinary claim "God does exist" (your position).
Atheism cannot be "true" or "false", since it is not a statement of claimed fact, simply the rejection of one.
Craig has to be one of the most intellectually dishonest apologists out there.
Lowraith 9 months ago
@Lowraith Unfortunately many atheists themselves don't seem to understand that, as evidenced (for example) by atheists "debating" craig on God's existence and reasons why atheism 'is true' (same thing.) I'm no big Craig fan, just saying. You can't sweepingly speak for all atheism anymore than a so called theist can speak for all of religion.
Craigs arguments are perfectly valid against some atheists, against others perhaps not.
ShawDAMAN 8 months ago
@Lowraith Excuse me but atheism is defined as: someone who denies the existence of god.
This means they say he does not exist, so if I were to say to you "God exists!" you would most likely reply "No he does not" because you are denying his existence. You are trying to confuse the position of atheists like most modern atheists do when they are presented with irrefutable logic that asserts his existence is more probable than improbable (which is in itself evidence as WLC asserts).
TruthSeekingOne 8 months ago
@TruthSeekingOne
Atheism - Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.
Disbelieve - Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of.
Deny - To contradict or gainsay (anything stated or alleged); to declare to be untrue or untenable, or not what it is stated to be.
Yeah, seems like it's the church that is attempting to confuse our position. Don't presume to try and tell me what my own position is, you hypocrite.
Lowraith 8 months ago
@TruthSeekingOne
And regarding your hypothetical:
Agnostic Atheist answer: "I do not believe in a God, but I don't claim there is none." (default)
Gnostic Atheist answer: "There is no God."
Agnostic Theist answer: "I believe in God, but I guess you can't KNOW til you meet Him."
Gnostic Theist answer: "God DOES exist."
I'm the 1st one (default position, nil claim). You are trying to paint all of us as the minority 2nd (negative position, claim of absence). Atheism = No Belief. Gnostic = I KNOW.
Lowraith 8 months ago
@Lowraith I would like to correct your definition of the agnostic theist, we believe God exist, we also believe we can be assured that God does exist, but we cannot prove that God does exist to any outsider, there is always room for doubt. The gnostic theist does as you say know God exist and believe that knowledge is enough to be saved. Statement number 1, the agnostic atheist is that based on faith,. =)
Mekelsior 8 months ago
@Mekelsior
Agnostic - Noun: A person who believes that nothing is known _or can be known_ of the existence or nature of God/anything beyond material phenomena. (The idea that KNOWLEDGE can't be obtained regarding a transcendent subject. Doesn't deal with BELIEF in the subject.)
Gnostic - Adjective: Of or relating to knowledge, esp. esoteric mystical knowledge. (Refers to the belief that knowledge is possible or already obtained.)
"we can be assured that God does exist"
Then you are not agnostic.
Lowraith 8 months ago
@Mekelsior
"Statement number 1, the agnostic atheist is that based on faith"
I fail to see how. Keep in mind that:
"I do not accept claim A" =/= "I believe claim A to be false"
"I do not believe in God" =/= "I believe there is no God"
-1 (There is no God) - - - 0 (I do not believe) - - - 1 (God is real)
Atheism is everything less-than AND equal-to 0 faith in God. 0 is the default position for any claim. Do not confuse the negative belief (a subset of atheism) as the full definition of atheism.
Lowraith 8 months ago
but in the case of there being no evidence of gold on pluto, we can test for gold on pluto whilst we cannot test to see if god is real. and also there being evil in the world is an absence for god's existence
chileychellew13 9 months ago
There is no empiricism in theistic evidence.
Just the faithful hope that you're right, creating the biased delusion that you're absolutely sure you are; as with followers of the thousands of other religions.
boeatsbrains 9 months ago
Unbelievable babbling!!!
This 'professor' is clutching at straws something chronic.
Atheeizm 9 months ago
There IS gold on Pluto!!
I know it! I'm sure of it, I feel it in my heart!
(It's probably written in the bible somewhere - if only we knew how to interpret it.)
StrumstickJoe 9 months ago
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but absence of evidence is the likeliness of it being false. It is a changeable thing depending if evidence is put forth, then when its proven we acknowledge the existence of it. We cannot say something is if there is no evidence, but we can say it is unlikely. There is no evidence for god, faeries, Santa clause, whatever, therefore, it is unlikely they exist, if we follow this man's logic, then maybe Santa Clause, unicorns, etc, exist.
ateopuertorico 9 months ago
@ateopuertorico Well-said!
StrumstickJoe 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ateopuertorico "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but absence of evidence is the likeliness of it being false."
That seems wrong to me.
Let's say there is a big box. Now, I tell you that there is a stone in the box. Let's further assume you haven't looked into the box. So, for you there is an absence of evidence. Does this simple fact make it likely that my statement is false? I don't think so, do you?
scabw 9 months ago
Comment removed
ateopuertorico 9 months ago
craig is brain-dead like his followers
Neueregel 9 months ago
@Neueregel Agreed!
StrumstickJoe 9 months ago
This idiot's fame is totally based on shifting the burden of proof and moving the goal post. How anyone can listen to him and think he is making sound rational arguments is beyond me.
jroyals26 9 months ago
Always great to hear W L Craig.
Bane of philosophically illiterate teenage atheist basement dwellers the world around.
JCrownwell 9 months ago
@JCrownwell Well thought-out trash.
StrumstickJoe 9 months ago
There is no evidence for gold on pluto, so thats enough reason to believe that there is gold on pluto. I love WLC reasoning
Landofjello 9 months ago