William Lane Craig vs Theodore Drange (HQ) 4/11

[jbourg333]

So with his santa claus argument, does Drange make fun of scientists that believe in a multiverse? Why can't Santa exist in the fifth dimension?

[wachnathan]

Theists don't even know what they worrship and assume all its attributes to suit there arguments to adapt to anything.

[Nickcloudy]

I don't think Drange is a debater..

[Consciousish]

Not much in this debate...

There are way better debates out there, with far more brilliant people and arguments...

[Zaphenath4]

If you say that our Universe came from a greater Universe, then where did that Universe come from? And if you say that the greater Universe came from an even greater Universe, where did that come from? It's exactly like Dawkins asking "who created the creator?" But you cannot have an infinite regress of explanations. The simplest and best explanation is that God is infinite and uncaused. That is simply his definition.

[Sophiethefembot]

@Zaphenath4 spot on my friend, you sir are very smart :D bless you :)!!

[Zaphenath4]

Drange comes across to me as deranged. He himself said that time began with the Universe at 7:49. And that was just the absolute beginning of *everything* Meaning The Universe and time itself. If there's no Universe and no time, that means there's nothing! He said "if time and the Universe began, then there's no way to talk about before the Universe". But how could it come from nothing? To Atheists the limit is "The Universe" and that's it.

[BloodOfRayne]

This guy looks like an old version of William H. Macy! XD

[MrAdamSteven]

oh Dr. Craig, if time did not exist, then there could have never been a time when the universe came into existence. How many categorical mistakes can you make? remember the universe is ALL that exist. that would include time and God, why not? lol gosh...

[sirdelrio]

craig really needs to study statistical mechanics and realize that lineal logic is not an inmediate instrument to find truth. the argument for the "personal" cause is erroneous. and he should remember that logical paradoxes exist because they are logical but they do not take into account the physical phenomena involved.

[Birdieupon]

Oh my heck I don't think Drange could even have been listening properly to Craig's arguments!

Craig never once said that the resurrection was historic fact. He said that the empty tomb, reports of sightings and conversion/martyrdom of the disciples were established facts that needed explaining.

[gCuezy]

^^ Corrections - "like to HEAR an argument" ...

"blanket statements"

Sorry... it's very late.

[CSNY225]

Craig looks like a mental midget when he is put up against a genius like Drange.

[Christianjr4]

LOL...(cough cough)...

Comment of the century.

[gCuezy]

Are you serious CSNY? I haven't continued but I've heard Craig easily refute every thing said by Drange in this video. It's a sad time when bad arguments are refuted yet many refuse to put them to bed.

[dbes02]

If Christian theists come up with an irrational definition of God and use the circularity of the Bible to support it, what's the point?

The theist position is built on bare assertion, question begging, and special pleading.

I can define a fairy - doesn't make it real.

Let's see Craig's REAL arguments.

[gCuezy]

First I'd like to a AN argument for the truthfulness of any of the blanker statements you just made.

Give me a logically valid syllogism for the following and I will concede to everything you said:

1. The theist's (Dr Craig) definition of God is logically contradictory (or otherwise irrational)

2. The theist's position is based on bare assertion, question begging, & special pleading

3. The theist claims defining something makes it real

Grace & Peace

[dbes02]

Could first clarify this sentence:

"First I'd like to a AN argument for the truthfulness of any of the blanker statements you just made."

[gCuezy]

I corrected that sentence in my comment 2 seconds later. If you'd take the time, it appears right below this comment in my view (9 hours ago)...

Thanks again.

[dbes02]

Craig likes carrying on that 'God' makes sense of things - it's the best explanation. Well...

An entree.

1. The God of the Bible is an incoherent concept. The creation story (actually stories) in Genesis are not supported by scientific accounts (physics, cosmology, biology).

It makes more sense to see the account in Genesis an attempt by our more ignorant ancestors to explain the world. But a profoundly wrong attempt in many many ways.

[dbes02]

2. There are many features attributed the God of the Bible including 'immutable' and 'omniscient'. But many incidents within the Bible contradict this. God is depicted as changing the world by cursing the world after Adam and Eves behavioiur. God is depicted as having got it wrong with humans prior to the Great Flood, and changes his mind about it all. These incidents contradict omniscience and immutability.

[dbes02]

3. Christians claims a 'virgin birth' and the 'resurrection' of Jesus on the basis of something written in a book. There is no independent evidence. Claims about Jesus appearing to people are, again, only written about.

These are BARE ASSERTIONS. It makes more sense to see that stories of miraculous births and resurrections or journeys to heaven are fanciful stories, similar to those told about other characters by other groups.

[dbes02]

4. Craig claims such things as absolute morality that God is best explanation for morality, and provides this absolute morality. But where is this absolute morality? BASE ASSERTION.

Of course the following might do:

Punishing people for the actions of others.

Killing people for holding different beliefs.

Killing or enslaving conquered civilians.

Genocide.

Wives are to be ruled by their husbands.

Do you agree that these are absolute morals?

And the morals change from Torah to the NT.

[dbes02]

Someone might want to deceitfully ignore the Bible and talk about a more generic version of God as a 'first cause' (cosmological argument), or the most 'perfect being' (ontological argument). If there is a first cause of some sort, how does it get to the God of the Bible? Special pleading. Do we know God by reason alone? No, the ontological argument sinks on a fallacy of equivocation on the term greater, and can only survive through CIIRCULARITY:

If you can think of something it exists.

[dbes02]

God doesnt have a beginning because Craig says so.

Out of nothing, nothing comes. So why not conjure up a super-natural, super-intelligent designer that just happens to be there. That's the best explanation? That's one of the worst explanations it is a self-contradictory explanation: Craig carries on that intelligent life needs intelligent design of the world. But surely then an intelligent designer must require intelligent design. So he rubbishes his own first cause.

[gCuezy]

Honestly I'm very happy you actually took the time to respond. I wish you would've made a video though (since you brought up a lot of things).

Unfortunately I don't think you proved any of the things I asked. The problem of evil is no longer a "problem" and Dr Craig, Alvin Plantinga, & others have shown this. You must prove that God and evil are contradictory and that it's illogical to think this may be the best possible world (in which the most good comes about) because evil is (cont)

[dbes02]

The problem of evil hasnt gone away. The claims of Plantinga and Craig exude intellectual fraud. Lets make this 'god' unable to actualize certain things (where go omnipotence?). This god can now only do what is logically possible. And how is logically defined? Whatever is needed to make the new argument stick. Circular. If the world is determined, and 'God' knows all (omniscient) where go free will?

[dbes02]

But it gets worse. Plantinga obsessively focuses on moral evil - but where go natural evil? Apparently its off with the fairies its caused by supernatural agents (fallen angels, demons). Special pleading.

This is what you want to support?

[dbes02]

I cant say I "appreciate your insight". It only provides support for my original claims.

It's not about 'proof'. Epistemology teaches that the key is rationality - RATIO-nal - proportioning a claim to the grounds for holding it.

[dbes02]

And it gets worse. Who actually inflicts much natural and direct evil in the Bible? God Herself. Who actually put evil in the world after Adam and Eve? God Herself.

So God gives us morals. Does your morality enshrine:

Punishing people for the actions of others (Adam & Eve)

Killing people for holding different beliefs (golden calf)

Killing or enslaving conquered civilians (yes, ordered by your god)

Wives are to be ruled by their husbands (the fall)

[dbes02]

The distribution of suffering in the world appears unfair. The brains of countless theologically bent philosophers concede this and engage in twisted mental contortions to make excuses for it. So if you want to claim this may be the best possible world - in which the most good comes about - then you do so. The burden of proof is on you. But try to avoid special pleading, bare assertion and circular arguments. Show how one less child killed in the Holocaust would have brought less good.

[dbes02]

And while youre at it, show how there are absolute morals how else can we calculate good? The 'good' of one god differs from the good of another. The good of one version of Christianity differs from another. A major irrationality which you demonstrate is the way that fixing one issue makes nonsense of another issue. You throw out the bible as allegory but this means you throw out the basis for your God.

[gCuezy]

(cont)necessary with free will.

Your arguments from Genesis are just bad exegesis and most thinking Christians wouldn't dare attempt to get a Scientific theory from an allegorical and theological book (which can be ascertained by it's literary style).

"The designer needs a designer" has been refuted on many levels. If you needed an explanation of the explanation then you would have an infinite regress and logic and science could not function (an explntn of an explntn of an explntn etc(CONT)

[dbes02]

My arguments about Genesis are valid - the literal interpretation of the Bible by all those Jewish and Christian theologians. And to think that people were killed over disagreeing with this "truth". And youre happy to hypocritically throw that out? The inerrant word of some "God"? So now its all allegory - we can pick and choose our own interpretation to suit. Of course most thinking Christians dont see it as literal truth - for the same reasons I gave: it's contradicted by actual evidence.

[dbes02]

And throw out "the designer needs a designer" because you dont like an infinite regress of designers (and increasingly intelligent ones). Thats my whole point. So if you (and Craig and whoever else) wants to claim that intelligent life needs an intelligent designer, then show how this is both possible and necessary - dont just make base assertions.

[confluential]

Correct.

[gCuezy]

Your other arguments from the Old Testament seem to also be bad exegesis. Many times God is referred to anthropomorphically due to Jewish language referring to Him.

As far as the resurrection you should watch some other debates by Dr Craig. There is an abundance of evidence. Obviously the conclusion's not agreed upon but the evidence is there.

Lastly God in the OT and morality. Some of the things you refer to are not explicitly commanded by God(cont)

[dbes02]

Its irrational to treat the Bible as real account of the world.But, and this is a further problem for you, THATS HOW IT WAS SEEN -A VERY REAL ACCOUNT. Otherwise why is it supposed to be so important? I dont mind if you throw it out - and throw out the irrationality of all the nonsense claims about creation and floods and talking snakes and making a woman from a bone.

[gCuezy]

and even if they were I cannot see a creator killing it's creation as truly immoral ESPECIALLY if there is an afterlife and it's at least possible they were living in a better place. Also in the OT there is much oral tradition being written down. Many of the things God commanded were for the sake of humanity (establishing sewage systems, abstaining from certain meats, not touching the dead, etc).

Overall I really appreciate your insight but I think your arguments fail to prove your assertions

[dbes02]

Some of the things I referred to were not explicitly commanded by God? But they were, and you at least concede some were. But youre happy to say "I cannot see a creator killing it's creation as truly immoral. (Good, so I can kill my children?)

First you want to use Plantingas special pleading claims about free will being necessary for evil, and then you go ahead and make nonsense of it by saying that your "God" can just kill people off anyway. The incoherence of your position is shocking.

[dbes02]

The incoherence of your position is shocking.

But it gets worse for you: ESPECIALLY if there is an afterlife and it's at least possible they were living in a better place." More special pleading fallacy. Under this approach, anything is possible. But these disgusting acts of your God are actually intended as punishments - so you make nonsense of your "better place" claim.

[xchris1800]

@CSNY225 ja,ja, ja!!!, I think exactly the contrary, Somebody is blind here.

[jmanexpress]

@CSNY225 lol funny

[emopeacekid]

The atheist is a punk. How dare he question Santa's existence! I have lived with my parents all 34 years of my life and every year he comes through. Also, Santa must have access to a fifth dimension (maybe he knows something about string theory that we do not) since I have calculated that there is no way he could visit billions of people in a 24 hr. period. He definitely can somehow exit our space/time universe. I will not be surprised when this "Santa sceptic" gets only coal this Christmas!

[taotaotatti]

"Presumptuous man! the reason wouldst thou find,

Why form'd so weak, so little, and so blind?

" Alexander Pope on "Essay on Man"

[emopeacekid]

Here we go again. An atheist positing a "hyperuniverse" as an alternative to the God theory. Totally unproven and must be accepted BY FAITH! If you are going to deny God then you must give something in its place with evidence or else one must shrink back into agnosticism.

[emopeacekid]

Craig is going to kill this guy. The atheists need a Hitchens or Dawkins to take on Craig. Maybe we do need a universal health care system and hopefully it will cover personality implants for this guy.

[emopeacekid]

I can't believ he brought up the Santa parallel with God argument. This is so ridiculous it is hardly worth refuting.

[rocknroll393]

theodore drange is just telling what he thinks is right as well as william craig.

[igystrvigy]

Drange has a hard time with the concept of a 'non material person.'

But if he was to lose all his limbs and become horribly disfigured in an accident, and one was to ask him whether he was any less of a person I'm sure he would be greatly offended at the thought. Personhood is not defined by the body, whether in whole or in part.

[Mazinga]

Theodore Drange's arguments are ridiculous and childish, I am always amazed hwo weak the atheist arguemtns are!

Dr. Craig did a well done job.

[markjeppo]

Yes! Atheists are so stupid and unintelligent, doh.

[Saibomb]

yup

[Freelance86]

whoa whoa... I wouldn't go that far. There are atheists who simply feel that the proof set before them is not satisfying enough and bring up compelling arguments for their position. It doesn't mean they're stupid.

[bm359]

I disagree. I believe both of these criticisms of Christianity are valid and demand an answer. This isn't to say that Craig couldn't answer, he is very powerful in his exposition of Christian philosophy. But let's not be so narrow so as to discard the intellect of the opponents of Christianity.

[Sophiethefembot]

@Mazinga they are EXTREMELY chhildish indeed!!! they are laughable in fact!! I am extremely dissapointed, I was expecting something more elegant than that!!

Theism wins, Praise God :)!!

[Mazinga]

@Sophiethefembot

Indeed. I know christians who ask better questions than Drange. I still can't realize that this man is a studied person. All his arguments at the end are emotional. Boring, boring, boring

[MntrTodd]

@Mazinga

No, Drange's arguments are clear and logical. An adult believing in an invisible, imaginary friend is what is ridiculous and childish.

[Mazinga]

@MntrTodd

Todd, I listened to the debabte many times and I always had to shake my head. Dranges arguments are not clear and logic, they are just simply stupid.

He didn't understand the christian concept of God, he didn't get what !Almighty" means etc.

You are projecting your own unbelieve into heaven. You believe in your non-god and you are to be pittied for. Atheists only have emotional arguments, but never scientific ones.

[AgeOfReasonXXI]

@Mazinga haha you're just pathetic. it's theism that has only emotional appeal, like the fear of death. it's only extreemly existentially insecure nutcases like Craig with serious issues with self-centeredness who would rather die than give the belief that it's all about them, that the whole Universe was designed with them in mind and there's a Divine plan just for them! without a Mater, whom they can serve, who tells them what to live for and would reward them in the end, life is meaningless!

[Mazinga]

@AgeOfReasonXXI Whatever...just another typical boring comment

[AgeOfReasonXXI]

@MntrTodd exactly. I couldn't have said it better. I but I guess it feels so good to have an imaginary friend...if you have no real friends

[aschaevitz]

@Mazinga lolololololololol the fallacies of god and religion are endless. lolgod and religion isn't real.

[KamasutraButterfly]

@Mazinga What arguments are ridiculous? He is simply drawing logical conclusions from the teachings of the christian faith.... what is ridiculous about that?!

[SpookyAction123]

@KamasutraButterfly "He is simply drawing logical conclusions from the teachings of the christian faith "

Drawing logic from 'faith'? BDAAA HAAA HAAA HAAAAA !!!

[KamasutraButterfly]

@SpookyAction123 From the TEACHINGS of that faith. Please, at least read my comment before you respond to it, thank you