@emailpobox666 Ah yes, Atheism, the belief that there was absolutely nothing, and nothing magically exploded (for no reason), created everything, and everywhere. Then a bunch of the exploded everything magically rearranged itself, (for no reasons whatsoever) into self replicating bits, which then turned into Dinosaurs. ... Sorry dude, that car you drive does not create itself.
@athaskins Atheism the rejection of the claims that god exists. Christianity the belief that god gave birth to himself to sacrifice himself to himself to correct a rule he made himself
@emailpobox666 what is provable is dead men can't raise themselves in 3 days after being flogged, beaten mercilessly, spikes driven through your wrists and ankles, asphyxiation by Crucifixion, and having a spear stuck through your spleen. All the while naked in public pecked upon by flying insects. Yet historically, Yeshua Hamashia raised himself from the dead according to Roman History. No magic trick, no delusion, and witnessed by many, get over the lie's you tell yourself.
@athaskins Funny you think it delusional to base ones beliefs on logic and reason. Question why wasn't the STORY written at the time of it happening and why no mention of it except from biblical authors? Seems to me that if it happened that way it would have been written down immediately bit if it was just a story them time would be an asset to the story teller especially when others would dispute it
@athaskins "Then a bunch of the exploded everything magically rearranged itself," LOL Good one. You think that your god did it but for it to happen on it's own you can not fathom
@emailpobox666 so what do you do, sit around and look for ways to Troll? I'm not going to change your mind, delusional can't be fixed. I bet you believe in unicorns, santa claus, and fairies with butterfly wings too. What I can fathom is a mind behind the structure. There is nothing scientifically wrong with that claim. It is provable in a lab in every sense. Can you prove the evolution of an ear, eye, or any internal organ without knowledge of the necessary need? not possible.
I have to say that the panelists were not that great. The second guy had some interesting thoughts, but none of them were eloquent.
More importantly, the question asked to Craig at 1:35:25 was completely ducked. The force of the question is that our notion of cause-effect is an observed notion. The way he jumps the question into the realm of the metaphysical and the origin of "being" misses the question entirely. Cause and effect is not a transcendental law, or a rule of logic, it's matter.
More of the same, it would appear: ad hominem abuse and no substance of argument, indeed no attempt to do so. Any idiot can put "pseudo-" infront of somebody.
@Birdieupon It is not an ad hominem it is Craig"s own words that betray him. Well Craig's arguments are RECYCLED nonsense He has never come up with anything original . He went so far as to say any evidence against Christianity should be ignored in favor of Superstition. I'm glad he has an open mind LOL
@DrWhoDaMan WLC “If the claim that God caused the Big Bang cannot be analyzed in terms of extant definitions of causality, then God cannot have caused the Big Bang. I see no reason to think that this premise is true. In general, arguments to the effect that some intuitively intelligible notion can't be analyzed in terms of certain philosophical theories should make us suspect the adequacy of those theories rather than reject the common sense notion.
@DrWhoDaMan WLC Continued “The idea that God caused the universe is intuitively intelligible. A cause is, loosely speaking, something which produces something else and in terms of which the thing that is produced can be explained. This notion certainly applies to God's causing the universe. If God's causing the universe cannot be analyzed in terms of current philosophical definitions of causality, then so much the worse for those theories! Quentin Smith vs Craig 1996
I actually liked and thumbs-upped this vid of WLC even though I'm more or less atheist... but he argues semantics way too much...but in no way does he really show how the bible is right, only that Dawkins conclusions are flawed. And WLC best arguments actually support Deism and in no way really give any more credit to Christianity. I don't have anything against Deism as we simply don't know, but the use of a "God" concept to justify malicious acts in the bible does not make it any more moral.
If "a" god has a number of properties by definition then refuting this gods existence is a lot harder than disproving the existence of God, who is better defined. He has more properties than "a god" and successfully challenging any one of the full set of properties would refute the existence of God, leaving the possibility of "a god". This is usually what atheist aim for. Disproving the existance of God instead of disproving the existance of "a god".
a) upsetting christians seems shallow and empty as a goal but evidently satisfying for atheists
b) the attacks upon the extra set of properties defining God, as opposed to "a god", is usually guided by the atheist unfounded moral view and thus can not be successful, so that also seems shallow and empty, but satisfying to the average garden atheist.
The sadest thing is people of science who do not have a thorough grasp of logic (and at other times of statistics). If they are defeated on basic logic by WLC it means that we really have to go through their professional careers to check that they have not tried to draw conclusions in their own field, because doing that they would have been outside their competence.
@CJFCarlsson Hopefully these people "just" give up logic when it comes to deny the existence of God and start using it again in order to get their monthly pay-check.
1 Samuel 15:2-3, God commanded Saul and the Israelites, “This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'"
Animals???? God needed them to kill those evil animals?
@adrenacrumb No and neither are you, hopefully. The amalekites are mentioned in more places in the OT allways on the evil side. They, like all humans, could have prevented eradication by a simple "I surrender". Instead the choose treason and thieft. So they were removed by the israelites and if they made any mistakes God will fix it.
The norm for christians and the jews of that time was not to kill, even animals, as you may even know.
@CJFCarlsson Your mindset isn't even possible without being brainwashed into fundamentalism, what you are saying borders on lunacy even to most Christians.
@CJFCarlsson What are you even trying to accomplish here? You are the one who came and posted 10 comments about how atheists are so inferior, what have you given me to argue?
@adrenacrumb Do you agree then that killing babies and animals is wrong for a human and you wear leather shoes and think abortion is freedom? You have lots of things to answer.
@CJFCarlsson Why do you keep asking if I think killing babies is wrong, are you nuts? Atheist only means you don't believe in God so anything you say about the way atheists act is wrong at start.
@CJFCarlsson Atheists don't all act any certain way, a lack of belief in God dictates no certain moral actions, that does not obligate one to have any certain type of thought or behavior.
@adrenacrumb Well for one if you have no view on the killing of babies and animals then only the ad hominems remain. Thank you for a wonderful conversation and do come back if you feel less than satisfied with that.
@DaltonMunnal The point that your atheist "colleague" made is that he was unable to answer for any other atheists morals. It is a good point so you really should make an effort to look up what we were arguing for and against. It will make you look a lot better in the discussion.
How did he keep a straight face when he said if the Caananites fled none of them would have been killed? That takes a long time of study in the field of bullshit to say something that insanely retarded and have a look on your face as if that were actually a suitable answer.
When you analyse Craig's words you find they are just one long slick sequence of attempts at audience flattery, unjustified leaps of logic, inexact use of language, cherry-picked name dropping and strawmen. He's undoubtedly a clever man but not an honest one.
Is he really the best that theology can come up with? Sadly the answer is Yes
@Hewhobearschrist - certainly, look at my postings on .Debate - William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens - Does God Exist?.I'll look forward to your responces
I find Craig to be intellectually inferior in intellect in the sense that he uses arguments that are logically inconsistent and slips in assumptions that he does not admit to or justify.
Philosophy is radical questioning, but to really question – to push one’s questioning to the brink of the abyss – one must be an atheist, for faith gives answers too soon.Faith and philosophy are mortal enemies; in fact, ‘faith is so absolutely the mortal enemy that philosophy does not even begin to want in any way to do battle with it.’ ‘the philosopher does not believe’ – he cannot believe, because faith is in radical opposition to the very nature of philosophy as questioning. M Heidegger.
@shumble32 1) Craig usually only debates atheists with a Ph.D. However, he does make exceptions for atheists that are well known (i.e. Hitchens). Loftus is hardly known outside of his dumb website.
2) Loftus is a terrible debater. Just look at his debate with Dinesh D'souza. The man is so awful that it makes one giggle. lol
@BronyEditor - No, Loftus is a rising star and a fine debater with two degrees in theology - which is probably the real reason why Craig won't debate him - theologically Loftus knows where the bodies are buried.
It must be really embarrassing for Craig - not only is Loftus one of his ex students, he also puts into perspective all that 'empty chair' business that Craig used to try and discredit Dawkins.
@shumble32 Craig has never claimed to know the real reason why Dawkins won't debate him. However, Craig's fans, particularly Birdieupon, have pointed out the blatant inconsistencies and hypocrisy of Dawkins' reasons for not wanting to debate him. Even a fellow Atheist colleague at Oxford (Daniel Came) pointed out Dawkins' hypocrisy and cowardice for not debating Craig.
@BronyEditor - no he's never claimed that but he also hasn't had the moral courage to disown the 'cowardice' accusations of his fans or those that appear in the doctorcraigvideos channel - and his 'empty chair' ploy is also cashing in on that slur. Hypocrisy? oh yes!
Daniel Came's letter said that Dawkins' decision 'could be seen as cowardice' - not that it was cowardice. Even so, giving such weight to one opinion of one person is really clutching at straws
If Dawkins is right, then what does it matter that he didn't show up? Being a mere blob of matter whose only purpose is mechnical gene propagation, he could not possibly have had anything meaningful to say anyway.
Dawkins has claimed, “As for religion … nobody wields a sharper bayonet than Sam Harris.” Harris debated Craig on 7th April. In his opening statement in that debate, Harris declared that Dr Craig is “the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists.” After that debate, the atheist website Debunking Christianity reported: “Bill (Craig) has once again showed himself as the best debater of this generation.” ROFL LMFAO WOOT WOOT!!!
Is this really a 2-hour WLC fest? Those people were forced to listen to him for almost two hours without being provided a cyanide pill or nylon hanging rope?? And people complain about the US treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay...I think that the UN Investigatory group on human right's abuse should look into this....
Lane Craig is filled with such silliness. The mere fact that he believes the stories in that book over so many other myths frankly lowers his stature as any kind of philosopher. Why are people intimidated by his articulate manner. If I was incredibly well versed in Tolkien would that make Middle Earth real?
I'd love to know how WLC knows that the branes predicted in M-theory aren't eternal because no physicist would claim to know and yet he makes just that claim. Simply assuming that the big bang is the start of nature has been outdated for at least twenty years and even if it was he'd still have to demonstrate that the singularity was created.
@ketsan Yep and WLC clearly has never watched Roger Penrose's lecture "Before the bigbang". And yes Penrose is at Oxford and one of the leading figures in singularities in General Relativity. And he just asserts that cosmologists have no choice but to accept that there is a beginning. That's just flat out wrong. Cosmologists accept no such thing, in fact they contemplate a range of possibilities, many not compatible with WLC wishes to be the case.
I love the fact the dons are all bumbling scruff-bags who are ten times more off-the-cuff and articulate than smart and shiny William "one memorised speech for the last 20 years" Craig.
@USERNAMEfieldempty That is true, its been the same thing for 20 years. If there was a god, WLC would have been born with a fast forward button on his head to spare the rest of us the 99% of bullshit before he gets to his actual point, which oddly enough is just more fallacious bullshit...lol.
So Dawkins doesn't want to dignify that buffoon and the buffoon tries to paint him as a coward. Well use. It's a neat little propaganda stunt. Oxford incidentally lost some stature for allowing cheap stunts like that. Perhaps I should challenge Stephen Hawking to a debate about his latest book, demand that Oxford give me a platform and put an empty chair there and mock him if he doesn't show to dignify my demand. If Oxford agreed to that they'd be doing it wrong. And so they have here.
@socrates856 Who the fuck are you cocksucking cunt? sperrm dribbling from your cocksucing motherfucker..you appear to be another dawkins asslicking fucker LMFAO
@SwiftyMcVeigh100 What argument? His false assertion that cosmologists have no choice but to accept there is an origin, when Roger Penrose, one of the world theoretical experts on space-time singularities, and Oxford professor gives lectures on the possibilities of physics before the big bang? WLC's arguments have been refuted many times. That they are at this point dignified to warrant yet another response is not childish but silly.
@socrates856 I disagree with your argument that Penrose has argued solid proof against Criags philosophy. Craig uses agreed upon scientific and philisophical grounds to make claims, where as Penrose is denying said scientific grounds to establish an alternative possibility. If a Christian used Penrose's argument the scientific community would laugh, but since Penrose is establishing theory on a preconceived conclusion that is agreed on in science, hsi method is accepted despite ignoring science.
@Inverita1 WLC "If the claim that God caused the Big Bang cannot be analyzed in terms of extant definitions of causality, then God cannot have caused the Big Bang. I see no reason to think that this premise is true. In general, arguments to the effect that some intuitively intelligible notion can't be analyzed in terms of certain philosophical theories should make us suspect the adequacy of those theories rather than reject the common sense notion.
@Inverita1 WLC Continued "The idea that God caused the universe is intuitively intelligible. A cause is, loosely speaking, something which produces something else and in terms of which the thing that is produced can be explained. This notion certainly applies to God's causing the universe. If God's causing the universe cannot be analyzed in terms of current philosophical definitions of causality, then so much the worse for those theories!. Quentin Smith vs Craig 1996
@emailpobox666 See, But I believe that God causing the universe can be analyzed in terms of current philosophical definition of casualty. Furthermore, consider this from the atheistic philosopher Jean Paul Sarte ….said, "A finite point without an infinite reference point is meaningless and absurd." We need infinite to describe ifinite. It is the inevitable point of causign multiple conclusions. Craig uses well considered arguments to demonstrate how a God fufills this more than the multiverse.
@SwiftyMcVeigh100 You know that this is pretty ridiculous. Roger Penrose is one of the leading scientists in the area of singularities on general relativity and yes the big bang is one such singularity. And you take Craig's word, who just appeals to psychological analogies over him? No wonder he has an audience with incredulous idiots who don't know what competency on a subject means.
@socrates856 Science has nothing to do with proving or disproving Philosophical concepts. Craig shows the existence of god through Logic, and when youre ready to grow up and not commit adhominem attacks come find me
@SwiftyMcVeigh100 Any philosophical concept that doesn't relate to reality is not worth entertaining. So yes if someone argues the beginning of the universe that is a physical question, and especially if they appeal to the big bang as WLC does it is very much a physical question, so asking the experts on the big bang is relevant. And if WLC claims cosmologists have no choice but to accept, he is actually just misrepresenting.
@socrates856 Again, theres material cause and then theres efficient cause. Whatever the physical things were that caused the universe to happen, they had to come from somewhere.
@socrates856 Again, theres material cause and then theres efficient cause. Whatever the physical things were that caused the universe to happen, they had to come from somewhere.
@SwiftyMcVeigh100 And Hitchens also respected Dinesh DSouza. Mostly proves that Hitchens isn't infallible. I would take Hitchens expression of respect for his debate partners as a sign of polite courtesy, not as an intellectual endorsement btw, but it really doesn't make a difference.
@socrates856 Maybe you're right. But when Dawkins comes to the US to debate a Ted Haggard, I have to have a lot of blind faith and twist my common sense in order not to think that the snobbish professor was so scared of Craig that his instinct of self-preservation kicked in big time!
@florinmoc Biola university? Look. Dawkins has massive impact with his work. Selfish Gene alone has 13 thousand cites. Hawking goes at roughly 7k cites on his top publication. WLC? 223 on "The cosmological argument from Plato to Leibniz". My top citation count is 213 and I'm much younger than WLC. That puts me at a better ratio to Hawking than Craig to Dawkins! And I have published in the physical review, surely that means Hawking has to jump when I want a debate. Roll out the chair!
@socrates856 "Dawkins has massive impact with his work"
It's indeed impressive his impact on the choir, for preaching to the choir is what he does in The God Delusion. But when he comes to facing a worthy oponent, who can think on his feet, he cowers away lest he should lose face. How convenient! I guess this must be in line with his evolutionary views of 'survival of the fittest'. Sinc he knows he can't survive certain debates, he keeps away :o) Very consistent though....
@socrates856 You seem to confuse categories. The Selfish Gene deals with biology. The God Delusion deals with religion and philosophy. Dawkins has no qualification whatsoever when it comes these fields. Craig does!
More than that, Craig DOES NOT debate the theory of evolution; he debates the existence of God.
@florinmoc Hmm, I think you really should knock on theologians and philospher's shoulders more then, given that that they apparently don't cite Craig's work. Such is his intellectual power indeed.
@socrates856 It looks like you have carefully avoided to comment on the fact that Dawkins uses his platform as a biologist to comment on subjects such as theology and philosophy where he has no credentials whatsoever.
Whether someone is quoted or not is irrelevant: the best quoted theologians or philosophers might not be the best debaters.
Also, Dawkins has debated other Christians. Was that because they were cited more often? :o)
@florinmoc There is this bizarre idea out there that in order to talk about _reality_ a degree in divinity and apologetics means anything. And to call WLC a philosopher is an insult to actual philosophers. And yes it is obvious that Dawkins is much more fit to talk about reality than WLC.
@socrates856 I read Dawkins letter on why he refuses to debate Criag and I can sum up his argument in one word. Slander. Nowhere in Dawkins' rant on his resusal to debate does he point out any falicies in Craigs arguments. Instead Dawkins resorts to superficial name calling and attacking Craigs acceptnace of the old testiment God. He also defames Craig by making assertions that his credentials are not sufficient or worthy for debate. Wow. I cannot believe you defend this action as good or heroic
@Inverita1 Accepting the old testament god is definitely worth some ridicule. And that Craig's credentials are not that hot isn't all that radical a claim. I think it's wholely fair. Biola? Seriously? What you defend is people playing silly propaganda games by putting empty chairs out. I don't defend Dawkins, I critique and ridicule Craigs lame tactics trying to get attention.
@socrates856 I disagree. The OT God (whom I believe to be the same as the NT God) if existing, has a right and responsibility to perform actons outside our understanding. To say you do not like those actions is to limit the universe based on subjective moral values. As for "the stunt". I have seen Craig debate Hitchens, whom in my opinion is far more inteligent than Dawkins. I admit, the non-debate was appears to be a stunt, but I believe equally so on Dawkins side to gain support against WLC.
@Inverita1 The flying spaghetti monster if it exists too has rights and responsibilities to perform pasta outside our kitchens. To say you don't like actions that have never been demonstrated is to actually take responsibility for constructing good moral systems, not abnegate that to an invisible entity that doesn't exist. Perhaps it's time for us to grow up and do without a father figure telling us what is right or wrong and understand that we have structured society all along.
@socrates856 If the flying spaghetti monster did exist it would most definatly hold rights and responsibilities (weren't expecting that huh?!) but neither of us believe in him, nor is FSM a practical conclusion to creation. FMS . I disagree that society should be left to its own devices to determine what is moral by itself. By the evolutionary belief of survival of the fittest genocide, rape, murder, stealing, and anything else is okay so long as the purpetrator has the power to do it.
@Inverita1 No, but you might as well believe in the FSM and claim it's the source of your morality. And if the old pastasauce book tells you to kill all meatballs you can blindly do it and call THAT moral.. isn't objective morality cool. It allows us to do things under the guise of morality that are clearly immoral, rather than be responsible and think rather than follow.
@socrates856 Evolution doesn't describe a moral code but is used to develope it as an adaptive trait. However, using evolution as a background for cause of life, negates objective morality and promotes subjective morality based on self interest. You can deny God all you want by likening Him to absurd ideas/partial copies, but that doesn't negate if God exists. IF there is a God and He knows better and tells us to do something, it is reasonable to act outside our knowledge; like a child w/parent.
@Inverita1 Yes that god knows so much better that he commands genocide and stoning people who work on sunday. But more, we have improved moral codes not because of some bronze age myths, but because we recognize that we are better of if we recognize human rights, if we curb crimes and increase happiness and safety for everybody. Doesn't need evolution or a sky daddy. Just needs a midly functionin brain.
@socrates856 I do believe that God knows better. It stands to reason that man is not the ulitimate form of mind or conscience.
For examples: your rhetoric is demonstrative of your indoctorination into atheism.. typical terms used: FSM, bronze age myth and sky daddy. I'm surprised you didn't use terms like Santa, unicorns, elves, and invisible friend. I assume, you reason that chemicals piggybacked on a forming crystal to randomly place proteins in an exact order to cause a functioning cell.
@Inverita1 How can god know better if no such thing exists? And even if something existed how do you know that what you are told about that entity in any way resembles what it is, or why are there not thousands of it? Perhaps the apostles were martians who had a little fun. How could you tell the difference?
@socrates856 I have a real question for you. What would it take for you to recognize that a God exists? what evidence? Whould you believe it if He told you, or showed Himself to you or handed you books upon books of proof, or would you chalk all of that up to a halucinating experience and claim the books are too long to read? The reason the universe appears to be designed is because it is.. Sometimes its just that simple and rational. I know no thing that appears to be designed that wasn't...
@Inverita1 Which god? There are thousands of gods proposed. And the evidence is overwhelming that all these gods are man-made, i.e. invented or imagined to cope with hardships, solidify societal conduct, explain baffling experiences, alleviate the fear of dying etc etc. What would it take for you to actually look that this evidence? And how likely is it that a rhetorician from a 4th tier religious university understands the beginning of the universe?
@socrates856 Part 1: The thousands gods argument is easily broken down. in most polytheistic mythology there is a Creator (sometimes the universe sometimes a supreme God figure). then there are strong forces or "elder gods" (such as titans), then there are the lesser gods (zeus type with human characteristics). These lesser gods often mated with humans and created hybrids. These hybrids were usually very strong and heroes (such as Heculese). then there were people who interacted with the gods.
@Inverita1 It's broken down? I don't think so. First of many don't have creation myths. And those that do are not necessarily compatible. In fact it's not at all clear why the word "god" can unify all these inventions. And sure people claim to interact with gods, and with imaginary friends too.
@socrates856 Part 2: This formula is often repeated and can actually be seen in Christianity! YHWH (Creator)-> Archangels (elders), Angels (lesser gods), Nephelim (hybrids/heroes), humans. There is an inate process that is found, demonstrating there is a historical factor that caused these legends. Yet, The Bible demonstrates the most accurate representation of these legends. When closly examining one finds the Bible is near flawless. To be continued..
@socrates856 Yes, The Bible is a reliable source of historical evidence. Even if you absolutly will not believe the supernatural eliments, the historical events that occured have been proven through other historical accounts or archeology. It has also been unchanged over the nearly two thousand years since the dead sea scrolls were writen. I reccomend looking into Ken Boa's work for credibility and authentication of the Bible.
@Inverita1 I think you should actually start reading some Bart Ehrman at the very least. Sure apologists (like Ken Boa or WLC) will CLAIM it's reliable. But that just doesn't make it so. And of course muslims claim the Qur'an is authentic, the Sruti texts in Hinduism are authentic etc etc etc. But sure, your particular pet book is authentic, forget evidence.
@socrates856 Part 3: Then considering that Jesus was and is regarded as THE great teacher of philosophy, morality, and theology (in Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and atheists) and you begin to add the puzzle peices together. Jesus's credibility is beyond comprihension, and His testimony of what has happened and what will happen is only confirmed by what we continue to observe. I have no doubt that any claim made by Jesus is true, including who the Creator is and His role in the world
@Inverita1 Nah Jesus is considered the great teacher by christians. He is considered one of the lesser folks behind Muhammad by Muslims, he is denied by Judaism, and Buddhist and Hindus basically couldn't care less. Atheists who may appreciate some of his social positions (pacifism, anti-retribution, empathy) more than many of his religious followers. But that doesn't make Jesus THE great thinker for atheists at all. But Jesus also talked about swords and stuff if he ever talked.
@socrates856 YES, Islam considers Jesus the Messiah, they do not consider Him God. to say what you said about Buddhism and Hinduism shows you know little about their faiths, of which there are many paths and many great teachers (Jesus is among those approved) And many atheists do agree with Jesus's teachings but leave the supernatural eliment out. Yes, Jesus mentioned swords 2 times. 1 was in context of self defense, and the other in a parable about the comming judgment. It doesnt make Him wrong
@socrates856 Yes, Jesus did exist. Even Richard Dawkins has admitted this point as have many others. Watch this.. its short. I promise you once you realize all the slander about Jesus and even the denial of His existance is based on petty assumption you realize the agenda to hide the true teacher.
@Inverita1 Oh, I see. Bart Ehrman's work is slander... sure. As long as you can protect your "true teacher" fantasies from actual historical investigations...
@socrates856 Bart Ehrman is reknown for misquoting the bible. Just look into peer reviews of his work. See, Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus". You place more confidence in a man whose goal is to "debunk" christianity at all costs.. even by plainly making things up and asserting them as truth. Or at the very least read "A Response To Bart D. Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus" by Dr. Thomas Howe
Interesting claim. Can you provide evidence... I'm having a hard time finding anything on this. Conversly, I have discussed the Cosmological argument and it all boils down to one of two ideas. Can nothing produce something. Note: nothing has no potential and no properties, so it is less likely that nothing created something than for something to make something. Through more logical steps one can easily conclude that A God exists using scientific processes.
@Inverita1 WLC "If the claim that God caused the Big Bang cannot be analyzed in terms of extant definitions of causality, then God cannot have caused the Big Bang. I see no reason to think that this premise is true. In general, arguments to the effect that some intuitively intelligible notion can't be analyzed in terms of certain philosophical theories should make us suspect the adequacy of those theories rather than reject the common sense notion.
@Inverita1 WLC Continued "The idea that God caused the universe is intuitively intelligible. A cause is, loosely speaking, something which produces something else and in terms of which the thing that is produced can be explained. This notion certainly applies to God's causing the universe. If God's causing the universe cannot be analyzed in terms of current philosophical definitions of causality, then so much the worse for those theories!. Quentin Smith vs craig 1996
@Inverita1 You find it surprising that christian apologists try to discredit Ehrman? Timothy Paul Jones is no historian, and neither is Thomas Howe but sure as heck are they apologists. And certainly there are masses of believer who will take their word for it.
@socrates856 If you want to place your stake on the historicity of Jesus on one man who is discredited then I ask you at least consider the counter opinion by actual scholars.
bede DOT org DOT uk/price1 DOT htm
You need to understand that Jesus did exist. He said what He said, and it is regarded as inherant truth. I've yet to see anyone debunk or refute Jesus' teachings; so instead they say, Jesus never existed as a desperate attempt at giving a reason to ignore said teachings. Its shameful.
@Inverita1 I'm actually placing no stake at all in the historicity of Jesus. Even if Jesus is historic that still doesn't mean that what is said about him is accurate. Certainly I doubt that anyone turned water into wine or walked on water. It's much more plausible that he did ransack a temple to show them hypocrites who pray in public. His fans today have forgotten about that one... And I hope someone say that we should forgive even if it wasn't that dude.
@socrates856 Well this is were we differ. You dont think its relevant that a man came, taught, performed miracles, died, and came back to life and ascended. Instead you choose to disbelieve it all and throw the baby out with the bath water since you refuse to accept a supernatural eliment. Not everything is naturalistic. There are things beyond the physical world that are unexplainable phenomenons. I leave with this. You may not love Jesus, but He loves you. Seek and you will find. Good night:)
Excellent discussion by William Lane Craig, sad Dawkins was unable to attend.
athaskins 2 days ago
@athaskins Craig's arguments are utter nonsense
emailpobox666 1 day ago
@emailpobox666 Ah yes, Atheism, the belief that there was absolutely nothing, and nothing magically exploded (for no reason), created everything, and everywhere. Then a bunch of the exploded everything magically rearranged itself, (for no reasons whatsoever) into self replicating bits, which then turned into Dinosaurs. ... Sorry dude, that car you drive does not create itself.
athaskins 1 day ago
@athaskins Atheism the rejection of the claims that god exists. Christianity the belief that god gave birth to himself to sacrifice himself to himself to correct a rule he made himself
emailpobox666 1 day ago
@emailpobox666 what is provable is dead men can't raise themselves in 3 days after being flogged, beaten mercilessly, spikes driven through your wrists and ankles, asphyxiation by Crucifixion, and having a spear stuck through your spleen. All the while naked in public pecked upon by flying insects. Yet historically, Yeshua Hamashia raised himself from the dead according to Roman History. No magic trick, no delusion, and witnessed by many, get over the lie's you tell yourself.
athaskins 1 day ago
@athaskins Funny you think it delusional to base ones beliefs on logic and reason. Question why wasn't the STORY written at the time of it happening and why no mention of it except from biblical authors? Seems to me that if it happened that way it would have been written down immediately bit if it was just a story them time would be an asset to the story teller especially when others would dispute it
emailpobox666 1 day ago
@athaskins Another thing raising from the dead was not exactly an uncommon occurrence back then . It happened quite frequently
emailpobox666 1 day ago
@athaskins "Then a bunch of the exploded everything magically rearranged itself," LOL Good one. You think that your god did it but for it to happen on it's own you can not fathom
emailpobox666 1 day ago
@emailpobox666 so what do you do, sit around and look for ways to Troll? I'm not going to change your mind, delusional can't be fixed. I bet you believe in unicorns, santa claus, and fairies with butterfly wings too. What I can fathom is a mind behind the structure. There is nothing scientifically wrong with that claim. It is provable in a lab in every sense. Can you prove the evolution of an ear, eye, or any internal organ without knowledge of the necessary need? not possible.
athaskins 1 day ago
I have to say that the panelists were not that great. The second guy had some interesting thoughts, but none of them were eloquent.
More importantly, the question asked to Craig at 1:35:25 was completely ducked. The force of the question is that our notion of cause-effect is an observed notion. The way he jumps the question into the realm of the metaphysical and the origin of "being" misses the question entirely. Cause and effect is not a transcendental law, or a rule of logic, it's matter.
AR333 3 days ago
Haha Dawkins apostophe S book
RBMarkus 4 days ago
@Drumstoo
Hmmm... no arguments... just teenage swearing...
Yep, we have a Dawkins follower here!
DrWhoDaMan 4 days ago
@DrWhoDaMan Better Dawkins than that charlatan pseudo-philosopher Craig
emailpobox666 3 days ago
@emailpobox666
More of the same, it would appear: ad hominem abuse and no substance of argument, indeed no attempt to do so. Any idiot can put "pseudo-" infront of somebody.
Birdieupon 3 days ago
@Birdieupon It is not an ad hominem it is Craig"s own words that betray him. Well Craig's arguments are RECYCLED nonsense He has never come up with anything original . He went so far as to say any evidence against Christianity should be ignored in favor of Superstition. I'm glad he has an open mind LOL
emailpobox666 3 days ago
@emailpobox666
Dude, you've been asked to give specific examples, and you gave none.
But worse, ironically, while declaring you're not making an ad hominem, all you offer actually IS an ad hominem:
"He went so far as to say any evidence against Christianity should be ignored in favor of Superstition."
Even if that is true, it doesn't refute any of his arguments! So, yes, all you have is ad hom.
What a dumb little atheist you are, LOL.
DrWhoDaMan 3 days ago
@DrWhoDaMan Dude the ststement is a REFUTATION of the Cosmological Argument. Is this an ad hominem
emailpobox666 3 days ago
@DrWhoDaMan It doesn't attack the character of the speaker (craig) even though his character is in question
emailpobox666 3 days ago
@DrWhoDaMan WLC “If the claim that God caused the Big Bang cannot be analyzed in terms of extant definitions of causality, then God cannot have caused the Big Bang. I see no reason to think that this premise is true. In general, arguments to the effect that some intuitively intelligible notion can't be analyzed in terms of certain philosophical theories should make us suspect the adequacy of those theories rather than reject the common sense notion.
emailpobox666 3 days ago
@DrWhoDaMan WLC Continued “The idea that God caused the universe is intuitively intelligible. A cause is, loosely speaking, something which produces something else and in terms of which the thing that is produced can be explained. This notion certainly applies to God's causing the universe. If God's causing the universe cannot be analyzed in terms of current philosophical definitions of causality, then so much the worse for those theories! Quentin Smith vs Craig 1996
emailpobox666 3 days ago
@DrWhoDaMan Here you have a Refutation of the Cosmological argument all thanks to Dr William Lane Craig
emailpobox666 3 days ago
@DrWhoDaMan I'm dying to here your attempt to worm your way out of this one
emailpobox666 3 days ago
Comment removed
historypoliticsbb 4 days ago
This man is an aberration.
Drumstoo 5 days ago
I actually liked and thumbs-upped this vid of WLC even though I'm more or less atheist... but he argues semantics way too much...but in no way does he really show how the bible is right, only that Dawkins conclusions are flawed. And WLC best arguments actually support Deism and in no way really give any more credit to Christianity. I don't have anything against Deism as we simply don't know, but the use of a "God" concept to justify malicious acts in the bible does not make it any more moral.
MarsStarcruiser 5 days ago
If "a" god has a number of properties by definition then refuting this gods existence is a lot harder than disproving the existence of God, who is better defined. He has more properties than "a god" and successfully challenging any one of the full set of properties would refute the existence of God, leaving the possibility of "a god". This is usually what atheist aim for. Disproving the existance of God instead of disproving the existance of "a god".
CJFCarlsson 1 week ago
@CJFCarlsson To which should be added
a) upsetting christians seems shallow and empty as a goal but evidently satisfying for atheists
b) the attacks upon the extra set of properties defining God, as opposed to "a god", is usually guided by the atheist unfounded moral view and thus can not be successful, so that also seems shallow and empty, but satisfying to the average garden atheist.
CJFCarlsson 1 week ago
The sadest thing is people of science who do not have a thorough grasp of logic (and at other times of statistics). If they are defeated on basic logic by WLC it means that we really have to go through their professional careers to check that they have not tried to draw conclusions in their own field, because doing that they would have been outside their competence.
CJFCarlsson 1 week ago
@CJFCarlsson Hopefully these people "just" give up logic when it comes to deny the existence of God and start using it again in order to get their monthly pay-check.
CJFCarlsson 1 week ago
1 Samuel 15:2-3, God commanded Saul and the Israelites, “This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'"
Animals???? God needed them to kill those evil animals?
adrenacrumb 2 weeks ago
@adrenacrumb Have you heard of surgeons removing halfacancer and it ends well?
CJFCarlsson 1 week ago
@CJFCarlsson Are you saying livestock is cancer?
adrenacrumb 1 week ago
@adrenacrumb No and neither are you, hopefully. The amalekites are mentioned in more places in the OT allways on the evil side. They, like all humans, could have prevented eradication by a simple "I surrender". Instead the choose treason and thieft. So they were removed by the israelites and if they made any mistakes God will fix it.
The norm for christians and the jews of that time was not to kill, even animals, as you may even know.
CJFCarlsson 1 week ago
@CJFCarlsson In your religion infants and livestock are cancer. Sanity seems pretty intact.
adrenacrumb 1 week ago
@adrenacrumb Oh give it up. Atheists kill babies and animals all the time for convenience.
CJFCarlsson 1 week ago
@CJFCarlsson I really hope you are just a troll.
adrenacrumb 1 week ago
@adrenacrumb Because then you can ignore the significant difference between God, who can repair wrongs and your own insignificant morals?
CJFCarlsson 1 week ago
@CJFCarlsson Because if you are serious you drank way too much of the kool-aid and need to start regurgitating it promptly.
adrenacrumb 1 week ago
@CJFCarlsson Your mindset isn't even possible without being brainwashed into fundamentalism, what you are saying borders on lunacy even to most Christians.
adrenacrumb 1 week ago
@adrenacrumb Ad hominems from an atheist is what I expect. Stick to the subject or just go away.
CJFCarlsson 1 week ago
@CJFCarlsson What are you even trying to accomplish here? You are the one who came and posted 10 comments about how atheists are so inferior, what have you given me to argue?
adrenacrumb 1 week ago
@adrenacrumb Do you agree then that killing babies and animals is wrong for a human and you wear leather shoes and think abortion is freedom? You have lots of things to answer.
CJFCarlsson 1 week ago
@CJFCarlsson Why do you keep asking if I think killing babies is wrong, are you nuts? Atheist only means you don't believe in God so anything you say about the way atheists act is wrong at start.
adrenacrumb 1 week ago
@CJFCarlsson Atheists don't all act any certain way, a lack of belief in God dictates no certain moral actions, that does not obligate one to have any certain type of thought or behavior.
adrenacrumb 1 week ago
@adrenacrumb Well for one if you have no view on the killing of babies and animals then only the ad hominems remain. Thank you for a wonderful conversation and do come back if you feel less than satisfied with that.
CJFCarlsson 1 week ago
@CJFCarlsson Well I think slaughtering every animal you see is pointless if nothing else.
adrenacrumb 1 week ago
@CJFCarlsson I don't know what you're arguing about, but I'm any atheist, and I don't do either of those things
DaltonMunnal 5 days ago
@DaltonMunnal The point that your atheist "colleague" made is that he was unable to answer for any other atheists morals. It is a good point so you really should make an effort to look up what we were arguing for and against. It will make you look a lot better in the discussion.
CJFCarlsson 5 days ago
How did he keep a straight face when he said if the Caananites fled none of them would have been killed? That takes a long time of study in the field of bullshit to say something that insanely retarded and have a look on your face as if that were actually a suitable answer.
adrenacrumb 2 weeks ago
When you analyse Craig's words you find they are just one long slick sequence of attempts at audience flattery, unjustified leaps of logic, inexact use of language, cherry-picked name dropping and strawmen. He's undoubtedly a clever man but not an honest one.
Is he really the best that theology can come up with? Sadly the answer is Yes
shumble32 2 weeks ago 2
@shumble32 Agreed 100%
Mindaugas7100 2 weeks ago
@shumble32 Then give us specific examples of what you postulate, ill listen to what you have to say. I want specific examples though, thanks.
Hewhobearschrist 2 weeks ago
@Hewhobearschrist - certainly, look at my postings on .Debate - William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens - Does God Exist?.I'll look forward to your responces
shumble32 2 weeks ago
I find Craig to be intellectually inferior in intellect in the sense that he uses arguments that are logically inconsistent and slips in assumptions that he does not admit to or justify.
jagara1 2 weeks ago
@jagara1 that´s because you´re dumb.
MrNandomoura101 2 weeks ago
@MrNandomoura101 Thank you, thank you, thank you!
How can I thank you enough for helping me solve something that was puzzling me for so long?
And you have answered me with so much wisdom.
Thank you again!
jagara1 2 weeks ago
@jagara1 lol! Feel the pwnage!
NotForHire42 2 weeks ago
Yet again Craig endorses genocide. Sickening.
Ozzyman200 3 weeks ago
Philosophy is radical questioning, but to really question – to push one’s questioning to the brink of the abyss – one must be an atheist, for faith gives answers too soon.Faith and philosophy are mortal enemies; in fact, ‘faith is so absolutely the mortal enemy that philosophy does not even begin to want in any way to do battle with it.’ ‘the philosopher does not believe’ – he cannot believe, because faith is in radical opposition to the very nature of philosophy as questioning. M Heidegger.
Aguijon1982 3 weeks ago
Ironically,
1. Craig has refused to debate Loftus
2. and DrCraigVideos refused to debate me
I guess both Loftus and I will keep an empty chair open for them
shumble32 3 weeks ago
@shumble32 1) Craig usually only debates atheists with a Ph.D. However, he does make exceptions for atheists that are well known (i.e. Hitchens). Loftus is hardly known outside of his dumb website.
2) Loftus is a terrible debater. Just look at his debate with Dinesh D'souza. The man is so awful that it makes one giggle. lol
BronyEditor 2 weeks ago
@BronyEditor - No, Loftus is a rising star and a fine debater with two degrees in theology - which is probably the real reason why Craig won't debate him - theologically Loftus knows where the bodies are buried.
It must be really embarrassing for Craig - not only is Loftus one of his ex students, he also puts into perspective all that 'empty chair' business that Craig used to try and discredit Dawkins.
shumble32 2 weeks ago
@shumble32 //No, Loftus is a rising star//
LOL
//and a fine debater//
LMAO
//which is probably the real reason why Craig won't debate him//
I find it funny that critics of Craig think they know the man's personal thoughts better than he does. X-D
BronyEditor 2 weeks ago
@BronyEditor - mm, do you also think it's funny that critics of Dawkins think that they know his personal thoughts better than he does?
shumble32 2 weeks ago
@shumble32 Craig has never claimed to know the real reason why Dawkins won't debate him. However, Craig's fans, particularly Birdieupon, have pointed out the blatant inconsistencies and hypocrisy of Dawkins' reasons for not wanting to debate him. Even a fellow Atheist colleague at Oxford (Daniel Came) pointed out Dawkins' hypocrisy and cowardice for not debating Craig.
BronyEditor 2 weeks ago
@BronyEditor - no he's never claimed that but he also hasn't had the moral courage to disown the 'cowardice' accusations of his fans or those that appear in the doctorcraigvideos channel - and his 'empty chair' ploy is also cashing in on that slur. Hypocrisy? oh yes!
Daniel Came's letter said that Dawkins' decision 'could be seen as cowardice' - not that it was cowardice. Even so, giving such weight to one opinion of one person is really clutching at straws
shumble32 2 weeks ago
@BronyEditor - I feel that it's futile for a theologian to debate a scientist - they really don't speak the same language.
But a debate between a theologian and an ex-theologian could be really interesting
shumble32 2 weeks ago
To atheists: Try these words from the wonderful Mr. Willy Wonka!
"Oh, you should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about."
"Fax mentis incendium gloria cultum," et cetera, et cetera... "Memo bis punitor delicatum"! It's all there, black and white, clear as crystal! ...."
"And Charlie: don't forget what happened to the man who suddenly got everything he'd ever wished for. He lived happily ever after."
Try not to smile after that!
Inverita1 4 weeks ago
WLC has the advantage of self authenticating knowledge
watch?v=0pJfNR24k8U&feature=g-all-f&context=G29dcb1aFAAAAAAAANAA
bernzeppi 4 weeks ago
If Dawkins is right, then what does it matter that he didn't show up? Being a mere blob of matter whose only purpose is mechnical gene propagation, he could not possibly have had anything meaningful to say anyway.
tamething1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dawkins has claimed, “As for religion … nobody wields a sharper bayonet than Sam Harris.” Harris debated Craig on 7th April. In his opening statement in that debate, Harris declared that Dr Craig is “the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists.” After that debate, the atheist website Debunking Christianity reported: “Bill (Craig) has once again showed himself as the best debater of this generation.” ROFL LMFAO WOOT WOOT!!!
DawkinsDebunked 1 month ago
Comment removed
DawkinsDebunked 1 month ago
Comment removed
DawkinsDebunked 1 month ago
A methodical, academic response to William Lane Craig: "Are Christians Delusional?" Richard Carrier Skepticon 3 (watch?v=28PjVaW4kKI)
0gods 1 month ago
Can't believe Dawkins copped shit for turning down that idiot.
Parabol0086 1 month ago
This guy is some powerful stupid! o0
1980albatros 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1980albatros speaking about yourself as usual LMFAO
DawkinsDebunked 1 month ago
Comment removed
DawkinsDebunked 1 month ago
Is this really a 2-hour WLC fest? Those people were forced to listen to him for almost two hours without being provided a cyanide pill or nylon hanging rope?? And people complain about the US treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay...I think that the UN Investigatory group on human right's abuse should look into this....
1n354a 1 month ago
2 hours of gum flapping, and still not a single ounce of proof.
The fact that people feel the need to "argue" the existence of any entity known as god, is iron clad, empirical proof that no deity exists.
AvatarOfAvatar 1 month ago
Comment removed
DawkinsDebunked 1 month ago
Comment removed
DawkinsDebunked 1 month ago
Lane Craig is filled with such silliness. The mere fact that he believes the stories in that book over so many other myths frankly lowers his stature as any kind of philosopher. Why are people intimidated by his articulate manner. If I was incredibly well versed in Tolkien would that make Middle Earth real?
Atheeizm 1 month ago
I'd love to know how WLC knows that the branes predicted in M-theory aren't eternal because no physicist would claim to know and yet he makes just that claim. Simply assuming that the big bang is the start of nature has been outdated for at least twenty years and even if it was he'd still have to demonstrate that the singularity was created.
ketsan 1 month ago
@ketsan Yep and WLC clearly has never watched Roger Penrose's lecture "Before the bigbang". And yes Penrose is at Oxford and one of the leading figures in singularities in General Relativity. And he just asserts that cosmologists have no choice but to accept that there is a beginning. That's just flat out wrong. Cosmologists accept no such thing, in fact they contemplate a range of possibilities, many not compatible with WLC wishes to be the case.
socrates856 1 month ago
I love the fact the dons are all bumbling scruff-bags who are ten times more off-the-cuff and articulate than smart and shiny William "one memorised speech for the last 20 years" Craig.
USERNAMEfieldempty 1 month ago
@USERNAMEfieldempty That is true, its been the same thing for 20 years. If there was a god, WLC would have been born with a fast forward button on his head to spare the rest of us the 99% of bullshit before he gets to his actual point, which oddly enough is just more fallacious bullshit...lol.
123backinyerface 1 month ago 2
Two HOURS of William Lane Craig???? Oh... the humanity.
USERNAMEfieldempty 1 month ago
Comment removed
DawkinsDebunked 1 month ago
Comment removed
DawkinsDebunked 1 month ago
Comment removed
DawkinsDebunked 1 month ago
Comment removed
DawkinsDebunked 1 month ago
So Dawkins doesn't want to dignify that buffoon and the buffoon tries to paint him as a coward. Well use. It's a neat little propaganda stunt. Oxford incidentally lost some stature for allowing cheap stunts like that. Perhaps I should challenge Stephen Hawking to a debate about his latest book, demand that Oxford give me a platform and put an empty chair there and mock him if he doesn't show to dignify my demand. If Oxford agreed to that they'd be doing it wrong. And so they have here.
socrates856 1 month ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
@socrates856 Who the fuck are you cocksucking cunt? sperrm dribbling from your cocksucing motherfucker..you appear to be another dawkins asslicking fucker LMFAO
DawkinsDebunked 1 month ago
@DawkinsDebunked Love it. I want more people like you on Craig's side. Thank you thank you thank you!!
Atheeizm 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Atheeizm there are too many who like to suck dawkins cock and lick his dirty asshole..I'm here to right the balance LMFAO
DawkinsDebunked 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DawkinsDebunked ...in the name of science of course LMFAO
DawkinsDebunked 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@socrates856 slurp slurp..those cocks tasting nice motherfucker???
DawkinsDebunked 1 month ago
@socrates856 Perfect analogy...lol.
123backinyerface 1 month ago
@socrates856
Address Dr. Craigs arguments and try to refute them instead of getting into name calling like a little child
SwiftyMcVeigh100 1 month ago
@SwiftyMcVeigh100 What argument? His false assertion that cosmologists have no choice but to accept there is an origin, when Roger Penrose, one of the world theoretical experts on space-time singularities, and Oxford professor gives lectures on the possibilities of physics before the big bang? WLC's arguments have been refuted many times. That they are at this point dignified to warrant yet another response is not childish but silly.
socrates856 1 month ago
@socrates856 I disagree with your argument that Penrose has argued solid proof against Criags philosophy. Craig uses agreed upon scientific and philisophical grounds to make claims, where as Penrose is denying said scientific grounds to establish an alternative possibility. If a Christian used Penrose's argument the scientific community would laugh, but since Penrose is establishing theory on a preconceived conclusion that is agreed on in science, hsi method is accepted despite ignoring science.
Inverita1 4 weeks ago
@Inverita1 Sorry to burst your bubble but Craig admitted that the Cosmological argument is incoherent and yet he still uses it
emailpobox666 4 weeks ago
@Inverita1 WLC "If the claim that God caused the Big Bang cannot be analyzed in terms of extant definitions of causality, then God cannot have caused the Big Bang. I see no reason to think that this premise is true. In general, arguments to the effect that some intuitively intelligible notion can't be analyzed in terms of certain philosophical theories should make us suspect the adequacy of those theories rather than reject the common sense notion.
emailpobox666 4 weeks ago
@Inverita1 WLC Continued "The idea that God caused the universe is intuitively intelligible. A cause is, loosely speaking, something which produces something else and in terms of which the thing that is produced can be explained. This notion certainly applies to God's causing the universe. If God's causing the universe cannot be analyzed in terms of current philosophical definitions of causality, then so much the worse for those theories!. Quentin Smith vs Craig 1996
emailpobox666 4 weeks ago
@emailpobox666 See, But I believe that God causing the universe can be analyzed in terms of current philosophical definition of casualty. Furthermore, consider this from the atheistic philosopher Jean Paul Sarte ….said, "A finite point without an infinite reference point is meaningless and absurd." We need infinite to describe ifinite. It is the inevitable point of causign multiple conclusions. Craig uses well considered arguments to demonstrate how a God fufills this more than the multiverse.
Inverita1 4 weeks ago
@Inverita1 What defination are you using for causality? And what source are yuou using for that defination?If you have no answer your outta luck
emailpobox666 4 weeks ago
@socrates856
Whatever Penrose says about the material cause of the universe is a red herring, Craig is saying there had to be an efficient cause
SwiftyMcVeigh100 4 weeks ago
@SwiftyMcVeigh100 You know that this is pretty ridiculous. Roger Penrose is one of the leading scientists in the area of singularities on general relativity and yes the big bang is one such singularity. And you take Craig's word, who just appeals to psychological analogies over him? No wonder he has an audience with incredulous idiots who don't know what competency on a subject means.
socrates856 4 weeks ago
@socrates856 Science has nothing to do with proving or disproving Philosophical concepts. Craig shows the existence of god through Logic, and when youre ready to grow up and not commit adhominem attacks come find me
SwiftyMcVeigh100 4 weeks ago
@SwiftyMcVeigh100 Any philosophical concept that doesn't relate to reality is not worth entertaining. So yes if someone argues the beginning of the universe that is a physical question, and especially if they appeal to the big bang as WLC does it is very much a physical question, so asking the experts on the big bang is relevant. And if WLC claims cosmologists have no choice but to accept, he is actually just misrepresenting.
socrates856 4 weeks ago
@socrates856 Again, theres material cause and then theres efficient cause. Whatever the physical things were that caused the universe to happen, they had to come from somewhere.
SwiftyMcVeigh100 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@socrates856 Again, theres material cause and then theres efficient cause. Whatever the physical things were that caused the universe to happen, they had to come from somewhere.
SwiftyMcVeigh100 4 weeks ago
@socrates856
And Dr. Craig is a well respected philosopher even Christopher Hitchens had a lot of respect for him
SwiftyMcVeigh100 1 month ago
@SwiftyMcVeigh100 And Hitchens also respected Dinesh DSouza. Mostly proves that Hitchens isn't infallible. I would take Hitchens expression of respect for his debate partners as a sign of polite courtesy, not as an intellectual endorsement btw, but it really doesn't make a difference.
socrates856 1 month ago
@socrates856 if dawkins would rather debate creationists and fundies, sure... that's perfectly "dignified"
lovellespice 1 month ago
@lovellespice If you want to construct an irrelevant hypothetical, how about you either make it funny or at least minimally insightful?
socrates856 1 month ago
@socrates856 Maybe you're right. But when Dawkins comes to the US to debate a Ted Haggard, I have to have a lot of blind faith and twist my common sense in order not to think that the snobbish professor was so scared of Craig that his instinct of self-preservation kicked in big time!
netokor 4 weeks ago in playlist Catholic
@netokor Since when does interviewing someone for a documentary constitute a debate?
socrates856 4 weeks ago
@socrates856 I don't know your credentials are in order to challenge Hawking. You may waste his time.
I know Lane Craig's credentials though (PhD in theology and PhD in philosophy), and I dont' think it would have been a waste of Mr. Dawkins time....
florinmoc 4 weeks ago
@florinmoc Biola university? Look. Dawkins has massive impact with his work. Selfish Gene alone has 13 thousand cites. Hawking goes at roughly 7k cites on his top publication. WLC? 223 on "The cosmological argument from Plato to Leibniz". My top citation count is 213 and I'm much younger than WLC. That puts me at a better ratio to Hawking than Craig to Dawkins! And I have published in the physical review, surely that means Hawking has to jump when I want a debate. Roll out the chair!
socrates856 4 weeks ago
@socrates856 "Dawkins has massive impact with his work"
It's indeed impressive his impact on the choir, for preaching to the choir is what he does in The God Delusion. But when he comes to facing a worthy oponent, who can think on his feet, he cowers away lest he should lose face. How convenient! I guess this must be in line with his evolutionary views of 'survival of the fittest'. Sinc he knows he can't survive certain debates, he keeps away :o) Very consistent though....
florinmoc 4 weeks ago
@florinmoc The citation count on The Selfish Gene was high long before Dawkins ever wrote The God Delusion.
socrates856 4 weeks ago
@socrates856 You seem to confuse categories. The Selfish Gene deals with biology. The God Delusion deals with religion and philosophy. Dawkins has no qualification whatsoever when it comes these fields. Craig does!
More than that, Craig DOES NOT debate the theory of evolution; he debates the existence of God.
florinmoc 4 weeks ago
@florinmoc Hmm, I think you really should knock on theologians and philospher's shoulders more then, given that that they apparently don't cite Craig's work. Such is his intellectual power indeed.
socrates856 4 weeks ago
@socrates856 It looks like you have carefully avoided to comment on the fact that Dawkins uses his platform as a biologist to comment on subjects such as theology and philosophy where he has no credentials whatsoever.
Whether someone is quoted or not is irrelevant: the best quoted theologians or philosophers might not be the best debaters.
Also, Dawkins has debated other Christians. Was that because they were cited more often? :o)
florinmoc 4 weeks ago
@florinmoc There is this bizarre idea out there that in order to talk about _reality_ a degree in divinity and apologetics means anything. And to call WLC a philosopher is an insult to actual philosophers. And yes it is obvious that Dawkins is much more fit to talk about reality than WLC.
socrates856 4 weeks ago
@florinmoc Reality is that WLC is an extreme light-weight academically. He has no impact except in christian apologetic circles, for obvious reasons.
socrates856 4 weeks ago
@socrates856 I read Dawkins letter on why he refuses to debate Criag and I can sum up his argument in one word. Slander. Nowhere in Dawkins' rant on his resusal to debate does he point out any falicies in Craigs arguments. Instead Dawkins resorts to superficial name calling and attacking Craigs acceptnace of the old testiment God. He also defames Craig by making assertions that his credentials are not sufficient or worthy for debate. Wow. I cannot believe you defend this action as good or heroic
Inverita1 4 weeks ago
@Inverita1 Accepting the old testament god is definitely worth some ridicule. And that Craig's credentials are not that hot isn't all that radical a claim. I think it's wholely fair. Biola? Seriously? What you defend is people playing silly propaganda games by putting empty chairs out. I don't defend Dawkins, I critique and ridicule Craigs lame tactics trying to get attention.
socrates856 4 weeks ago
@socrates856 I disagree. The OT God (whom I believe to be the same as the NT God) if existing, has a right and responsibility to perform actons outside our understanding. To say you do not like those actions is to limit the universe based on subjective moral values. As for "the stunt". I have seen Craig debate Hitchens, whom in my opinion is far more inteligent than Dawkins. I admit, the non-debate was appears to be a stunt, but I believe equally so on Dawkins side to gain support against WLC.
Inverita1 4 weeks ago
@Inverita1 The flying spaghetti monster if it exists too has rights and responsibilities to perform pasta outside our kitchens. To say you don't like actions that have never been demonstrated is to actually take responsibility for constructing good moral systems, not abnegate that to an invisible entity that doesn't exist. Perhaps it's time for us to grow up and do without a father figure telling us what is right or wrong and understand that we have structured society all along.
socrates856 4 weeks ago
@socrates856 If the flying spaghetti monster did exist it would most definatly hold rights and responsibilities (weren't expecting that huh?!) but neither of us believe in him, nor is FSM a practical conclusion to creation. FMS . I disagree that society should be left to its own devices to determine what is moral by itself. By the evolutionary belief of survival of the fittest genocide, rape, murder, stealing, and anything else is okay so long as the purpetrator has the power to do it.
Inverita1 4 weeks ago
@Inverita1 No, but you might as well believe in the FSM and claim it's the source of your morality. And if the old pastasauce book tells you to kill all meatballs you can blindly do it and call THAT moral.. isn't objective morality cool. It allows us to do things under the guise of morality that are clearly immoral, rather than be responsible and think rather than follow.
Btw, Evolution doesn't describe a moral code.
socrates856 4 weeks ago
@socrates856 Evolution doesn't describe a moral code but is used to develope it as an adaptive trait. However, using evolution as a background for cause of life, negates objective morality and promotes subjective morality based on self interest. You can deny God all you want by likening Him to absurd ideas/partial copies, but that doesn't negate if God exists. IF there is a God and He knows better and tells us to do something, it is reasonable to act outside our knowledge; like a child w/parent.
Inverita1 4 weeks ago
@Inverita1 Yes that god knows so much better that he commands genocide and stoning people who work on sunday. But more, we have improved moral codes not because of some bronze age myths, but because we recognize that we are better of if we recognize human rights, if we curb crimes and increase happiness and safety for everybody. Doesn't need evolution or a sky daddy. Just needs a midly functionin brain.
socrates856 4 weeks ago
@socrates856 I do believe that God knows better. It stands to reason that man is not the ulitimate form of mind or conscience.
For examples: your rhetoric is demonstrative of your indoctorination into atheism.. typical terms used: FSM, bronze age myth and sky daddy. I'm surprised you didn't use terms like Santa, unicorns, elves, and invisible friend. I assume, you reason that chemicals piggybacked on a forming crystal to randomly place proteins in an exact order to cause a functioning cell.
Inverita1 4 weeks ago
@Inverita1 How can god know better if no such thing exists? And even if something existed how do you know that what you are told about that entity in any way resembles what it is, or why are there not thousands of it? Perhaps the apostles were martians who had a little fun. How could you tell the difference?
socrates856 4 weeks ago
@socrates856 I have a real question for you. What would it take for you to recognize that a God exists? what evidence? Whould you believe it if He told you, or showed Himself to you or handed you books upon books of proof, or would you chalk all of that up to a halucinating experience and claim the books are too long to read? The reason the universe appears to be designed is because it is.. Sometimes its just that simple and rational. I know no thing that appears to be designed that wasn't...
Inverita1 4 weeks ago
@Inverita1 Which god? There are thousands of gods proposed. And the evidence is overwhelming that all these gods are man-made, i.e. invented or imagined to cope with hardships, solidify societal conduct, explain baffling experiences, alleviate the fear of dying etc etc. What would it take for you to actually look that this evidence? And how likely is it that a rhetorician from a 4th tier religious university understands the beginning of the universe?
socrates856 4 weeks ago
@socrates856 Part 1: The thousands gods argument is easily broken down. in most polytheistic mythology there is a Creator (sometimes the universe sometimes a supreme God figure). then there are strong forces or "elder gods" (such as titans), then there are the lesser gods (zeus type with human characteristics). These lesser gods often mated with humans and created hybrids. These hybrids were usually very strong and heroes (such as Heculese). then there were people who interacted with the gods.
Inverita1 4 weeks ago
@Inverita1 It's broken down? I don't think so. First of many don't have creation myths. And those that do are not necessarily compatible. In fact it's not at all clear why the word "god" can unify all these inventions. And sure people claim to interact with gods, and with imaginary friends too.
socrates856 4 weeks ago
@socrates856 Part 2: This formula is often repeated and can actually be seen in Christianity! YHWH (Creator)-> Archangels (elders), Angels (lesser gods), Nephelim (hybrids/heroes), humans. There is an inate process that is found, demonstrating there is a historical factor that caused these legends. Yet, The Bible demonstrates the most accurate representation of these legends. When closly examining one finds the Bible is near flawless. To be continued..
Inverita1 4 weeks ago
@Inverita1 The bible is near flawless? Oh boy.
socrates856 4 weeks ago
@socrates856 Yes, The Bible is a reliable source of historical evidence. Even if you absolutly will not believe the supernatural eliments, the historical events that occured have been proven through other historical accounts or archeology. It has also been unchanged over the nearly two thousand years since the dead sea scrolls were writen. I reccomend looking into Ken Boa's work for credibility and authentication of the Bible.
Inverita1 4 weeks ago
@Inverita1 I think you should actually start reading some Bart Ehrman at the very least. Sure apologists (like Ken Boa or WLC) will CLAIM it's reliable. But that just doesn't make it so. And of course muslims claim the Qur'an is authentic, the Sruti texts in Hinduism are authentic etc etc etc. But sure, your particular pet book is authentic, forget evidence.
socrates856 4 weeks ago
@socrates856 Part 3: Then considering that Jesus was and is regarded as THE great teacher of philosophy, morality, and theology (in Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and atheists) and you begin to add the puzzle peices together. Jesus's credibility is beyond comprihension, and His testimony of what has happened and what will happen is only confirmed by what we continue to observe. I have no doubt that any claim made by Jesus is true, including who the Creator is and His role in the world
Inverita1 4 weeks ago
@Inverita1 Nah Jesus is considered the great teacher by christians. He is considered one of the lesser folks behind Muhammad by Muslims, he is denied by Judaism, and Buddhist and Hindus basically couldn't care less. Atheists who may appreciate some of his social positions (pacifism, anti-retribution, empathy) more than many of his religious followers. But that doesn't make Jesus THE great thinker for atheists at all. But Jesus also talked about swords and stuff if he ever talked.
socrates856 4 weeks ago
@socrates856 YES, Islam considers Jesus the Messiah, they do not consider Him God. to say what you said about Buddhism and Hinduism shows you know little about their faiths, of which there are many paths and many great teachers (Jesus is among those approved) And many atheists do agree with Jesus's teachings but leave the supernatural eliment out. Yes, Jesus mentioned swords 2 times. 1 was in context of self defense, and the other in a parable about the comming judgment. It doesnt make Him wrong
Inverita1 4 weeks ago
@Inverita1 Nor does it make him ever having existed.
socrates856 4 weeks ago
@socrates856 Yes, Jesus did exist. Even Richard Dawkins has admitted this point as have many others. Watch this.. its short. I promise you once you realize all the slander about Jesus and even the denial of His existance is based on petty assumption you realize the agenda to hide the true teacher.
watch?v=fRg0AIiGAyQ
Inverita1 4 weeks ago
@Inverita1 Oh, I see. Bart Ehrman's work is slander... sure. As long as you can protect your "true teacher" fantasies from actual historical investigations...
socrates856 4 weeks ago
@socrates856 Bart Ehrman is reknown for misquoting the bible. Just look into peer reviews of his work. See, Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus". You place more confidence in a man whose goal is to "debunk" christianity at all costs.. even by plainly making things up and asserting them as truth. Or at the very least read "A Response To Bart D. Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus" by Dr. Thomas Howe
Inverita1 4 weeks ago
@Inverita1 Dr Craig is far from being honest. He admitted the Cosmological argument is incoherent 15 years ago but still uses it as a proof of god
emailpobox666 4 weeks ago
Interesting claim. Can you provide evidence... I'm having a hard time finding anything on this. Conversly, I have discussed the Cosmological argument and it all boils down to one of two ideas. Can nothing produce something. Note: nothing has no potential and no properties, so it is less likely that nothing created something than for something to make something. Through more logical steps one can easily conclude that A God exists using scientific processes.
Inverita1 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Inverita1 WLC "If the claim that God caused the Big Bang cannot be analyzed in terms of extant definitions of causality, then God cannot have caused the Big Bang. I see no reason to think that this premise is true. In general, arguments to the effect that some intuitively intelligible notion can't be analyzed in terms of certain philosophical theories should make us suspect the adequacy of those theories rather than reject the common sense notion.
emailpobox666 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Inverita1 WLC Continued "The idea that God caused the universe is intuitively intelligible. A cause is, loosely speaking, something which produces something else and in terms of which the thing that is produced can be explained. This notion certainly applies to God's causing the universe. If God's causing the universe cannot be analyzed in terms of current philosophical definitions of causality, then so much the worse for those theories!. Quentin Smith vs craig 1996
emailpobox666 4 weeks ago
@emailpobox666
"The idea that God caused the universe is intuitively intelligible."
Alas, intuition has an extremely lousy track record when it comes to trying to understand how the universe works.
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 weeks ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer I agree with you 100 and find dr Craig's use of the incoherent argument Dishonest
emailpobox666 3 weeks ago
@Inverita1 You find it surprising that christian apologists try to discredit Ehrman? Timothy Paul Jones is no historian, and neither is Thomas Howe but sure as heck are they apologists. And certainly there are masses of believer who will take their word for it.
socrates856 4 weeks ago
@socrates856 If you want to place your stake on the historicity of Jesus on one man who is discredited then I ask you at least consider the counter opinion by actual scholars.
bede DOT org DOT uk/price1 DOT htm
You need to understand that Jesus did exist. He said what He said, and it is regarded as inherant truth. I've yet to see anyone debunk or refute Jesus' teachings; so instead they say, Jesus never existed as a desperate attempt at giving a reason to ignore said teachings. Its shameful.
Inverita1 4 weeks ago
@Inverita1 I'm actually placing no stake at all in the historicity of Jesus. Even if Jesus is historic that still doesn't mean that what is said about him is accurate. Certainly I doubt that anyone turned water into wine or walked on water. It's much more plausible that he did ransack a temple to show them hypocrites who pray in public. His fans today have forgotten about that one... And I hope someone say that we should forgive even if it wasn't that dude.
socrates856 4 weeks ago
@socrates856 Well this is were we differ. You dont think its relevant that a man came, taught, performed miracles, died, and came back to life and ascended. Instead you choose to disbelieve it all and throw the baby out with the bath water since you refuse to accept a supernatural eliment. Not everything is naturalistic. There are things beyond the physical world that are unexplainable phenomenons. I leave with this. You may not love Jesus, but He loves you. Seek and you will find. Good night:)
Inverita1 4 weeks ago