William Lane Craig vs Theodore Drange (HQ) 3/11

[REDRAGON12345]

Wow, really weak arguments by Drange.

[JKwingsfan]

Oh dear, Drange has no presentation skills.

[xchris1800]

With all respect, stupid arguments comes from Theodore Drange 

[Sophiethefembot]

errr i thought Jesus appeared to 500 people!!

[AKAKArnott]

@Sophiethefembot

Nope that was just Paul coming out with his usual BS to get more converts to Christianity. The gospels don't mention the 500 and we have no accounts from any of the 500 themselves or any of their friends or family. Paul doesn't name any of them nor does he mention what Jesus is supposed to have said to them.

It's like most of Paul's claims - well intentioned but clearly made up / fabricated to suit his purpose.

[james64468]

i really dont think drange has a good arguement. Other that believe like him have more of an agruement. He should give more sound evidence that there not a God.

I could say this or that but Does it make it true? If I dont back it up it would have to be false. Hardcore evidence has at least 2 or 3 sources that all agree.

[MoonwalkerWorshiper]

Dr. Drange thinks he would make a better god than God himself cuz he have all these ideas...

[arktheball]

I would pay Drange to say "be vewy vewy qwuiet, i mhunting wabbits hahaah"

[poisionarrowclean]

@arktheball He sounds like a cross between Elmer Fudd and Forrest Gump

[grgrhlms]

Drange's argument is rediculous to me. To say well maybe God could do this and this and that and this...come on man. He does nothing in that argument to prove the existence of a God. The atheists I've encountered, say that if God exists he would do certain things. Those things that you think God should do if he exists is merely irrelevant to the existence of a God. The God could be a trickery or evil God, the point is the atheist is off topic here.

[omocorp]

Maybe he's D ranged.

[Naked4Jesus]

Drange was merely supporting his argument from the problem of evil. In other words, he was giving examples of less cruel ways to deal with certain issues and more explicit, and effective methods of guiding humans to the right path. So he wasn't merely ranting about what a god could have done just to whine but rather to demonstrate that his premise is true: if there were an omnibenevolent, omnicient, omnipotent god then the world would be a better place (the problem of suffering).

[lyonellelion]

i understand the argument of theodore drange but in a debate of this magnitude personal preferences are not valid.

[snowflakehunter]

that might be the dumbest argument I've ever heard! lmao... fewer earthquakes, storms, and volcanic eruptions?!!! He wasn't serious was he? Without volcanic eruptions ,w hich cause earthquakes, there wouldn't be any land to stand on. As far as the instability of the earth, that instability is what created the entire universe! that was priceless! lol that's why i understand why God has no problem wiping us out. Our "egos" makes us think that the world should have been a paradise just for us.

[lacontracultura]

Dood... I know this has nothing to do with the debate, but Drange's voice has this weird soothing effect. Lolz.

It reminds me of my grandfather, maybe that's why.

- - -

It's cool to see that before atheists used to give arguments for the nonexistence of God. They got so lazy now, that they don't even think they need to do so.

[CmRoddy]

Wow, Dr. Drange. I only heard his first argument before writing this and I have to say, it is simply not logical. His whole first argument is nothing but a bunch of assertions with no evidence of proof.

[robtul12]

And what exactly do you think Craig does. He asserts a bunch of things out of fiat and never provides any physical, verifiable, evidence for any of it. What's your point CmRoddy? Craig's arguemnt is nothing but conjecture and speculation.

[umblevable]

seriously? craig lays out each argument with premises fully explained - they are deductive arguments. so the conclusion follows logically. drange's arguments follow the faulty logic of "god could have..." or "if god exists we should expect...". so his conclusion is easily refuted by refuting the premise that "god had sufficient reasons not to..." or "if god exists then we shouldnt expect..." his arguments dont follow logically. craigs are not assertions, they are evidential.

[robtul12]

Craigs argument is, as I said, completely speculative and conjectural. He is trying to prove the existence of a god by sheer philosophical speculation. He has to do this because he has no real evidence. I have seen Muslim "scholars" use similar arguments to prove the existence of their deity. Indeed, you could "prove" that any sort of god person exists by Craig's standards. Just substitute Allah for Jesus. it is just completely absurd.

[JKwingsfan]

@umblevable Nah, Drange's arguments aren't unsound. They're evidential and inductive rather than purely deductive like Craig's.

The Kalam Argument is a bit ridiculous. Cosmology is so unbelievably complex, and we know so little about it, it's crazy to assert definitively that X created the universe or Y created the universe when we really have no idea. There are some interesting ways to support it, but live debates rarely go into that kind of depth.

[taotaotatti]

What is this? a serious debate (which I had hoped it would be) or a beavis and budhead comedy of the worst kind. I'm not certain I can take Dr. Drange seriously. "Deus ex Machina"? Really! That's not the God I've come to know.

[tudungsenduk]

5 reasons that God exist? I think reason 1 and 2 is acceptable the rest is irrelevant.

[CmRoddy]

You have to take all the arguments and reasons as a cumulative case, not each one by itself.