To be fair the pro-athiesm side of this debate has been represented poorly all through. Atkins is clearly not up the level of Craigs understanding despite his magnificent vocabulary. Dawkins would have at least made this a contest.
Didn't God, through his agent Moses, make claims about THIS world (planet Earth) that science has proven probably DIDN'T happen? Therefore the basis of Craig's arguments is based upon a fundamentally unsound basis.
I'm sorry - did he say "science can account for everything"? Then why didn't he, in his argument, make note of science's account of everything? I remember him postulating on the supposed chances of there being an infinite number of random universes, each displaying an infinite number of characteristics... but no "science" to back it up.
@volound nothing you claimed can be proven because it is the future. and you also make the assumption that it will show how everything works. and that is a religious statement.
@Falcondick69 "nothing you claimed can be proven because it is the future."
the argument is that there are things science cant explain. i am offering possible explanations. whether or not it has happened is irrelevant. you have not followed the conversation.
"and you also make the assumption that it will show how everything works."
i make the "assumption" that one day it may be possible.
@Falcondick69 thanks for ignoring the body of my post.
and no. you are incorrect, fractally so.
i dont have faith in anything. i like to think that all my beliefs are rationally justified. faith is an excuse people give for believing something when they dont have evidence. if you can name something i believe without evidence, guess what ill do... ill stop believing it. deal with it.
how dare you have the audacity to accuse me of indulging in the same embarrassingly flawed logic as yourself.
@volound being an atheist is entirely faith based. believing science will answer everything is faith based. you think religions are wrong that is faith based. so in reality you are just a biased atheist dick.
@Falcondick69 "being an atheist is entirely faith based."
you have not demonstrated that to any extent, just like all the claims you have made in this exchange.
"believing science will answer everything is faith based. "
i agree, thats why i didnt make that claim. it helps to actually argue against what im saying instead of strawmen. i said that i believe it is a POSSIBILITY that science will one day have an answer for everything.
in reality you are logically fallacious, everywhere.
@volound saying om logicall fallacious is a faith base statement. and again, atheism is 100% faith based. there exists no evidence that con clusively proves GOD doesn't exist, so your left with agnosticism if anything.
@volound agnostic and atheist are terms used for people who reject GOD, don't believe GOD and who are not sure if there is one or which one to worship. neither of those things apply to me. and there exists no evidence to prove atheism right so you are entirely faith based on that one : 3
@Falcondick69 "and there exists no evidence to prove atheism right so you are entirely faith based on that one : 3"
and there exists no evidence to prove aunicornism right, or apastafarianism right. according to you a lack of belief requires faith?
worst logic ive ever heard.
the only evidence required to maintain a position of disbelief of a claim is a lack of evidence. extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and none of forthcoming.
@volound your terms are wrong. and we have evidence that fairies and unicorns dont exist on earth beyond just not having evidence. and you cant not believe and dont know
@volound im not going to do your research for you. just go google and find factual information of what fairies and unicorns are said to be and do your own research. and again what proof do you ahve or any reason at all that confirms or conclusively sways your opinion away from theism and towards atheism?
Dr. Atkins just throws out the words "intellect" "science" "reason" "brain power" in the hopes that people will assume he is right only based on having fancy words tagged to his argument.
For Dr. Atkins Science is a god, though clearly demonstrated by Dr. Craig that is not omnipotent, as he claims.
He also speaks about our human overwhelming powerful minds. I think that's fallacious, since we can gather a great quantity of knowledge and thinking in our libraries, but we only need to watch the news and read history books to know that we always use that knowledge and thinking against our own kind and ourselves, and that's not proper of a powerful minded being.
I never realized that "science" was a sentient being.Even less so did I realize that "science" was omnipotent.How can I meet "science" and ask science the deep questions of life?
"I can definitely understand why people like you desperately want to believe in God" - Atkins
Since Atkin's arguments for Atheism failed to hold up against the rebuttals of Craig, it is safe to say that Atkins is desperately wanting to believe in Atheism and Craig is grounded in theology
@niriop Calm? I'd dare and say it's more lifeless and nonsensical. Lane Craig is also calm, not yelling in anyway, yet you only assume Atkins is right becuase he uses a softer tone...
@CrippledKnight "lifeless and nonsensical" To someone philosophically defective maybe; why don't you go back to worrying about the men in the Bohemian Grove and the lights in the sky? These discussions clearly go over your head.
@niriop I offended you? Does it feel bad when words are uttered against you? How do you think people feel when instedad of providing a supportive answer, hateful negation is provided. This guy barely responded to any of Craig's arguments, instead went to attack the bible ant it's teachings. Scarecely defending his point, he blatantly attacked the other. FYI, I'm glad you saw some of my favorite videos, hope you sometime get a chance to see them. No hate towards you, hope you have a g8 day
@CrippledKnight "lifeless and nonsensical" This isn't hateful negation? "instead went to attack the bible ant it's teachings" Yes, that makes sense, given Craig bases his opinions on the Bible; and Atkins does make good responses, if you'd care to listen, but it seems you need your divine crutch.
"I'm glad you saw some of my favorite videos, hope you sometime get a chance to see them" *rings finger around head and whistles* Wacko...
@derth4 If logical analysis is a crutch, then its the greatest of all possible supports; you and Craig have a weakness that demands a "Big Other", in this case a god, to look for and defend; its all an illusion, and not a very good one at that.
@niriop oh sorry... God is so my crutch.... so as a thiests I must be a backwards toothless moron who drinks moonshine. Or It's Atkins inability to accept that science and religion are not at odds. Also the debate was about the existence of god so..... how could you make the arguement a crutch.... oh I know you call him a flying spagetti monster and put your fingers in your ears.
@derth4 I had you more as a paranoid, basement-dwelling glue sniffer, but that image is fine as well. Dawkins' The God Delusion very well debunks the idea of the non-overlapping magisterium.
God is a crutch, and you're trying to mahic that crutch into existence, that is my argument.
@niriop - are you sharp enought to acknowledge atkins is getting his clock cleaned here, and perhaps dawkins is so frightened of Craig, he cowers really
@mollkatless "dawkins is so frightened of Craig" No, he just realises you can never win against a good rhetorican; debate rarely solves issues, it only serves as intellectual fodder. Dawkins doesn't want to waste his time; Common Sense Atheism has a whole series dedicated to showing how Craig manipulates the rules of debate to serve his ego. "he cowers really" Ah, so intellectual debate is about making people fear and distrust each other, now I've got you
@niriop I guess since theists have no problem worshiping an imaginary god they (@mollkatless) Find it easy to transfer this blind worship to people like WLC
@niriop so because atheists don't liek craigs arguments therefore he is a liar? right...well i don't like how richard dawkins doesn't believe in God therefore all thing she says arre wrong.
@Onesideofyams uhhh how? What god do I pray to, and what's he chance i'll see some type of supernatural intervention? I mean all it would really take for me to believe is something completely out of the ordinary, water turning to blood, waters parting, even speaking to me in a loud voice with other people present to witness and record it.
BTW the "big bang" and many other areas of physics are just THEORIES, which means that they have not been proven ! which means that we do not know if they are right or not ! but they are the closest conclusions we have so we stick with them...
atkins is WRONG. science has the POTENTIAL to explain everything. however, so far to this DAY, science has not been able to explain everything. superstring theory is the closest that we have come so far to explaining how the universe began but it is not even complete yet because know one on the planet is "smart" enough to complete the theory, so in other words we dont even know if we are on the right track or not cause we havent found a solution.
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
LOL!!!! "but two fallacious arguments put together doesn't make a sound argument." What is Atkin's response to this? *desperately thinks for half a second* "But two legs are support." ! Wow, and Peter Atkins is a well known and respected Atheist? I can understand his great contributions to science, but his contributions to atheism are clearly lacking.
He says that "an explanation (of God & why he made everything)should be something we humans can comprehend" as though, if God exists, he would be accountable to us ! If I choose to believe in God, I accept that he is ultimate in his existance and supernatural, therefore it is reasonable to assume that I may not be able to comprehend it if he explained it to me. Its kind of like explaining the meaning of life to an ant(not that we're ants).
"is my rejection of God in no way makes me into Satan" - Never said that. What I said was your statement was very Satan-esc. "and my ability to see consequences" - And what is to say that ability isnt flawed? If it is, your entire morality system is comprimised. "founded by evolutionary traits' - So how did morals evolve when morality often dictates things that are generally disliked by humans. "us to overcome those primitive motives." - Why? They seem quite benifictually, evolutionarily.
it's hard to believe how far the religious will go before letting go of the idea god. if there is no reason to believe in something, we shouldn't believe in it. even in this circumstance they hold on and call out the scientists as the one's lacking understanding... and nobody seems to understand the problem with this. blinded by their own wishes, wants, and desires, unable to think and reason clearly. but the same people would stop if this logic were used as proof of another deity.
@matthewdoucette "it's hard to believe how far the religious will go before letting go of the idea god" - probably because the best of the scientific elite has never been able to disprove any arguments for God, as clearly shown in this debate and others. "call out the scientists as the one's lacking understanding" - No we dont. We suggest that they are interpreting the evidence incorrectly, at least the ones who come to a completely naturalistic conclusion of the evidence.
@GermanConquistador08 You can't disprove something that doesn't exist, so lack of disproof is not proof of existence... otherwise we'd all have to conclude by Dr. Craig's logic of this sort that Allah also exists, as well as the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or any creation of the mind. It's opening the floodgates to "prove" all such things, isn't it? Which is why it is logical to not accept such "logic" as proof.
@matthewdoucette "You can't disprove something that doesn't exist" - You are pre-supposing God doesnt exist and there is indeed evidence for God, as Criag points out time and again. But you didnt even heard his arguments it seems when you start regergitating Dawkins logic like the FSM, because the FSM along with Russel's teapot are possibly the most childish arguments for atheism and against theism I've ever heard. Who knows, if we start dumping garbage into space maybe there WILL be a teapot.
@GermanConquistador08 You are misunderstanding my argument to be smaller than it is. If God doesn't exist, the lack of proof is a prediction of his lack of existence, but what you missed is this is along with lack of evidence for his existence, and we quite clearly have both. Nothing Craig says is evidence for God. 2,000 year old stories and misunderstandings of science do not count as evidence. If his logic and evidence were so clear, and matching of observation, he'd have a scientific theory.
@matthewdoucette "2,000 year old stories and misunderstandings of science do not count as evidence." - There shows your close-mindedness. Its not YOUR intepretation of the facts nor the group of scientific elite that says it is so, therefore anyone who forms different conclusions to the same material is stupid, misguided etc. And the age of the historical FACT doesnt matter. You misrepresent the facts in order to skew the view towards your point of view here.
@matthewdoucette "he'd have a scientific theory" - He does. The universe is fined tuned and was created out of literally nothing, and since physical objects or forces couldnt account for something from nothing, than it is logical to assume that a transcendent, mind-like force could have created the universe. "but the scientific revolution allowed that technology" - No it wasnt, it was FACILITATED ON technology. Without it, there wouldnt have been a scientific revolution.
@GermanConquistador08 Dr. Craig doesn't have a scientific theory at all. What is it? If he has on, submit it to science journals. What you just wrote out is nothing like a theory that is falsifiable and predictive, two things Dr. Craig's ideas both fail on. Off topic, but Craig has a bad analogy when speaking of things coming into existence. Comparing the universe (time and space and matter and energy) to things that are built within those already existing frameworks, are simply not comparable.
@matthewdoucette "It's opening the floodgates to "prove" all such things, isn't it?" - The point being is that you go into the debate with the supposition that 1. God does not exist 2. There is no evidence for God 3. If there was any, Christians dont have it. " you have no fear built in for not believing in it" - I think I'd be less inclined to wish for something if I had fear of it actually. And you say fear without understanding what Fear of the Lord is, common atheistic mistake.
@GermanConquistador08 Realize for a moment that none of Craig's arguments are required to prove my existence to anyone who has ever experienced my existence. Why do we need so much analysis to prove the same for the almighty God? And if he chooses to remain hidden for test of faith, isn't Craig spoiling that if he has (which I do not think he has) any prove of God at all?
@matthewdoucette Simply, you have done evil deeds upon others. I dont have to know you to know that. All humans do it. And as for the Muslim school of thought thing: Islam doesnt see the Qu-ran as the Christian bible, they see the Qu-ran as Christian see Jesus, the final truth on which everything matters and relies. And they see the Qu-ran different from the bible. The bible requires validity, the apostles did this in the books after the gospels. Muslims believe that the Qu-ran NEEDS no explain
@GermanConquistador08 There is no evil deed I have done upon others that deserves eternal torture, and the punishment is never-ending torture as far as I am aware. I thoroughly reject any such claim based on my own (God-given you would say) sense of moral judgment and therefore the entire idea that God is moral is self contradictory, beyond the obvious insanity of the notion someone whose only wrong has been growing pains, which is how our (God-given?) brains learn, deserves such treatment.
@matthewdoucette "and the punishment is never-ending torture as far as I am aware" - Its not. Hell is nothing more than a holding cell. The only torture is that on which the demons of hell do to you, since you no longer have God's protection. Though you didnt want it in the first place, so its pretty fitting. Hell in of itself is not a place of torture. Dante's Inferno wasnt in the bible man. And how can you deside what object punishment you deserve? You're not the judge of objective morality.
@matthewdoucette And since hell is not eternal torture, youre entire argument on hell disproving a loving God falls apart, especially since he is also a just God, who would be unjust is allowing people to get away with misdeeds. "whose only wrong has been growing pains" -growing pains? I dont understand. If you mean trial and error sense of morality, even a child knows it is not ok to kill, or lie, or steal.
@matthewdoucette "blinded by their own wishes, wants, and desires, unable to think and reason clearly" - Why would someone wish for a God? If I wish for money that doesnt mean I have it. Wishing something is real wont make a person believe it is so. Your argument there is fallacious. And to assume that every non-atheist doesnt think clearly is supposing something about your intellectual opposition, without any evidence for that whatsoever.
@GermanConquistador08 Money is something you would easily detect as real if it existed and you have no fear built in for not believing in it, so money is not an analogy for god that holds up in the point i was making. So my argument is not fallacious. The creation of science or rather the starting of the scientific revolution, in which we began to learn about everything we now know, was based on one thing: The separation between what we want to be true and what is true. This is evidence.
@matthewdoucette Maybe if you READ the bible you'll understand what Fear of the Lord actually is, because its not fear in the sense of terror, its fear in the sense of respectful acceptance of authority. I fear lots of things, but I'm not afraid of them. "So my argument is not fallacious" - Yes it is. Fear does no cause something to believe in something. There's no evidence of that whatsoever. "rather the starting of the scientific revolution" - ONE scientific revolution you mean.
@GermanConquistador08 And I have read the bible... and I still maintain my argument from before is not fallacious with respect to the addition of bias, regardless how you label fear I know for a fact some people believe in God out of outright fear of pain. The person I am thinking of right now is a six year old who fears for his father's eternal pain for "just not believing in God"... Such things do not help your cause. And the best of the best cannot explain to me how I deserve eternal torture.
@matthewdoucette "just not believing in God" - Just not believing in God is not a sin in of itself. But all of us are with sin, evil deeds done on one another. Thats why we go to Hell, not because we simply dont believe in God. There are people who believe in God that go to hell, because they dont care about what they do to others. "things do not help your cause." - And I agree. But answer it with truth, not doubt. You deserve PUNISHMENT, not torture (The only torture is spiritual) Because...
@GermanConquistador08 If not believing in God doesn't matter, then why doesn't religion just leave me and everyone alone? Why can't it just run in the background the way physics does, regardless of our understanding of it? Why do children have to be made to fear hell and the torture of their friends and parents for simply just not believing in something they have never experienced?
@matthewdoucette "why doesn't religion just leave me and everyone alone?" - Because you've commited sins. If all you did wrong in your life was no believe in God, but you enver commited any sins, you would be guarenteed to go to Heaven. But as a human, that is impossible for you. So while atheism is not a sin, it ultimately leaves you without any protection against it, and no ways of forgiveness for it. And children arent made to fear hell. Stop generalizing, it just looks bad in an argument.
@GermanConquistador08 To be clear, when I spoke of non-clear thinking I meant biased reasoning. Reasoning that "proves" one God, but that also proves other Gods and other things that do not exist, but is used to only prove the one God the person already believes in, is not clear thinking at all... It only works for the persons who already believe, and this should not be a prerequisite, and in fact highlights bad logic.
@matthewdoucette The Roman era, the medieval and dark ages (In places OTHER than europe), the renassiance, the enlightenment etc. The scientific evolution YOU speak of is a period after the 18th century where TECHNOLOGY allow science to study things it wasnt able to before. Which is interesting since almost every scientific revolution, Christians were a large part of it. Also, there is evidence that is exclusively Christian, as Criag points out many many times with the ressurection.
@GermanConquistador08 The scientific revolution built up faster based on technology, I agree, but the scientific revolution allowed that technology. Religion did nothing but suppress the advancement of knowledge, torturing those who studied the universe and discovered its secrets whenever it opposed a religious belief. How can you have respect for the religious system? It never moves forward on its own, always unwillingly due to a rise in social morality and technological advancement.
@matthewdoucette "Religion did nothing but suppress the advancement of knowledge" - Religion has advanced civilization and science more than any force on Earth, at LEAST Christianity in Europe did. Historians CITE Christianity and its societal values to why Europe was able to crawl its way out of the dark ages and the pagan barbarian hordes who had no societal desire to advance technology. "torturing those who studied the universe" - In the inquisition? Nope, sorry you're wrong here.
@GermanConquistador08 The resurrection is just a story that doesn't makes sense and is likely untrue, unless you suppose the existence of a God. This, Craig agrees with. So you cannot use it as prove of a God when a God is required to have it make sense to begin with. Isn't this begging the question or a fallacy of many answers or circular logic? I know it's not the last one. But it's a fallacy, and Craig himself claims to be so educated on these things. I hope you follow this position.
@matthewdoucette The church certainly did torture peoeple of science. AT ALL! "How can you have respect for the religious system?" - Because i Actually KNOW European history and it is built on two giant pillars, Athens (Science, Democracy, and liberty of will) and Jerusalem (Moral values in government and society, desire for bettering of self, reason for being and advancing) You will understand and accept Athens, but not Jerusalem. You like to pretend that pillar doesnt exist.
@matthewdoucette "always unwillingly due to a rise in social morality" - How can you say that if morality isnt objective? You are contradicting your own understanding of morality. "The resurrection is just a story that doesn't makes sense and is likely untrue" - You presuppose that. History is pretty clear on the historical figure of Jesus. And its not a story, the entire bible is historical fact (excluding the supernatural which is doubtable) The story is examined then conclusion is made.
@GermanConquistador08 Morality is relative... that's why societies treat people better as time goes on. It's your bible that didn't understand, and still hasn't been updated to understand, attacks on homosexuals, slavery, mistreatment of women, etc. We are beyond the biblical morality. It's because morality grows and evolves... What Dr. Craig says about morality is completely untrue, because he cannot understand how right and wrong can come form non-Gods, but it does.
@matthewdoucette "attacks on homosexuals" - They are not attacks. They are simply a protection of the tradition of marriage (Which in the US are almost always done in Christian tradition). Its not an attack whatsoever, God tells us to love homosexuals as much as heterosexuals. "slavery" Christians have been at the forefront of anti-slavery movements since the dark ages when Christianity essentially ended slavery in Europe (to be replaced with serfdom admittingly however, it wasnt perfect)
@matthewdoucette Abraham Lincoln, Hariette Tubman, Martin Luther King, and the forefront leaders and supporters of the Anti-slavery and civil rights movements were almost ALWAYS Christians. Also, WOMENS rights movements were above ALL Christian. The bible teaches equality between men and women but atheists will never admit that. And you too are victem of the tearing apart of real bibilical teachings into bibilical sterotypes which are almost never true. You need to READ the bible it seems
@GermanConquistador08 One post conclusion to you: Hell is torture regardless of technicalities and word play, God put me there and I don't deserve it. My moral judgment out performs both the bible and God. Life is better for homosexuals, women, minority races, scientists, me, you, etc., against religion's suppression. Women's rights in the bible? Read Deuteronomy. My morality is beyond this. You have belief, and no evidence, where there's supporting evidence of my claims. Thank you, however...
@matthewdoucette "Hell is torture' - Spiritually, very. But torture? As in our human perception of torture. No, its not and no where in the bible supports that. "My moral judgment out performs both the bible and God" - Ok right here, you're assuming if God is real (If no than, your moral judgement exists and God doesnt) and you're saying you know better than Him. Which is Satan-esc it really is. I'm not calling you a Satanist I'm not. I'm just saying thats exactly what he said, and did,
@GermanConquistador08 One thing I hope you do understand, which I think you do by your words, is my rejection of God in no way makes me into Satan or whatever opposing side to God there is... I reject it all. I think my morality comes from my experiences and my ability to see consequences, and ultimately founded by evolutionary traits which we still have some negative ones in us, but our power of consciousnesses allows us to overcome those primitive motives.
@matthewdoucette And again, the modern world was created on bibilical principles and history is against you on this one. Christians have been at the forefront of anti-slavery, and civil rights movements as well as scientific and artistic revolutions as well as governmental revolutions which have all shaped the modern world. Your and my world is better because of Christianity, and you deny this out of historical ignorance.
@matthewdoucette "Women's rights in the bible? Read Deuteronomy." - I've read the bible. ALL OF it, and I've cross-refenced passages and studied Jesus' parables. You tell ME which verses YOU THINK are supporting of your view of the "evils" of the bible, and I'll debunk them. Thats why I operate, because my conclusions will be different from yours. So tell me YOURS ok?. And your morality has no basis where as mine does. And Stop lying, there is evidence. You just conclude it to be incorrect.
@GermanConquistador08 Women treated as property. When raped they are damaged goods, and raper's charge is to marry the damaged goods and pay the father for the loss. Deuteronomy 22 or 23 if my memory serves me correct, if not close to it. My morality is governed by how I see people react to how I treat them, direct responsibility for my actions, whereas you have a bible in the way. And there is no evidence, this stuff Craig says is not evidence, it's just reconstructed faith. I need evidence.
@matthewdoucette "and raper's charge is to marry the damaged goods and pay the father for the loss" -The word damaged gods is not in the bible. In fact the passage is explicit that the women has commited no sin. And you mis-represent the passage in question. The law was, is a man rapes a women he must marry her. Now in the law, if the women refused and the father agreed than the man shall die. But think about this logically. A man rapes a women, no death can be a simply payment for that.
@matthewdoucette But to work literally all your life to support a women whom you raped, upon penatly of death you must support her throughout her life. Now what rapist is going to risk death or essentially slavery to pay a debt he can never fully repay in order for some cheap sexual thrill? Moral: Because of this la in Deuteronomy, there were almost no rapes in Israel. "how I see people react to how I treat them" - My morality react upon how my actions benefit or hurt others.
@matthewdoucette Because just feeling that I've done right is the most dangerous thing, to feel rather to see. To believe you are doing good when are doing evil is one of the greatest evils. "this stuff Craig says is not evidence, it's just reconstructed faith" - You havent dealt with any of the evidence, at least to me. I'm saying (for right now, lets play along with this) Craig's evidence is my evidence. Debunk it.
@matthewdoucette Just like all history, the ressurection is a part of studiable history, and its not circular logic since there is no re-enforcing supposition. Jesus claimed to be God and proved it with his ressurection, and we have to conclude if it is fact or fiction with the evidence we have. " know for a fact some people believe in God out of outright fear of pain" - And thats probably due to human re-enforcement, not God himself. The Hebrews in the first gospel thought the same, except Mary
@GermanConquistador08 The Resurrection of Jesus only makes sense if we assume God did it, so how can information passed onto us about such a resurrection be proof of a God in light of the other possibilities? What if the information is, instead, proof that the stories are wrong or exaggerated? Especially considering stories do get exaggerated. It is also an explanation of what happened 2,000 years ago. Why is it not proof of this instead? This is why I claim it to be meaningless...
@matthewdoucette "for simply just not believing in something they have never experienced?" -Everyone has expereinced God. If you experienced God right now, you could say it was something else, almost every does. "makes sense if we assume God did it" - No it doesnt. You see a man rise from the dead after claiming he was an immortal God, what would your conclusion be? "Especially considering stories do get exaggerated" -True, but the bible hasnt changed in over 2000 years majorly.
@matthewdoucette Sure there's been word and language changes, but in 2000 years the bible hasnt changed major ideas or themes ever. Your claims are simply unfounded by the evidence here. "why societies treat people better as time goes on." - Arguable. Seems we're in a downgrading on that level (according to almost ever person of the last generation I've met) And then you make one mistake after another HAHA!
@matthewdoucette "but the same people would stop if this logic were used as proof of another deity." -As of yet, not other deity has been proven so, but as soon as that happens let me and the rest of Christendom know alright?
@GermanConquistador08 No deity has been proven. But if you choose Dr. Craig's "proofs" then his proofs can apply to all deities. When you listen to his arguments you have to let them be free and applicable to all things, not just the God you believe in. I mean, can't you envision a Muslim using some of this same logic to prove Allah? Craig never goes here, as he's stuck in "God or no God" thought, where I am more free to consider "no God, God, Allah, flying spaghetti monster, etc., etc."...
@matthewdoucette "No deity has been proven" -Absolutely true, but Judeo-Christianity is the religion with the most evidence for the existance of their God. " can't you envision a Muslim using some of this same logic to prove Allah?" - No actually. And there's a big reason for that. The Qu-ran Allah is will. Its not a Muslims place to convince someone Allah exists, it is a matter of willpower. Thats the current school of Islam and why you dont see as many Muslim apologists as Christian
@GermanConquistador08 I would like to learn more from your thoughts on how Christianity works under the logic you are following and Islam does not. I do not follow your comment on this, and I will be honest about it. I honestly want to know more. I have a feeling you are claiming the apologists (the use of logic to back a religion I guess) is something Islam and no other religion can do as well as Christianity, but most of Craig's arguments are not Christian-centric.
LOL, I predicted you'd say someting like that. When reading your other comment I was just thinking to myself "I wonder what he'll say when he hears Atkins say science is omnipotent". You're definitely right. Atkins does treat science as if it's a personal force that acts on its own volition. Very odd! It just gives credence to those who claim that science is the religion of many atheists.
@derth4 he might give that impression elsewhere in this debate, but the word 'omnipotent' does not suggest an entity. An idea, concept, tool or method can be omnipotent.
ya but he thinks that science will magically solve all problems. I guess I have to take his word for it.... or I can take it at face value as a desprete attempt to win an arguement he already lost. Atkins may be a good scientist but he's no theist. The insulting part is where he starts talking down to the audience telling them that he has all the answers. As if were unworthy of the "word". Were not idiots we get it; Atkins and other athiests need to get out of their medieval mindset.
@derth4 Yes, Atkins seems borderline autistic or something. - Though Craig's arguments are also outdated and indefensible. What he 'won' in this debate is at the most agnosticism.
@fjoo Atkins lost the debate because he failed to defeat Craig's arguement. The deate was about arguements for or against the existence of God or a god in general. Craig won this easily.
@derth4 Yes, he won the debate, especially being -98. He wouldn't have gotten away with many of those arguments today with an audience more used to them.
Just because he's opponent wasn't able refute him, he doesn't win more than what his arguments can support, which is agnosticism . He doesn't have more information than other humans, so his guess is as good as anyone else's.
Then I think we agree with each other. I'm appalled at Dr Atkins mumbling. I think he is relying on his prowess as a physical chemist and thinking that he can simply copy and paste it to all matters. In the interview with Rod Liddle (search 'The Trouble with Atheism') he is almost forceful in his opinions suggesting that theistic scientists are not full scientists. Sad!
that''s actually a terrible mistake many people make in arguements. The appeal to athourity. Well I've done this and that so I'm by extention. Atkins is an idiot if he thinks that his education makes him correct on every level.
smart people in think tanks come up with crazy shit. if you spend your entire life with people who are intelligent and think just like you and also rarely disagree with you your likely to propsose a lot of nonesense because you can.
One last thing I saw that interview. My mouth dropped. " their only half scientest" I would have asked him, how does someone get a degree and become a scientest and only be half of you? Isn't a scientest supposed to be open to possiblities so aren't you being a closed-minded fool?
@jmanexpress Hahahaah! So true, btw, I've heard he is coming to Britain again this year and will be debating him again. They also asked Richard Dawkins, but he didn't want to because he wasn't a "bishop".... A fellow Atheist of him called him a coward for refusing to debate possible the best apologist alive. x)
@thetraceur123 Dawkins is a coward, plan and simple.He said he doesn't debate creationist, Dr Craig is not a creationist .He said he will only debate Christians who hold a position in church like a Bishop yet he debated John Lennox who is just a mathematician,He said he won't feed Dr Crag's hunger for self promotion lol that's like lady gaga telling me i have bad taste in music hes quite happy to debate Christians who are possibly ill equipped but the most armed Christian apologist? afraid!
@jmanexpress Haha exactly! And besides, creationism can't be taken seriously... The most plausible world view to me is a form of Theistic Evolution Francis Collins put forth called BioLogos. The only ones who seriously believes in Creationism is fundamentalists who think that the 55 books in the Bible were written in the same genres of literature and should be taken literal... I don't take Genesis literal, it is written symbolicly in my view, and I also believes that's WLC's opinion too.
science can't account for everything, it still can't show how the first life was created, and even if we figure this out, well we just showed that it takes Intelligent Beings to create life?
...I don't even get what Atkins is saying. He's just mumbling, lol. "And Science is well the glory that religion is really not comprehensible creator world made, indeed"
Poor Atkin's - he seems to not even know what he's talking about - just a bunch of prepackaged non-sense, no-philosophy or intellectually subtstantive concepts come from his lips. Just grandstanding like the rest of these atheist personalities.
Why is it always that the believers in God are more well-spoken than the person against God??? It is always like that. Are believers smarter? More read? Its weird
@juvenarija the beleivers are usually preachers puplic speaking is their bread and butter. The people who debate against the existence of god have highly specialized knowledge that required being much much more of a book worm than someone who just needs the bible.
@twoface4 No, the majority of believers are hardworkers, i accept that exist some douchebags that fool people with a lower level of studies, and its a easy money get to that douchebags, but, not just for a few that are that douchebags, thats will mean that all believers are douchebags of course not, its like if i say that all atheist are fags, some like that. Id think that we as thinking human beings MUST respect the beliefs of others, of course is this dont damage other persons. Peace nigga :)
unfortunately Dr Atkins gets into strife when he says we can prove god exists. all his points about religion being a demonstrable failure are quite valid... but they don't prove that god dos not exist. A "slip" or "belief" like this is all a quality debater like Craig needs because it shifts the burden of proof from him to Dr Atkins, allowing Craig to ignore his own insipid arguments and simply go after the "hyothesis" that god does not exist.
"the fact that science is omnipotent" as opposed to "science cannot explain everything" both statements of course spoken by Dr. Atkins. Maybe this guy should stick to writing textbooks.
here's another quote "dissonances are unattractive"
Dr. Adkins is so fixed on understanding everything about what creates this and what creates that, that he forgets basic logic, that something cannot come from nothing. Basic logic is the most valuable of intelligence that one can possess. Dr. Adkins I'm afraid, believes that you have to understand exactly what everything is made of. Basic logic proves God's existence.
you all seem to be easily impressed by style over substance.
Craigs claim of fallacy is false- its only a genetic fallacy if the source of the argument has no bearing on the premise or logic of argument. But of course Peters points are entirely relevent and go straight to the heart of the premise
@mutbutyt but Dr. Peters offfered no substance, even the host disagreed with him. His arguements were based on his bias and that makes the reasoning sound to him.
@mutbutyt yes you are right however he has to argue from a point of logic. You cannot just form your own logic from a subjective argument . Logic cannot contridict itself or it is not logic.
This Atkins guy is so arrogant, "the explanation have to be something that we humans with our blahblahblah...." and then all his "explanations" are so freaking idiot!!!.... incredible!
Crikey, you got to feel a little sorry for Peter Atkins here. He got totally battered in this debate, I watch him on TV alot and he is usually full of arrogance and contempt for religion, I don't see any of that here!
Just because it's a fallacy doesn't make it untrue. Craigs pedantic naming of fallacies could be seen as not seeing the wood for the trees. Anyhow bottom line seems to be Craigs willingness to accept supermatural over natural because of revelation (no stronger than Atkins 'revelation' of the opposite) also perhaps his lack of an aesthetic appreciation of science
I just think that maybe Atkins wasn't a good enough of a contestant. I want to hear from the Atheist's "savior" Dawkins
KoBred1 3 days ago
To be fair the pro-athiesm side of this debate has been represented poorly all through. Atkins is clearly not up the level of Craigs understanding despite his magnificent vocabulary. Dawkins would have at least made this a contest.
211bEanS112 2 weeks ago
@211bEanS112 I guess we will never know since Dawkins refuses to debate him. Probably because he was ashamed in himself after he debated John Lennox.
bjenkinsw16 1 week ago
Didn't God, through his agent Moses, make claims about THIS world (planet Earth) that science has proven probably DIDN'T happen? Therefore the basis of Craig's arguments is based upon a fundamentally unsound basis.
nahyoudontgetit 2 months ago
Did he say "put that in your pipe and smoke it"? Who was this guy? (goes to wikipedia)
CloverfieldMonster95 2 months ago
Give someone enough rope, and he'll hang himself; way to go, Dr. Craig.
cheagan 3 months ago
I'm sorry - did he say "science can account for everything"? Then why didn't he, in his argument, make note of science's account of everything? I remember him postulating on the supposed chances of there being an infinite number of random universes, each displaying an infinite number of characteristics... but no "science" to back it up.
cheagan 3 months ago
Embarrassing.
olivleonardo 3 months ago
I feel a little sorry for Dr. Akins in this debate
greglee20 3 months ago in playlist More videos from Christianjr4
1. physics WILL eventually uncover the nature of the universe which will tell us why logic and mathematics works, and the laws of nature are so.
2. metaphysical truths are not anything ANYONE can prove.
3. read sam harris book, the moral landscape. silly WLC.
4. it will eventually be able to demonstrated what makes something attractive.
5. science WORKS. thats all we need.
theory of relativity has made MANY EXTREMELY ACCURATE predictions. scientific theories are not "proven". silly WLC.
volound 3 months ago
@volound sounds to me like your trying to create a religion based off of nothing.
Falcondick69 3 months ago
@Falcondick69 youre*
sounds to me like youre spouting tripe.
volound 3 months ago
@volound nothing you claimed can be proven because it is the future. and you also make the assumption that it will show how everything works. and that is a religious statement.
Falcondick69 3 months ago
@Falcondick69 "nothing you claimed can be proven because it is the future."
the argument is that there are things science cant explain. i am offering possible explanations. whether or not it has happened is irrelevant. you have not followed the conversation.
"and you also make the assumption that it will show how everything works."
i make the "assumption" that one day it may be possible.
"and that is a religious statement."
religious statement? whats so bad about that?
oh..
volound 3 months ago
@volound all it means is that you have faith just like we do and your no different :D
Falcondick69 3 months ago
@Falcondick69 thanks for ignoring the body of my post.
and no. you are incorrect, fractally so.
i dont have faith in anything. i like to think that all my beliefs are rationally justified. faith is an excuse people give for believing something when they dont have evidence. if you can name something i believe without evidence, guess what ill do... ill stop believing it. deal with it.
how dare you have the audacity to accuse me of indulging in the same embarrassingly flawed logic as yourself.
volound 3 months ago
@volound being an atheist is entirely faith based. believing science will answer everything is faith based. you think religions are wrong that is faith based. so in reality you are just a biased atheist dick.
Falcondick69 3 months ago
@Falcondick69 "being an atheist is entirely faith based."
you have not demonstrated that to any extent, just like all the claims you have made in this exchange.
"believing science will answer everything is faith based. "
i agree, thats why i didnt make that claim. it helps to actually argue against what im saying instead of strawmen. i said that i believe it is a POSSIBILITY that science will one day have an answer for everything.
in reality you are logically fallacious, everywhere.
volound 3 months ago
@volound saying om logicall fallacious is a faith base statement. and again, atheism is 100% faith based. there exists no evidence that con clusively proves GOD doesn't exist, so your left with agnosticism if anything.
Falcondick69 3 months ago
Comment removed
volound 3 months ago
@Falcondick69 "saying om logicall fallacious is a faith base statement. and again, atheism is 100% faith based."
1. this is unintelligible drivel.
2. you have not demonstrated that to any extent.
"there exists no evidence that con clusively proves GOD doesn't exist, so your left with agnosticism if anything."
oh, you fool. you dont know what agnostic means, nor atheism.
i am an agnostic atheist. so are you with respect to every god other than the particular one you were brainwashed into.
volound 3 months ago
@volound agnostic and atheist are terms used for people who reject GOD, don't believe GOD and who are not sure if there is one or which one to worship. neither of those things apply to me. and there exists no evidence to prove atheism right so you are entirely faith based on that one : 3
Falcondick69 3 months ago
@Falcondick69 "agnostic and atheist are terms used for people who reject GOD"
wrong sir, wrong.
agnostic has nothing at all to do with whether or not you believe. agnostic only adresses whether you think you know.
agnostic = i dont know for certain
atheist = i dont believe.
im an agnostic atheist. most theists are agnostic. some theists are gnostic.
[contd]
volound 3 months ago
@Falcondick69 "and there exists no evidence to prove atheism right so you are entirely faith based on that one : 3"
and there exists no evidence to prove aunicornism right, or apastafarianism right. according to you a lack of belief requires faith?
worst logic ive ever heard.
the only evidence required to maintain a position of disbelief of a claim is a lack of evidence. extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and none of forthcoming.
as i said, i dont utilise faith. you do.
volound 3 months ago
@volound your terms are wrong. and we have evidence that fairies and unicorns dont exist on earth beyond just not having evidence. and you cant not believe and dont know
Falcondick69 3 months ago
@Falcondick69 "your terms are wrong."
oxford english disagrees. as does merriam webster. as does every intelligent atheist/theist ive ever spoken to.
"and we have evidence that fairies and unicorns dont exist on earth beyond just not having evidence"
go ahead then. present it.
"and you cant not believe and dont know"
one of the dumbest things ive EVER read.
i believe that there are no aliens in the solar system. AND..BUT.. i dont know. there you go.
..one of the very dumbest things.
volound 3 months ago
@volound im not going to do your research for you. just go google and find factual information of what fairies and unicorns are said to be and do your own research. and again what proof do you ahve or any reason at all that confirms or conclusively sways your opinion away from theism and towards atheism?
Falcondick69 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Falcondick69 "im not going to do your research for you."
i dont expect you to. i do, however, expect you to back up your claims.
"just go google and find factual information "
"just google it" isnt an argument, im sorry.
"and again what proof do you ahve or any reason at all that confirms or conclusively sways your opinion away from theism and towards atheism?"
atheism is the default position. burden of proof is on the theists.
volound 3 months ago
Dr. Atkins just throws out the words "intellect" "science" "reason" "brain power" in the hopes that people will assume he is right only based on having fancy words tagged to his argument.
Falcondick69 3 months ago
For Dr. Atkins Science is a god, though clearly demonstrated by Dr. Craig that is not omnipotent, as he claims.
He also speaks about our human overwhelming powerful minds. I think that's fallacious, since we can gather a great quantity of knowledge and thinking in our libraries, but we only need to watch the news and read history books to know that we always use that knowledge and thinking against our own kind and ourselves, and that's not proper of a powerful minded being.
Mvillano13 4 months ago
7:00 BOOM!!!!!!!!
YoussefS 4 months ago
@YoussefS
AMERICA!!!!
derth4 4 months ago
I can't help but feel Atkins is somewhat depressed at the notion of not believing.
YoussefS 4 months ago
"Science is omnipotent" - Atkins
I never realized that "science" was a sentient being.Even less so did I realize that "science" was omnipotent.How can I meet "science" and ask science the deep questions of life?
"I can definitely understand why people like you desperately want to believe in God" - Atkins
Since Atkin's arguments for Atheism failed to hold up against the rebuttals of Craig, it is safe to say that Atkins is desperately wanting to believe in Atheism and Craig is grounded in theology
isthechurchtrue 4 months ago in playlist More videos from Christianjr4 10
Many ignore Atkins' calm and reasonable response to Craig on the "Five Things Science Can't Prove"
niriop 4 months ago
@niriop Calm? I'd dare and say it's more lifeless and nonsensical. Lane Craig is also calm, not yelling in anyway, yet you only assume Atkins is right becuase he uses a softer tone...
CrippledKnight 4 months ago
@CrippledKnight "lifeless and nonsensical" To someone philosophically defective maybe; why don't you go back to worrying about the men in the Bohemian Grove and the lights in the sky? These discussions clearly go over your head.
niriop 4 months ago
@niriop I offended you? Does it feel bad when words are uttered against you? How do you think people feel when instedad of providing a supportive answer, hateful negation is provided. This guy barely responded to any of Craig's arguments, instead went to attack the bible ant it's teachings. Scarecely defending his point, he blatantly attacked the other. FYI, I'm glad you saw some of my favorite videos, hope you sometime get a chance to see them. No hate towards you, hope you have a g8 day
CrippledKnight 4 months ago
@CrippledKnight "lifeless and nonsensical" This isn't hateful negation? "instead went to attack the bible ant it's teachings" Yes, that makes sense, given Craig bases his opinions on the Bible; and Atkins does make good responses, if you'd care to listen, but it seems you need your divine crutch.
"I'm glad you saw some of my favorite videos, hope you sometime get a chance to see them" *rings finger around head and whistles* Wacko...
niriop 4 months ago
@niriop seemed more like Atkins was avoiding the greater issue and was falling back on his crutch.
derth4 4 months ago
@derth4 If logical analysis is a crutch, then its the greatest of all possible supports; you and Craig have a weakness that demands a "Big Other", in this case a god, to look for and defend; its all an illusion, and not a very good one at that.
niriop 4 months ago
@niriop oh sorry... God is so my crutch.... so as a thiests I must be a backwards toothless moron who drinks moonshine. Or It's Atkins inability to accept that science and religion are not at odds. Also the debate was about the existence of god so..... how could you make the arguement a crutch.... oh I know you call him a flying spagetti monster and put your fingers in your ears.
derth4 4 months ago
@derth4 I had you more as a paranoid, basement-dwelling glue sniffer, but that image is fine as well. Dawkins' The God Delusion very well debunks the idea of the non-overlapping magisterium.
God is a crutch, and you're trying to mahic that crutch into existence, that is my argument.
Pure self-projection right there.
niriop 4 months ago
@niriop - are you sharp enought to acknowledge atkins is getting his clock cleaned here, and perhaps dawkins is so frightened of Craig, he cowers really
mollkatless 1 month ago
@mollkatless "dawkins is so frightened of Craig" No, he just realises you can never win against a good rhetorican; debate rarely solves issues, it only serves as intellectual fodder. Dawkins doesn't want to waste his time; Common Sense Atheism has a whole series dedicated to showing how Craig manipulates the rules of debate to serve his ego. "he cowers really" Ah, so intellectual debate is about making people fear and distrust each other, now I've got you
niriop 1 month ago
@niriop I guess since theists have no problem worshiping an imaginary god they (@mollkatless) Find it easy to transfer this blind worship to people like WLC
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@niriop so because atheists don't liek craigs arguments therefore he is a liar? right...well i don't like how richard dawkins doesn't believe in God therefore all thing she says arre wrong.
Falcondick69 1 month ago
@Falcondick69 Retarded troll is retarded
niriop 1 month ago
@niriop calling names? i dare say that is all the atheist has when it comes to claiming God doesn't exist, without namecalling they got nothing
Falcondick69 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Falcondick69 You see, you're so fucking stupid, you've become an incidental troll
niriop 1 month ago
@Falcondick69 You definitely need to read and learn a bit more then.
foroparapente 4 weeks ago
hey moderator : biased much ?
PrincepsNemesis 4 months ago
@Onesideofyams uhhh how? What god do I pray to, and what's he chance i'll see some type of supernatural intervention? I mean all it would really take for me to believe is something completely out of the ordinary, water turning to blood, waters parting, even speaking to me in a loud voice with other people present to witness and record it.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 5 months ago
I'd like to know how to "experience" god? Furthermore, don't other religions have similar experiences so how do you disprove one belief from another?
Requiemxtoxinnocence 5 months ago
BTW the "big bang" and many other areas of physics are just THEORIES, which means that they have not been proven ! which means that we do not know if they are right or not ! but they are the closest conclusions we have so we stick with them...
ryand3rson 5 months ago
atkins is WRONG. science has the POTENTIAL to explain everything. however, so far to this DAY, science has not been able to explain everything. superstring theory is the closest that we have come so far to explaining how the universe began but it is not even complete yet because know one on the planet is "smart" enough to complete the theory, so in other words we dont even know if we are on the right track or not cause we havent found a solution.
ryand3rson 5 months ago
Comment removed
mehldau125 5 months ago
Atkins face at 7:58 is PRICELESS!
AraimaiAria 5 months ago
Atkins obviously never took a logic class.
lukethebladesmith12 5 months ago
Who possesses now the "adipose mind" that Dr. Peter W. Atkins was insinuating?
Lepsaeus 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK (DONATED) FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
It seems as though Dr. Atkins didn't ever prepare for this debate. He is simply loss in his own words.
Jbrouhaha 5 months ago
LOL!!!! "but two fallacious arguments put together doesn't make a sound argument." What is Atkin's response to this? *desperately thinks for half a second* "But two legs are support." ! Wow, and Peter Atkins is a well known and respected Atheist? I can understand his great contributions to science, but his contributions to atheism are clearly lacking.
theantihero420 6 months ago
Atkins's face when Dr. Craig was listing his arguments about the ability of science to account for everything was absolutely priceless.
SouthCarolinaSon 6 months ago 20
3:14 Ravi Zacharias?
SouthCarolinaSon 6 months ago
He says that "an explanation (of God & why he made everything)should be something we humans can comprehend" as though, if God exists, he would be accountable to us ! If I choose to believe in God, I accept that he is ultimate in his existance and supernatural, therefore it is reasonable to assume that I may not be able to comprehend it if he explained it to me. Its kind of like explaining the meaning of life to an ant(not that we're ants).
WrknClssHero 6 months ago
Always funny to see religious types being destroyed.
1878EFC2008 7 months ago
"is my rejection of God in no way makes me into Satan" - Never said that. What I said was your statement was very Satan-esc. "and my ability to see consequences" - And what is to say that ability isnt flawed? If it is, your entire morality system is comprimised. "founded by evolutionary traits' - So how did morals evolve when morality often dictates things that are generally disliked by humans. "us to overcome those primitive motives." - Why? They seem quite benifictually, evolutionarily.
GermanConquistador08 7 months ago
it's hard to believe how far the religious will go before letting go of the idea god. if there is no reason to believe in something, we shouldn't believe in it. even in this circumstance they hold on and call out the scientists as the one's lacking understanding... and nobody seems to understand the problem with this. blinded by their own wishes, wants, and desires, unable to think and reason clearly. but the same people would stop if this logic were used as proof of another deity.
matthewdoucette 7 months ago
@matthewdoucette "it's hard to believe how far the religious will go before letting go of the idea god" - probably because the best of the scientific elite has never been able to disprove any arguments for God, as clearly shown in this debate and others. "call out the scientists as the one's lacking understanding" - No we dont. We suggest that they are interpreting the evidence incorrectly, at least the ones who come to a completely naturalistic conclusion of the evidence.
GermanConquistador08 7 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 You can't disprove something that doesn't exist, so lack of disproof is not proof of existence... otherwise we'd all have to conclude by Dr. Craig's logic of this sort that Allah also exists, as well as the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or any creation of the mind. It's opening the floodgates to "prove" all such things, isn't it? Which is why it is logical to not accept such "logic" as proof.
matthewdoucette 7 months ago
@matthewdoucette "You can't disprove something that doesn't exist" - You are pre-supposing God doesnt exist and there is indeed evidence for God, as Criag points out time and again. But you didnt even heard his arguments it seems when you start regergitating Dawkins logic like the FSM, because the FSM along with Russel's teapot are possibly the most childish arguments for atheism and against theism I've ever heard. Who knows, if we start dumping garbage into space maybe there WILL be a teapot.
GermanConquistador08 7 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 You are misunderstanding my argument to be smaller than it is. If God doesn't exist, the lack of proof is a prediction of his lack of existence, but what you missed is this is along with lack of evidence for his existence, and we quite clearly have both. Nothing Craig says is evidence for God. 2,000 year old stories and misunderstandings of science do not count as evidence. If his logic and evidence were so clear, and matching of observation, he'd have a scientific theory.
matthewdoucette 7 months ago
@matthewdoucette "2,000 year old stories and misunderstandings of science do not count as evidence." - There shows your close-mindedness. Its not YOUR intepretation of the facts nor the group of scientific elite that says it is so, therefore anyone who forms different conclusions to the same material is stupid, misguided etc. And the age of the historical FACT doesnt matter. You misrepresent the facts in order to skew the view towards your point of view here.
GermanConquistador08 7 months ago
@matthewdoucette "he'd have a scientific theory" - He does. The universe is fined tuned and was created out of literally nothing, and since physical objects or forces couldnt account for something from nothing, than it is logical to assume that a transcendent, mind-like force could have created the universe. "but the scientific revolution allowed that technology" - No it wasnt, it was FACILITATED ON technology. Without it, there wouldnt have been a scientific revolution.
GermanConquistador08 7 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 Dr. Craig doesn't have a scientific theory at all. What is it? If he has on, submit it to science journals. What you just wrote out is nothing like a theory that is falsifiable and predictive, two things Dr. Craig's ideas both fail on. Off topic, but Craig has a bad analogy when speaking of things coming into existence. Comparing the universe (time and space and matter and energy) to things that are built within those already existing frameworks, are simply not comparable.
matthewdoucette 7 months ago
@matthewdoucette "It's opening the floodgates to "prove" all such things, isn't it?" - The point being is that you go into the debate with the supposition that 1. God does not exist 2. There is no evidence for God 3. If there was any, Christians dont have it. " you have no fear built in for not believing in it" - I think I'd be less inclined to wish for something if I had fear of it actually. And you say fear without understanding what Fear of the Lord is, common atheistic mistake.
GermanConquistador08 7 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 Realize for a moment that none of Craig's arguments are required to prove my existence to anyone who has ever experienced my existence. Why do we need so much analysis to prove the same for the almighty God? And if he chooses to remain hidden for test of faith, isn't Craig spoiling that if he has (which I do not think he has) any prove of God at all?
matthewdoucette 7 months ago
@matthewdoucette Simply, you have done evil deeds upon others. I dont have to know you to know that. All humans do it. And as for the Muslim school of thought thing: Islam doesnt see the Qu-ran as the Christian bible, they see the Qu-ran as Christian see Jesus, the final truth on which everything matters and relies. And they see the Qu-ran different from the bible. The bible requires validity, the apostles did this in the books after the gospels. Muslims believe that the Qu-ran NEEDS no explain
GermanConquistador08 7 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 There is no evil deed I have done upon others that deserves eternal torture, and the punishment is never-ending torture as far as I am aware. I thoroughly reject any such claim based on my own (God-given you would say) sense of moral judgment and therefore the entire idea that God is moral is self contradictory, beyond the obvious insanity of the notion someone whose only wrong has been growing pains, which is how our (God-given?) brains learn, deserves such treatment.
matthewdoucette 7 months ago
@matthewdoucette "and the punishment is never-ending torture as far as I am aware" - Its not. Hell is nothing more than a holding cell. The only torture is that on which the demons of hell do to you, since you no longer have God's protection. Though you didnt want it in the first place, so its pretty fitting. Hell in of itself is not a place of torture. Dante's Inferno wasnt in the bible man. And how can you deside what object punishment you deserve? You're not the judge of objective morality.
GermanConquistador08 7 months ago
@matthewdoucette And since hell is not eternal torture, youre entire argument on hell disproving a loving God falls apart, especially since he is also a just God, who would be unjust is allowing people to get away with misdeeds. "whose only wrong has been growing pains" -growing pains? I dont understand. If you mean trial and error sense of morality, even a child knows it is not ok to kill, or lie, or steal.
GermanConquistador08 7 months ago
@matthewdoucette "blinded by their own wishes, wants, and desires, unable to think and reason clearly" - Why would someone wish for a God? If I wish for money that doesnt mean I have it. Wishing something is real wont make a person believe it is so. Your argument there is fallacious. And to assume that every non-atheist doesnt think clearly is supposing something about your intellectual opposition, without any evidence for that whatsoever.
GermanConquistador08 7 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 Money is something you would easily detect as real if it existed and you have no fear built in for not believing in it, so money is not an analogy for god that holds up in the point i was making. So my argument is not fallacious. The creation of science or rather the starting of the scientific revolution, in which we began to learn about everything we now know, was based on one thing: The separation between what we want to be true and what is true. This is evidence.
matthewdoucette 7 months ago
@matthewdoucette Maybe if you READ the bible you'll understand what Fear of the Lord actually is, because its not fear in the sense of terror, its fear in the sense of respectful acceptance of authority. I fear lots of things, but I'm not afraid of them. "So my argument is not fallacious" - Yes it is. Fear does no cause something to believe in something. There's no evidence of that whatsoever. "rather the starting of the scientific revolution" - ONE scientific revolution you mean.
GermanConquistador08 7 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 And I have read the bible... and I still maintain my argument from before is not fallacious with respect to the addition of bias, regardless how you label fear I know for a fact some people believe in God out of outright fear of pain. The person I am thinking of right now is a six year old who fears for his father's eternal pain for "just not believing in God"... Such things do not help your cause. And the best of the best cannot explain to me how I deserve eternal torture.
matthewdoucette 7 months ago
@matthewdoucette "just not believing in God" - Just not believing in God is not a sin in of itself. But all of us are with sin, evil deeds done on one another. Thats why we go to Hell, not because we simply dont believe in God. There are people who believe in God that go to hell, because they dont care about what they do to others. "things do not help your cause." - And I agree. But answer it with truth, not doubt. You deserve PUNISHMENT, not torture (The only torture is spiritual) Because...
GermanConquistador08 7 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 If not believing in God doesn't matter, then why doesn't religion just leave me and everyone alone? Why can't it just run in the background the way physics does, regardless of our understanding of it? Why do children have to be made to fear hell and the torture of their friends and parents for simply just not believing in something they have never experienced?
matthewdoucette 7 months ago
@matthewdoucette "why doesn't religion just leave me and everyone alone?" - Because you've commited sins. If all you did wrong in your life was no believe in God, but you enver commited any sins, you would be guarenteed to go to Heaven. But as a human, that is impossible for you. So while atheism is not a sin, it ultimately leaves you without any protection against it, and no ways of forgiveness for it. And children arent made to fear hell. Stop generalizing, it just looks bad in an argument.
GermanConquistador08 7 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 To be clear, when I spoke of non-clear thinking I meant biased reasoning. Reasoning that "proves" one God, but that also proves other Gods and other things that do not exist, but is used to only prove the one God the person already believes in, is not clear thinking at all... It only works for the persons who already believe, and this should not be a prerequisite, and in fact highlights bad logic.
matthewdoucette 7 months ago
@matthewdoucette The Roman era, the medieval and dark ages (In places OTHER than europe), the renassiance, the enlightenment etc. The scientific evolution YOU speak of is a period after the 18th century where TECHNOLOGY allow science to study things it wasnt able to before. Which is interesting since almost every scientific revolution, Christians were a large part of it. Also, there is evidence that is exclusively Christian, as Criag points out many many times with the ressurection.
GermanConquistador08 7 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 The scientific revolution built up faster based on technology, I agree, but the scientific revolution allowed that technology. Religion did nothing but suppress the advancement of knowledge, torturing those who studied the universe and discovered its secrets whenever it opposed a religious belief. How can you have respect for the religious system? It never moves forward on its own, always unwillingly due to a rise in social morality and technological advancement.
matthewdoucette 7 months ago
@matthewdoucette "Religion did nothing but suppress the advancement of knowledge" - Religion has advanced civilization and science more than any force on Earth, at LEAST Christianity in Europe did. Historians CITE Christianity and its societal values to why Europe was able to crawl its way out of the dark ages and the pagan barbarian hordes who had no societal desire to advance technology. "torturing those who studied the universe" - In the inquisition? Nope, sorry you're wrong here.
GermanConquistador08 7 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 The resurrection is just a story that doesn't makes sense and is likely untrue, unless you suppose the existence of a God. This, Craig agrees with. So you cannot use it as prove of a God when a God is required to have it make sense to begin with. Isn't this begging the question or a fallacy of many answers or circular logic? I know it's not the last one. But it's a fallacy, and Craig himself claims to be so educated on these things. I hope you follow this position.
matthewdoucette 7 months ago
@matthewdoucette The church certainly did torture peoeple of science. AT ALL! "How can you have respect for the religious system?" - Because i Actually KNOW European history and it is built on two giant pillars, Athens (Science, Democracy, and liberty of will) and Jerusalem (Moral values in government and society, desire for bettering of self, reason for being and advancing) You will understand and accept Athens, but not Jerusalem. You like to pretend that pillar doesnt exist.
GermanConquistador08 7 months ago
@matthewdoucette "always unwillingly due to a rise in social morality" - How can you say that if morality isnt objective? You are contradicting your own understanding of morality. "The resurrection is just a story that doesn't makes sense and is likely untrue" - You presuppose that. History is pretty clear on the historical figure of Jesus. And its not a story, the entire bible is historical fact (excluding the supernatural which is doubtable) The story is examined then conclusion is made.
GermanConquistador08 7 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 Morality is relative... that's why societies treat people better as time goes on. It's your bible that didn't understand, and still hasn't been updated to understand, attacks on homosexuals, slavery, mistreatment of women, etc. We are beyond the biblical morality. It's because morality grows and evolves... What Dr. Craig says about morality is completely untrue, because he cannot understand how right and wrong can come form non-Gods, but it does.
matthewdoucette 7 months ago
@matthewdoucette "attacks on homosexuals" - They are not attacks. They are simply a protection of the tradition of marriage (Which in the US are almost always done in Christian tradition). Its not an attack whatsoever, God tells us to love homosexuals as much as heterosexuals. "slavery" Christians have been at the forefront of anti-slavery movements since the dark ages when Christianity essentially ended slavery in Europe (to be replaced with serfdom admittingly however, it wasnt perfect)
GermanConquistador08 7 months ago
@matthewdoucette Abraham Lincoln, Hariette Tubman, Martin Luther King, and the forefront leaders and supporters of the Anti-slavery and civil rights movements were almost ALWAYS Christians. Also, WOMENS rights movements were above ALL Christian. The bible teaches equality between men and women but atheists will never admit that. And you too are victem of the tearing apart of real bibilical teachings into bibilical sterotypes which are almost never true. You need to READ the bible it seems
GermanConquistador08 7 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 One post conclusion to you: Hell is torture regardless of technicalities and word play, God put me there and I don't deserve it. My moral judgment out performs both the bible and God. Life is better for homosexuals, women, minority races, scientists, me, you, etc., against religion's suppression. Women's rights in the bible? Read Deuteronomy. My morality is beyond this. You have belief, and no evidence, where there's supporting evidence of my claims. Thank you, however...
matthewdoucette 7 months ago
@matthewdoucette "Hell is torture' - Spiritually, very. But torture? As in our human perception of torture. No, its not and no where in the bible supports that. "My moral judgment out performs both the bible and God" - Ok right here, you're assuming if God is real (If no than, your moral judgement exists and God doesnt) and you're saying you know better than Him. Which is Satan-esc it really is. I'm not calling you a Satanist I'm not. I'm just saying thats exactly what he said, and did,
GermanConquistador08 7 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 One thing I hope you do understand, which I think you do by your words, is my rejection of God in no way makes me into Satan or whatever opposing side to God there is... I reject it all. I think my morality comes from my experiences and my ability to see consequences, and ultimately founded by evolutionary traits which we still have some negative ones in us, but our power of consciousnesses allows us to overcome those primitive motives.
matthewdoucette 7 months ago
@matthewdoucette And again, the modern world was created on bibilical principles and history is against you on this one. Christians have been at the forefront of anti-slavery, and civil rights movements as well as scientific and artistic revolutions as well as governmental revolutions which have all shaped the modern world. Your and my world is better because of Christianity, and you deny this out of historical ignorance.
GermanConquistador08 7 months ago
@matthewdoucette "Women's rights in the bible? Read Deuteronomy." - I've read the bible. ALL OF it, and I've cross-refenced passages and studied Jesus' parables. You tell ME which verses YOU THINK are supporting of your view of the "evils" of the bible, and I'll debunk them. Thats why I operate, because my conclusions will be different from yours. So tell me YOURS ok?. And your morality has no basis where as mine does. And Stop lying, there is evidence. You just conclude it to be incorrect.
GermanConquistador08 7 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 Women treated as property. When raped they are damaged goods, and raper's charge is to marry the damaged goods and pay the father for the loss. Deuteronomy 22 or 23 if my memory serves me correct, if not close to it. My morality is governed by how I see people react to how I treat them, direct responsibility for my actions, whereas you have a bible in the way. And there is no evidence, this stuff Craig says is not evidence, it's just reconstructed faith. I need evidence.
matthewdoucette 7 months ago
@matthewdoucette "and raper's charge is to marry the damaged goods and pay the father for the loss" -The word damaged gods is not in the bible. In fact the passage is explicit that the women has commited no sin. And you mis-represent the passage in question. The law was, is a man rapes a women he must marry her. Now in the law, if the women refused and the father agreed than the man shall die. But think about this logically. A man rapes a women, no death can be a simply payment for that.
GermanConquistador08 7 months ago
@matthewdoucette But to work literally all your life to support a women whom you raped, upon penatly of death you must support her throughout her life. Now what rapist is going to risk death or essentially slavery to pay a debt he can never fully repay in order for some cheap sexual thrill? Moral: Because of this la in Deuteronomy, there were almost no rapes in Israel. "how I see people react to how I treat them" - My morality react upon how my actions benefit or hurt others.
GermanConquistador08 7 months ago
@matthewdoucette Because just feeling that I've done right is the most dangerous thing, to feel rather to see. To believe you are doing good when are doing evil is one of the greatest evils. "this stuff Craig says is not evidence, it's just reconstructed faith" - You havent dealt with any of the evidence, at least to me. I'm saying (for right now, lets play along with this) Craig's evidence is my evidence. Debunk it.
GermanConquistador08 7 months ago
@matthewdoucette Just like all history, the ressurection is a part of studiable history, and its not circular logic since there is no re-enforcing supposition. Jesus claimed to be God and proved it with his ressurection, and we have to conclude if it is fact or fiction with the evidence we have. " know for a fact some people believe in God out of outright fear of pain" - And thats probably due to human re-enforcement, not God himself. The Hebrews in the first gospel thought the same, except Mary
GermanConquistador08 7 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 The Resurrection of Jesus only makes sense if we assume God did it, so how can information passed onto us about such a resurrection be proof of a God in light of the other possibilities? What if the information is, instead, proof that the stories are wrong or exaggerated? Especially considering stories do get exaggerated. It is also an explanation of what happened 2,000 years ago. Why is it not proof of this instead? This is why I claim it to be meaningless...
matthewdoucette 7 months ago
@matthewdoucette "for simply just not believing in something they have never experienced?" -Everyone has expereinced God. If you experienced God right now, you could say it was something else, almost every does. "makes sense if we assume God did it" - No it doesnt. You see a man rise from the dead after claiming he was an immortal God, what would your conclusion be? "Especially considering stories do get exaggerated" -True, but the bible hasnt changed in over 2000 years majorly.
GermanConquistador08 7 months ago
@matthewdoucette Sure there's been word and language changes, but in 2000 years the bible hasnt changed major ideas or themes ever. Your claims are simply unfounded by the evidence here. "why societies treat people better as time goes on." - Arguable. Seems we're in a downgrading on that level (according to almost ever person of the last generation I've met) And then you make one mistake after another HAHA!
GermanConquistador08 7 months ago
@matthewdoucette "but the same people would stop if this logic were used as proof of another deity." -As of yet, not other deity has been proven so, but as soon as that happens let me and the rest of Christendom know alright?
GermanConquistador08 7 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 No deity has been proven. But if you choose Dr. Craig's "proofs" then his proofs can apply to all deities. When you listen to his arguments you have to let them be free and applicable to all things, not just the God you believe in. I mean, can't you envision a Muslim using some of this same logic to prove Allah? Craig never goes here, as he's stuck in "God or no God" thought, where I am more free to consider "no God, God, Allah, flying spaghetti monster, etc., etc."...
matthewdoucette 7 months ago
@matthewdoucette "No deity has been proven" -Absolutely true, but Judeo-Christianity is the religion with the most evidence for the existance of their God. " can't you envision a Muslim using some of this same logic to prove Allah?" - No actually. And there's a big reason for that. The Qu-ran Allah is will. Its not a Muslims place to convince someone Allah exists, it is a matter of willpower. Thats the current school of Islam and why you dont see as many Muslim apologists as Christian
GermanConquistador08 7 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 I would like to learn more from your thoughts on how Christianity works under the logic you are following and Islam does not. I do not follow your comment on this, and I will be honest about it. I honestly want to know more. I have a feeling you are claiming the apologists (the use of logic to back a religion I guess) is something Islam and no other religion can do as well as Christianity, but most of Craig's arguments are not Christian-centric.
matthewdoucette 7 months ago
"certain sounds, or chords if you like, attractive whereas dissonances are unattractive."
I know a lot of people who seem to find dissonance attractive. o_O lol
ShawDAMAN 7 months ago
Holy crap he is cave Johnson. He said science in omnipotent like it is a real entity and capable of free will.
derth4 7 months ago 19
@derth4
LOL, I predicted you'd say someting like that. When reading your other comment I was just thinking to myself "I wonder what he'll say when he hears Atkins say science is omnipotent". You're definitely right. Atkins does treat science as if it's a personal force that acts on its own volition. Very odd! It just gives credence to those who claim that science is the religion of many atheists.
Christianjr4 7 months ago 17
@derth4
Sort of disappointed when he did not threaten to burn my house down with lemons.
IoannesBellator 6 months ago
@IoannesBellator How dare they think they can give cave johnson lemons!
derth4 6 months ago
@derth4 he might give that impression elsewhere in this debate, but the word 'omnipotent' does not suggest an entity. An idea, concept, tool or method can be omnipotent.
fjoo 4 months ago
@fjoo
ya but he thinks that science will magically solve all problems. I guess I have to take his word for it.... or I can take it at face value as a desprete attempt to win an arguement he already lost. Atkins may be a good scientist but he's no theist. The insulting part is where he starts talking down to the audience telling them that he has all the answers. As if were unworthy of the "word". Were not idiots we get it; Atkins and other athiests need to get out of their medieval mindset.
derth4 4 months ago
@derth4 Yes, Atkins seems borderline autistic or something. - Though Craig's arguments are also outdated and indefensible. What he 'won' in this debate is at the most agnosticism.
fjoo 4 months ago
@fjoo Atkins lost the debate because he failed to defeat Craig's arguement. The deate was about arguements for or against the existence of God or a god in general. Craig won this easily.
derth4 4 months ago
@derth4 Yes, he won the debate, especially being -98. He wouldn't have gotten away with many of those arguments today with an audience more used to them.
Just because he's opponent wasn't able refute him, he doesn't win more than what his arguments can support, which is agnosticism . He doesn't have more information than other humans, so his guess is as good as anyone else's.
fjoo 4 months ago
@fjoo He doesn't know more then any other human? That's never stopped me.
derth4 4 months ago
It's painful to see an eminent scientist get whitewashed.
polariseke 8 months ago
@polariseke
funny I only saw his own down fall.
derth4 7 months ago
@derth4
Do you mean Dr Craig? Well, Dr Atkins was speechless and groping. I wonder how you can't see that.
polariseke 7 months ago
@polariseke
oh i must have misunderstood. Actually I have no idea what you mean. atkins just couldn't put his arguement together proparly.
derth4 7 months ago
@derth4
Then I think we agree with each other. I'm appalled at Dr Atkins mumbling. I think he is relying on his prowess as a physical chemist and thinking that he can simply copy and paste it to all matters. In the interview with Rod Liddle (search 'The Trouble with Atheism') he is almost forceful in his opinions suggesting that theistic scientists are not full scientists. Sad!
polariseke 7 months ago
@polariseke
that''s actually a terrible mistake many people make in arguements. The appeal to athourity. Well I've done this and that so I'm by extention. Atkins is an idiot if he thinks that his education makes him correct on every level.
derth4 7 months ago
@derth4
You're right. I'm pleasantly surprised that the theistic position is turning to be quite solid.
polariseke 7 months ago
@polariseke
smart people in think tanks come up with crazy shit. if you spend your entire life with people who are intelligent and think just like you and also rarely disagree with you your likely to propsose a lot of nonesense because you can.
derth4 7 months ago
@polariseke
also I didn't know what whitewashed meant until know. My bad.
derth4 7 months ago
@polariseke
One last thing I saw that interview. My mouth dropped. " their only half scientest" I would have asked him, how does someone get a degree and become a scientest and only be half of you? Isn't a scientest supposed to be open to possiblities so aren't you being a closed-minded fool?
derth4 7 months ago
@derth4
;-) You've hit the nail spot on.
polariseke 7 months ago
7:06 Craig is like "I'm so glad you asked" smack down time lol
jmanexpress 8 months ago 2
@jmanexpress Hahahaah! So true, btw, I've heard he is coming to Britain again this year and will be debating him again. They also asked Richard Dawkins, but he didn't want to because he wasn't a "bishop".... A fellow Atheist of him called him a coward for refusing to debate possible the best apologist alive. x)
thetraceur123 7 months ago
@thetraceur123 Dawkins is a coward, plan and simple.He said he doesn't debate creationist, Dr Craig is not a creationist .He said he will only debate Christians who hold a position in church like a Bishop yet he debated John Lennox who is just a mathematician,He said he won't feed Dr Crag's hunger for self promotion lol that's like lady gaga telling me i have bad taste in music hes quite happy to debate Christians who are possibly ill equipped but the most armed Christian apologist? afraid!
jmanexpress 7 months ago
@jmanexpress Haha exactly! And besides, creationism can't be taken seriously... The most plausible world view to me is a form of Theistic Evolution Francis Collins put forth called BioLogos. The only ones who seriously believes in Creationism is fundamentalists who think that the 55 books in the Bible were written in the same genres of literature and should be taken literal... I don't take Genesis literal, it is written symbolicly in my view, and I also believes that's WLC's opinion too.
thetraceur123 7 months ago
@thetraceur123 I will die a happy man if Dawkins picks his you know what up and accepts Dr Craig's challenge
jmanexpress 7 months ago
science can't account for everything, it still can't show how the first life was created, and even if we figure this out, well we just showed that it takes Intelligent Beings to create life?
f0zzyguy 8 months ago
...I don't even get what Atkins is saying. He's just mumbling, lol. "And Science is well the glory that religion is really not comprehensible creator world made, indeed"
TheAntiochus 8 months ago
Poor Atkin's - he seems to not even know what he's talking about - just a bunch of prepackaged non-sense, no-philosophy or intellectually subtstantive concepts come from his lips. Just grandstanding like the rest of these atheist personalities.
UniversalBrother108 8 months ago
Comment removed
afortaleza 8 months ago
Why is it always that the believers in God are more well-spoken than the person against God??? It is always like that. Are believers smarter? More read? Its weird
juvenarija 8 months ago 2
@juvenarija the beleivers are usually preachers puplic speaking is their bread and butter. The people who debate against the existence of god have highly specialized knowledge that required being much much more of a book worm than someone who just needs the bible.
twoface4 8 months ago
@twoface4 No, the majority of believers are hardworkers, i accept that exist some douchebags that fool people with a lower level of studies, and its a easy money get to that douchebags, but, not just for a few that are that douchebags, thats will mean that all believers are douchebags of course not, its like if i say that all atheist are fags, some like that. Id think that we as thinking human beings MUST respect the beliefs of others, of course is this dont damage other persons. Peace nigga :)
KevinVonKluger 8 months ago
Peter Atkins reminds me of a teapot.
tomdenman 8 months ago
unfortunately Dr Atkins gets into strife when he says we can prove god exists. all his points about religion being a demonstrable failure are quite valid... but they don't prove that god dos not exist. A "slip" or "belief" like this is all a quality debater like Craig needs because it shifts the burden of proof from him to Dr Atkins, allowing Craig to ignore his own insipid arguments and simply go after the "hyothesis" that god does not exist.
HarrynJessie 8 months ago
"the fact that science is omnipotent" as opposed to "science cannot explain everything" both statements of course spoken by Dr. Atkins. Maybe this guy should stick to writing textbooks.
here's another quote "dissonances are unattractive"
ineternitypast 9 months ago
Dr. Adkins is so fixed on understanding everything about what creates this and what creates that, that he forgets basic logic, that something cannot come from nothing. Basic logic is the most valuable of intelligence that one can possess. Dr. Adkins I'm afraid, believes that you have to understand exactly what everything is made of. Basic logic proves God's existence.
Caldari1 9 months ago
Atkins is slammed!!!!!!
qianapura 9 months ago 2
I kinda feel bad for Peter Atkins. It's just like Kennedy VS Nixon.
Lukyo1984 9 months ago
you all seem to be easily impressed by style over substance.
Craigs claim of fallacy is false- its only a genetic fallacy if the source of the argument has no bearing on the premise or logic of argument. But of course Peters points are entirely relevent and go straight to the heart of the premise
mutbutyt 10 months ago
@mutbutyt but Dr. Peters offfered no substance, even the host disagreed with him. His arguements were based on his bias and that makes the reasoning sound to him.
prn72271 9 months ago
@mutbutyt to say that science can account for everything is a big fail.
prn72271 9 months ago
@mutbutyt yes you are right however he has to argue from a point of logic. You cannot just form your own logic from a subjective argument . Logic cannot contridict itself or it is not logic.
justinbeaty1 9 months ago
He uses "You HAVE to accept" now when religion says this what happens?
TheBbg83 10 months ago
He contradicts himself so many times, atheism=circular reasoning.
TheBbg83 10 months ago
This Atkins guy is so arrogant, "the explanation have to be something that we humans with our blahblahblah...." and then all his "explanations" are so freaking idiot!!!.... incredible!
VDMpeniel 10 months ago
Crikey, you got to feel a little sorry for Peter Atkins here. He got totally battered in this debate, I watch him on TV alot and he is usually full of arrogance and contempt for religion, I don't see any of that here!
relarerfhjk 10 months ago
i think atkins is jst blind or in some sort of denial . its to obvious
yhwhizlife1 10 months ago
On judgement day everybody will know there is a God. Believe it or not.
psalmistjohn 11 months ago
Peter Atkins is contradicting himself. Recall earlier when he said that he couldn't disprove the existence of God?
RorySPQR 11 months ago
Just because it's a fallacy doesn't make it untrue. Craigs pedantic naming of fallacies could be seen as not seeing the wood for the trees. Anyhow bottom line seems to be Craigs willingness to accept supermatural over natural because of revelation (no stronger than Atkins 'revelation' of the opposite) also perhaps his lack of an aesthetic appreciation of science
mutbutyt 11 months ago