DOES GOD EXIST? William Lane Craig vs Antony Flew (HQ) 6/11

[josephboy1000]

Craig's thoughts about the the formation of the universe requiring a deity is plausible.However, his arguments for christian god are weak. The christian god is huge contradiction, I almost certain there is no christian god. Since there might be a deity that created everything, but certainly is does not want worship/ it's not part of this universe anymore then we can say that having a belief is irrelevant/useless.

Conclusion: Atheism is more logical, and one should just live their lives.

[Pearmanb8484]

I appreciate Prof Flew's kindness and modesty. It's really a breath of fresh air for me after watching Dawkins, Harris and Dennett. I think Flew's arguments are more implausible than deism, but I respect his efforts.

[GlentoranMark]

Who created the creator?

No easy answers, a very benign god if there is one.

[imrickjamesbltch]

I would like everybody to go check out victor zaiMMit, he has soMe interesting views and points, also best way to figure out if God is real is try to have a personal relationship with hiM, best way to get that is through religion, any religion or prayer.

[quranresponse]

@imrickjamesbltch Quran:

(Surah-2-the cow-vs-186)

And when my servants ask you concerning me, then surely I am very near; I answer the prayer of suppliant when he calls on me, so they should answer my call and believe in me that they may walk in the right way.

[mrooster09]

david hawkins is scared of william lane!

[mfcardio]

i feel that both are wrong, yet I really hope that God do exist

[AmenMaranhata]

@mfcardio yes we all want God exist, you can find God. Bible book Wisdom. Chapter 1. verses 1 to 6 say HOW to find him. (you can google)

[VerseInfinitum]

According to / based upon the definition of God to be "a supreme personal being distinct from the world and creator of the world." If we refer the world as humanity and Earth, we could refer the creator as the universe along with what caused the Big Bang. One possible answer, which dismissed the singularity, points to two universes colliding to form ours. Whatever the cause may be, a follow up investigation to the cause is the answer, not personifying an exceptional event.

[quranresponse]

@VerseInfinitum Quran:

(SURAH-3-THE FAMILY OF IMRAN-VS-25)

Then how will it be when we shall gather them together on a day about which there is no doubt, and every soul shall be fully paid what it has earned, and they shall not be dealt with unjustly?

[Purushadasa]

@judoyodan That's some interesting emotion-based and evidence-free rhetoric there, buddy, but why exactly is it that you have failed to provide any evidence for your bizarre personal beliefs? Is it because you have none?

Could that be why the vast majority of intelligent human beings on the planet are Theists, and why the atheist has always been, and is now, in the extreme minuscule minority? Think about it.

atheist total fail

[lukeism2]

do quantum fluctuations have causes?

[macklr21]

I hope Mr Antony Flew got saved before he died. At any rate, he knows the knowedge of the now.

[macklr21]

@macklr21 He is experiencing Heaven or Hell now!!!

[Purushadasa]

The atheist has failed to provide evidence for his personal beliefs that God was somehow "created," or that God somehow began to exist at some point.

Conversely, modern science provides conclusive evidence that the universe began to exist, therefore the universe must necessarily have an external cause.

Period.

[lukeism2]

@Purushadasa put god in there and then there is absolutely no point in pushing forward in astro physics and cosmology, this is dated

[judoyodan]

@Purushadasa , wrong.

Lane's "argument" is as useless as a child's fairy tale.

[Pearmanb8484]

@judoyodan These sort of assertions confuse me. What exactly is fairy tale-like in Craig's assertions? I see the problem being strange either way. Option #1 The universe popped into existence uncaused. Option #2 An immaterial mind caused the universe. Both seem miraculous to me. The question is which is more plausible.

[judoyodan]

@Pearmanb8484, Lane's ontological argument is absurd. He is arguing his point from a position of ignorance. Simply because the answer might not be available at this time, he imposes a falacious supernatural force that fills his gaps in knowledge. He seems oblivious to the problem of infinite regression that his magical sky daddy brings to the argument.

The answer to the "origin" of the universe might not be a product of linear thinking that we are so comfortable with.

[Pearmanb8484]

@judoyodan It's strange to me that you are claiming that the ontological argument is made from a position of ignorance when it is the atheist who is hoping for more science to come in and disprove either of the two premises. Clearly science has shown that the universe began and that nothing comes from nothing. What then should we conclude?

It seems to me that your suggestion of nonlinear thinking (Non-deductive? I hope not.) is heavily laden with wishful thinking. I'm interested in your ideas.

[judoyodan]

@Pearmanb8484, what is "strange" is that you obviously don't know anything about "atheists", or science for that matter.

It is also "strange" that you ignore the infinite regression problem that your introduction of a god presents.

If you are over ten years old, then you should know that when you believe in fairy tales, you are bound to be disappointed.

[Pearmanb8484]

@judoyodan I assure you I'm very aware of that objection. I studied philosophy in college and I called myself an atheist once. I was pushed from atheism by scientific and philosophical evidence and the mean-spiritedness of its most fundamental supporters, which I found shameful. I don't know you, but our brief exchange suggests to me that you think name calling is an adequate substitute for adult discussion. Too bad. I wish you the best.

[judoyodan]

@Pearmanb8484, awwww...did i huwt youah feewings? I soweee.

Buddy, it's high time you grew a pair, grew the fuck up, and grew out of this ridiculous superstition.

Do yourself a huge favor and take my advice.

[Pearmanb8484]

@judoyodan Don't worry. I feel better already. Thanks. I'll work on my courage. You work on your arguments. Deal? oxox

[ScreeminMeeme]

Crick came up with the explanation for life on earth : the seed theory, that beings from another planet came and seeded the earth with life. OK..fine...now....WHERE DID THE BEINGS FROM OTHER PLANTETS COME FROM??Crick may be a genius, but he is blinded to the truth and reflects it in this nonsensical explanation for life. Scientists for decades have argued vehemently about the beginning of the cosmos,yet all are united in saying that GOD didn't do it. Folks, that's not science..that's bias.

[irishmauddib]

First of all this was not his theory, but him just playing with possibilities.

Second of all your god sufferes from the same problem which you only escape by declaring by fiat that said being was eternal.

Thirdly, even if no one else has a theory, this does not make your god theory correct by default.

[r3ality357]

Then what is correct by default?

[irishmauddib]

Nothing. We have to find out what is correct. All I am saying is if one group say "We do not know" and another group say "We do know" then the latter does not have the correct answer merely by virtue of saying they do and being the only people to say they do.

[r3ality357]

Fair enough.

[lucasdasilvamaria]

I am a christian and a had a big doubt about this "recognizing design" thing. I never felt that its ok to say "look! all stuff in the universe is designed!" But, that probability thing... i gonna think about it.

[AlShaddai]

"Whatever begins to exist has a cause." There is no deductive argument to support that because you have to state what the cause for the existence of God is since God was something that started to exist. No, you can't just say that "Well, God always existed" because you can say that the energy and matter from which our universe is made always existed and you go around in circles just like William Lane Craig always does.

[Purushadasa]

You posit the personal belief that God somehow began to exist at some point in time, but you provide no evidence for that personal belief.

Do you have any evidence for that bizarre personal belief of yours, or did you just make it up?

[AlShaddai]

@Purushadasa. One quality of "personal belief" is that you do not have to provide explicit, definitive evidence of it. Many beliefs are in that category. For example, I may believe you are an ass, but I have no evidence of that; it is just my personal belief from say, intuition. My cited statement was an attempt to point out a weakness in the "infinite God" hypothesis if one posits that "everything has a beginning." William Lane Craig always chases his tail when argues in this way.

[p3rs0nan0ngrata]

Design is determined by improbability. That is, we recognised that something is designed because its existence as being naturally occurring is improbable. We determine that designed things are improbable to naturally occur by comparing with our experience of what exists in nature.

The universe does not exist in (within) nature. Therefore, we lack authority to determine that the universe is or is not designed.

[slartibartfats]

Dr Craig argues that the universe could not have formed by chance because that is so extremely unlikely. Well, that admits to the possibility that it was chance - it could be, for instance, that nature runs through umpteen permutations which failed to last and this happens to be one that did. Why the need to posit a mysterious self-caused creator?

[luminator1234]

Two very intelligent men battling it out.

[Jahkillian]

What about the universe? Or other universes?

What about were ever God is suppose to be?

Can you search for unicorns there?

[SoSaCA100]

I don't think that atheism and the advance in science are related

[Jahkillian]

This is stupid because Craig doesn't even stick to the debate from the beginning.

Can you prove there is no unicorns?

Can you prove there is no big foot?

Can you prove there is no leprechauns?

Can you prove there is no GOD???

See how stupid this is.

The name of the debate should be is there a enough evidence proving God?

[TruthAtAllCost]

Lastly, I'll just say if you think about letting yourself off the hook for even a moment by saying "Christian experiences are real and muslim experiences are not," just ask yourself how real Allah must've felt like to the 9/11 hijackers who were willing to kill themselves over their belief.

A delusion of this kind can seem absolutely real. Don't think for a moment that you are above it or that you are immune to it. Be honest and look deep.

[TruthAtAllCost]

...and furthermore that's not even taking into account the differences in denominations. You probably don't agree with mormons or jehovah's witnesses. There are also a lot of christians like Fred Phelps who claim to be divinely inspired, but you would quickly write off as delusional. Even theists must admit that the majority of religious experience is either delusional or highly inaccurate just by virtue of the fact that they think other religions are not as right as theirs.

[lzekl]

The only reason u hear Craig make some remarks about Christianity is simply because as a Christian that he is, he feels the need to somehow give some status to Christianity. Which in this case is not a necessary..Nothing wrong with making some remarks though..

[TruthAtAllCost]

On the argument of experience. Noone except deists can use it and here's why: When you claim that your experience confirms your faith, you are ignoring that muslims do the same for allah and Hindus do the same for shiiva. Christians are only 33% of the world population, so by saying you're right through experience, you're saying that 67% of world is wrong about their experience. That means experience is wrong most of the time and furthermore....

[lzekl]

You are correct.. The subject of the debate is weather God exists.. William does not have to prove the superiority of Christianity, that would be a totally different debate... The issue here is whether God exists.. so your comment is totally irrelevant...debate is theism or atheism. not Hinduism or Christianity

[TruthAtAllCost]

Also about the big bang. Matter cannot be created nor destroyed according the conservation of energy and the laws of thermodynamics. Just because there is a cause does not mean the cause was divine.

You cannot assert there is a God just because we can't fully explain the big bang. There was a time when we didn't know how thunder and lightning worked and we came up with Thor and Zeus to explain it. You're doing the exact same thing with the big bang, it's a god of the gaps argument.

[TruthAtAllCost]

... as I said, to put it another way imagine you flip a coin three times. Say you get three heads. That's a 1 in 8 chance, which is improbable. However, any other combination that would've still been a 1 in 8 chance. A universe with different constants or even no universe at all is just as improbable as our universe.

It's like winning the lotto. You winning is unlikely. But anyone else winning is just as unlikely. Only diff is that you see your winning the lotto as favorable.

[TruthAtAllCost]

The fine tuning argument is easily refutable. First, imagine how many of your ancestors had to meet at exactly the right place, at the right time, and then have sex at the exact right place and time and then consider that the right sperm had to reach the egg. Multiply this by the number of generations it took to make you. Your presence here is highly unlikely, but if someone else was here in your place that would've been as equally as unlikely.

To put it another way......

[rofyle]

TruthAtAllCost:

Let's go ahead and show you your head too. Unlike you however, I'll be brief. "The fine tuning argument is easily refutable." If that's the case...THEN WHY DID FLEW CONVERT TO THEISM IN PART B/C OF THIS ARGUMENT? I'll be waiting here, eagerly anticipating your reply.

/watch?v=SNkxpTIbCIw&feature=P­layList&p=44EE390DD3338A15&pla­ynext=1&playnext_from=PL&index­=13

[TruthAtAllCost]

rofyle:

Dan Barker was a minister and dedicated himself to Christianity for more than 17 years. He converted to atheism due to hearing certain arguments. That doesn't make those arguments any more valid, nor does it make it atheism true.

Anthony Flew's conversion means little to nothing. You're basically making an argument from authority. Also, I've already given one reason the fine tuning argument is unconvincing. Check my other comments on this video. But I have more if you're interested.

[rofyle]

TruthAtAllCost:

That isn't answering my question. Allow me to repeat it in case you didn't get it. Why did Flew convert to Theism b/c of this argument? I've read Barker's FANG argument, and it's the work of a buffoon. Flew has an IQ far higher than either you or I. Now answer the question please, and stop presenting red herrings.

[diuryl]

WOW!!! that was a super-applause for craig!

[judoyodan]

You would have to be a moron to fall this bullshit Craig keeps spewing.

[Christianjr4]

For all the big talk you got going on isn't it somewhat ironic that not one of your comments deals directly with his arguments? Instead of spewing your own BS, I challenge you to refute the arguments themselves and tell me what exactly is wrong with them. Mere assertion and empty rhetoric isn't enough to defeat an argument.

[eddiedko]

@judoyodan

the truth is There IS God and he loves you, my friend

[judoyodan]

@eddiedko, the truth is that your "god" is no different than the hundreds of other superstitious notions that humankind has has for millenia.

[lukeism2]

@judoyodan well this god is just a more succesful mind virus

[Pearmanb8484]

Arguments, good. Ad Homenim, not so good.

[okkima]

"Do you really want me to answer these silly questions?"

What kind of argument would be smart question?

[okkima]

Even if some god would exist, why should we give shit about it when it doesn't increase our knowledge?

Oh right, the after life promise. The ONLY REASON WHY PEOPLE BELIEVE! Nobody cares shit about how universe started exist or has existed forever, the only thing what we are interested is that WE ARE IMPORTANT, we must have purpose of higher meaning in life.

Religion would stop if Theists would stop having 6 year old kid "ME ME" attitude for our invisible sky daddy. God doesn't prove afterlife.

[okkima]

apparently not

[TheOriginProject]

I think you need to learn your theology, who God actually says He is not who you think He is, what He says He does, not what you think He does, everything you present is based on what "you think" God is and what "you think" God would do. None of which is based on any scripture. I could just as easily say "God should give me cotton-candy, I haven't got cotton-candy, therefore God doesn't exist"

In short, learn what God said He is and what He will do, then and only then can you argue against Him

[okkima]

IF god existed forever, why did he create world 6000 years ago? What took him so long?

If god really exists:

*Priests would be the most powerful healers on earth. Not true.

*Praying would be proven to cause healing more than non praying long time ago. Not true.

*Nobody would suffer if they'd believe in god. Fact is that many people suffer in hunger and diseases even they've turned to god.

*There would be only 1 religion.

*This post wouldn't exist, since god would remove it.

[jer414]

Post removed

[TheAmazingCristian]

First, he didn't create the Universe just 6000

years ago, evidence indicates 13.7 Billion years ago, not all Christians are Young-Earth creationists. Second, God knew the perfect time to create the Universe.

Preists are humans too, God doesn't just give Preists superpowers.

There are actually many studies that suggest prayer may have some effect.

Christians still sin, sin must be disciplined, even if you escape eternal punishment.

People have turned away from God, so Christianity actually..

[PricklyHairStubble62]

All five of these arguments you have given are completely fallacious. All of them assume "my arbitrary demands on the universe must be true", and, surprisingly, since the universe doesn't match these premises, God does not exist.

Tell us: why should "there be only 1 religion?" Why "would God remove it"? Why would "nobody suffer"? Why would "priests be the most powerful healers"?

[okkima]

Why would "priests be the most powerful healers"?

Ever heard of faith healers?

watch?v=53yHE9Y1bdA

why should "there be only 1 religion?"

Because Adam and Eve would have taught this 1 religion every child they got and they had taught their childs and so on. The fact is christianity is only 2000 year old religion and nobody has ever been heard of Jahve.

[okkima]

"my arbitrary demands"

These are logical demands that follow from the premises of the bible. Bible promises god is good and all knowing and all powerful. Thus he should be able to know that not every man in world has heard even his existance. 500 years ago in america there was only Indians who didn't even know who Jesus was. He should have sent a 2nd son to tell those people that who he was so they could be saved. So either:

*He didn't know that exist.

*You don't need to know Jesus to be saved.

[okkima]

Bible promises that "if you pray, god will come and answer that prayer". Many people have prayed for centuries for protection, yet they get killed by car, cancer, guns, wars, etc.

Either he:

Doesn't know they pray for him.

They haven't prayed hard enough for meeting the Remember, nobody would suffer if they'd believe in god, this is what Bible teaches.

He doesn't care, that goes against the first promise of Bible, god is good.

God isn't all powerful. Maybe he can only create but not repair?

[okkima]

Before we have technology to regenerate lost limbs with Stem Cell Research Technology, god doesn't heal amputees. But when that walk trough comes with science, some nut cakes will start giving God all credit.

Why "would God remove it"?

Ok I admit that part was badly worded.

What I meant was that my post wouldn't exist because we wouldn't have this argument about Gods existance.

[baldwalrus7]

Why should God want to remove every argument against his existence? Once again, for no logical reason, you have demanded things of God that He never said he would be. God chose to give humans free will, including the free will to reject him and post stupid posts against his existence (exactly as the Bible teaches). Seriously, have you thought your arguments through?

[okkima]

I already told it was silly ^^.

But, even if God exists, does it prove afterlife?

And if it does, are humans only allowed? Will it have longer memory there? What if you're born with only 1 leg, do you get 2nd in afterlife? Bible doesn't teach those so you either have to invent answer (which is the way Bible is written anyway) or you have to humble yourself and say you don't know.

[okkima]

And if you're saying Bible isn't invented by man, is Koran or other non-yourbeleaf based scripture man made? Or is the same God trying to confuse us with increasing religions?

[okkima]

Or maybe we're all right? There's tens of gods out there and supreme god Jahve, the one who doesn't want other gods to be worshipped? Why does all powerful all loving being have to be jealous? Isn't jealousity kind of opposite to "God wants everyone to be equal"?

[okkima]

Why are people praying anyway IF IT'S GOD'S PLAN? It's like writing a note to president that we HOPE to win the next soccer season.

Praying has never been proven to work. If you pray something and something you prayed happens, that doesn't mean praying works. Things that have 0% undeniable chance of happening, if that happens, THAT'S A MIRACLE! Instead of praying people could do something useful, like educate themselves to get better job or Invest money. Anything is more efficient than prayer.

[baldwalrus7]

"Why are people praying anyway IF IT'S GOD'S PLAN?" Prayer is a way of us to talk to God and be intimate with him, not because God will contradict his plan if we simply pray to him.

"Praying has never been proven to work." Of course not, that is it's very nature. If you try to document it in a scientific survey, then it is no longer really prayer, and so God probably would not answer. It's not possible to prove it works: "Do not tempt the Lord your God".

[okkima]

I was raised in religious household, every prayer we had was "we hope", "protect", "you are great" ball sucking to get own cloud in heaven etc.

Don't tell me this BS about way to talk, of course it's a way to talk. It's like throwing a letter in flames where you ask your neighbour to come your house next day. It isn't miracle if that happens. It's a coincidence.

And God DOES WANT TO SHOW UP to people, so why is that he doesn't want to prove himself but wants to appear everyone?

[Christianjr4]

Can you refrain from using all this highly emotive language. Discuss the topic rationally and respectfully. People will take you more seriously when you do.

[baldwalrus7]

If there is indeed only one real God to whom we should give assent, would he not then have the right to be worshipped exclusively? "Jealously" is a strong way of indicating that worship is exclusively his right.

[baldwalrus7]

Yes, all scriptures except the Bible are man-made, even if they contain insights into the nature of reality.

[okkima]

"All scriptures except the Bible are man-made, even if they contain insights into the nature of reality."

Isn't that VERY small minded view point? I'm right because I have a Bible? I have science text book. Unlike Bible, it has some information that can be used to predict things and thus can be provable.

I choose to believe things that can be observed, instead of unobservable claims made by pipe smokers 2000 years ago.

[baldwalrus7]

Seriously, I'm not going to bother talking to you anymore, since you are simultaneously both so insulting and so ignorant, probably the worst combination of attributes.

May God bless you and keep you. In nomine filii redemptor mundi, Deus. Amen.

[MiracleOfRealism]

I think ignorance and arrogance are the two worst attributes. Those you mentioned might come next :P

[baldwalrus7]

Yeah! :)

[trenton1980]

right ... like you believe the universe began (unobservable), by nothing (unobservable), and from nowhere (unobservable).

[lukeism2]

@trenton1980 alright, a recommendation - watch a universe from nothing by laurence krauss

[baldwalrus7]

Do you really want me to answer these silly questions? "Will it have longer memory there?" Well, I'll tell you if I get there!

[baldwalrus7]

The Bible promises that if you pray in accordance with God's will and plan, your prayers will be answered. It is just as plausible that he did not want to answer these people's prayers, for reasons known only to himself. "nobody would suffer if they'd believe in god, this is what Bible teaches": it teaches no such thing. Just read the book of Job, it teaches the exist opposite of what you're saying: "God will make you suffer, but submit to his will and you will be saved".

[baldwalrus7]

Again, you're confusing categories: just because there are priest healers, it does not logically follow that therefore all priests must be the most powerful healers in the world. It is a purely arbitrary demand.

Likewise, Adam's descendants did not neccessarily have to continue an unbroken chain of a single religion: this is no real argument against religion, you have simply imposed a pointless demand on religion.