Why did you block ClumsyRoot from commenting? That action seems to be typical of creationists here on YouTube, and it has been noted elsewhere. None of the secular posters have a problem with people expressing views. Perhaps because the evidence backs them up.
Dr. Craig's arguments were debunked before Rome built an empire. Everything has a cause (Aristotle). The Cosmological Argument......Quantum Mechanics 1914 killed this one. All his rhetoric can be lined up and knocked down and has been but he just keeps repeating it to the audience of the willfully ignorant. You believe Craig's BS because you want to believe it. Think for yourself. Stop listening to these empty suits who lie to you and take your money.
Who IS this subliterate clown? Never heard of him until now.
A super-god -- omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibeneficent -- would, by definition, be utterly static, and therefore utterly irrelevant. Wouldn't need anything, wouldn't feel anything, wouldn't want anything, wouldn't do anything -- wouldn't think anything. A nullity.
THIS clown doesn't even consider this. He, essentially, gives no thought to anything.
Dennett is far above the other 3 in intellectual prowess. How can you possibly put Dennett in the same category simply because he wrote a book on religion? It wasn't even a polemic, like the other 3 wrote, it was an account of how evolution could have produced religion.
@Alexdurrant7 Have you read Dennett?! Have you seen him in interviews and debates?! He's a putz! Look what happened when Craig tore him apart. Dennett had ample opportunity to respond to Craig and he didn't: watch?v=TL0HQk32hlk. Dennett is a dodger. He just doesn't understand religious issues and he's not much of a philosopher.
@rfvidz You've clearly never read his serious works. Craig was discussing cosmological philosophy with Dennett, something he has never in his life written a serious work about. Why on earth should Dennett be competent in that area? The vast majority of his works have dealt with epistemology, consciousness and free will, and that's where his strengths lie, and that is where he is competent. It's like expecting Shelly Kagan to be competent in discussing political philosophy. Ridiculous.
@Alexdurrant7 "....Why on earth should Dennett be competent in that area? ..." because youtube atheists claim that Craigs arguments are universaly refuted:-))
@girtkaz And the spurtings of youtube users has what relevance to the fact that the area of philosophy Dennett has spent decades researching and writing about has nothing at all to do with cosmological philosophy? If you want refutations to Craig's arguments, read Quentin Smith, Graham Oppy and Wes Morriston - they're the ones who work in cosmological philosophy - not Dennett, whose areas of expertise are free will, consciousness and to an extent epistemology.
@girtkaz When have I disputed this? I've read The Kalam Cosmological Argument and fully admit that his work is rigorous and academic. My quarrel is with the expectation of some ostensibly uninformed observers that Dennett, a philosopher whose entire corpus (excepting a few recent digressions) has dealt specifically with the philosophy of consciousness and free will, should be competent in discussing cosmological philosophy, an area he has never even attempted to address in an academic context.
@Alexdurrant7 then why he coment on theology one more subject that he is uncompetent in? Anyway Craig prooves once more that christian position has more than a bit of evidence for their possition. And if one wants to argue he has to do it more serious than new atheists do.
Bull. Craig's arguments are barely logical, and they're anchored not in any physical evidence, but in uncertain postulates. He generalizes from basically nothing. For philosophy to be useful in anything other than the pedagogical sense, it has to start from reasonable premises, which Craig consistently fails to do. It's navel-gazing, pure and simple.
@MsCoralline without logic your words are meaningless and you are not able to provide any evidence to support your view. I can make such claim too - Atheists has no arguments just ranting - so what does it prooves - nothing.
I'm not saying that logic isn't useful -- it is! eminently so!. But I'm saying that Craig's particular Gish-galloping around logic is disingenuous and has been picked apart many times. In particular, he starts from bad premises and goes wandering off from there.
Your post here has no substance other than argument from assertions. Try again.
@MsCoralline "....In particular, he starts from bad premises and goes wandering off from there." So then you will have no problem to demonstrate an example of his bad premise and how it is logicaly invalid, right? And I will admit my wrongness!
No room on YouTube. See League of Reason's take. What follows aren't even bad premises, but crappy reasoning. But, summarily:
1) Kalam. He somehow gets from "things are" to "there must be a creator". He pushes that further, to "therefore, Jesus". It's ridiculous. Not even his touted logic can get him there.
2) He doesn't understand probabilities.
3) Fine-tuning: utter non-starter. He misrepresents physics in doing so (my specialty).
4) Personal experience of God. B.S. and anecdotal.
@MsCoralline I do not see refutation - it seems to as emotional outburst without rational. so mybe you can give some reason to support any of your 4 points? without reason there can be no disscussion don't you agree?
On YouTube? You're really expecting me to address the points (thus, my "summarily" above) one-by-one on YouTube?!?
No. I won't. No one wants to read it anyway. For those who want to do a little background research, Krauss (who performed abhorrently against Craig in a debate recently), has posted his own post-analysis, here (url munged because YouTube is a jealous taskmaster):
@MsCoralline I followed your link and what I found: "Craig began with an attempt to demonstrate his scientific and mathematical credentials by writing a rather meaningless equation on this first slide, which he then argued would be the basis for his 'evidence'. " If that is analize of arguments then I am a talking rabbit. Krauss did badly in debate and was not a man afterwards. If Craigs argument is poor then show it. Krauss did not adress any in debate.
Krauss *did* do badly in the debate. However, it's well understood that this is because Krauss attempted to address Craig's stupid arguments. Craig's arguments have been done away with multiple times elsewhere, and Craig just keeps dishonestly using them. Hitchens, at least, had it right: If Craig is so dishonest that he keeps using bad arguments, then ignore them.
YOUR disingenuousness of implying that the link's "analize" is all that you posted is transparent and reprehensible.
@MsCoralline ".... Krauss attempted to address Craig's stupid arguments. ..." no it was becouse Krauss demonstrated how poor thinker he is if you watch the debate once more you will notise that Craig does not argues against science that is what disarmed arguments of Krauss. I posted the begginnig it was enough evidence for disshonesty of all that but if you want my analyse of his arguments whrite privat no need to spam here. I doubt you want consider it deep.
@girtkaz Debates are demonstrative of nothing but the oratory ability of the speaker. It's only the pseudo-intellectuals that act as though formal debates actually demonstrate anything more.
@Alexdurrant7 "Debates are demonstrative of nothing but the oratory ability of the speaker. ..." only if one cannot follow the argument apart of speaker.
Again, see League of Reason's take on it. The arguments have been dealt with elsewhere; your kneejerk defense of WLC is ironic in that it's utterly irrational.
And see what I've done? I've taken WLC's favorite tactic: Make assertions and expect YOU to refute every one of them. If you don't, then I proclaim victory.
(Actually, I haven't done that, because I think it's 1) stupid, and 2) underhanded).
@MsCoralline what you did not grasp is that Craig is honest and his points are what atheists avade because they lead to conclusions they are unwilling to make. it is exactly why nobody of " horsmen" tried to address his points. those are sound academic arguments. If you can nether refute them nor conter them. then your position is logicaly unsound. That is exactly why Krauss was so upset because he really looked stupid with all his degrees and name :-) wach the debate yourself.
If you really find Dr. Craig's "arguments" to be persuasive, then I must conclude that you aren't at all familiar with the critiques of those arguments.
Craig is a sophist; he is far more interested in defending his metaphysical views than in discerning truth.
@ClumsyRoot those are not Craigs arguments (genetic fallacy). Arguments stand on their own. It is evryones(who seak the truth) duty to consider them. I am familiar with his critics - but I always can be missing something. So you can fix my ignorance then.
I didn't commit the genetic fallacy. I wasn't claiming that the arguments are flawed BECAUSE it is Craig who makes them. My belief that he's a sophist isn't an a priori assumption; it's a conclusion based on his semantic games (esp. equivocation), his abuse of philosophical jargon, his tendency to misrepresent his opponents' position, and his willingness to "skip steps" in the reasoning process--all in the service of buttressing his religious preconceptions... (cont.)
@ClumsyRoot "I didn't commit the genetic fallacy. I wasn't claiming that the arguments are flawed BECAUSE it is Craig who makes them." you claim this and then
"..My belief that he's a sophist isn't an a priori assumption; it's a conclusion based on his semantic games (esp. equivocation), his abuse of philosophical jargon.." It does not matter what Craig does or does not( he is true gentelman in debates) genetic fallasy is to attack him not the argument. So your argument is?
You misunderstand. The genetic fallacy was not committed by ClumsyRoot. He did not attack Craig as the originator of Craig's arguments; he attacked the arguments (e.g. equivocation, semantic games, begging the question, etc.).
@MsCoralline then he have to back up his possition with an argument why he think so, as I do not find any of the kind, thus adressing the very argument not the dr. Craig's skills.
You may be right. He seemed to have given a moderately good definition of it several posts down, but then continues to mis-use it later. It's as though he's a student, forced to learn definitions, and then unable to apply them to any real-life situations.
I'm not sure where the confusion is. It's not a fallacy to take a person to task for using flawed arguments. I'm not saying, "Ignore Craig's arguments because he's a slippery debater."
My issue with Craig is that continues to use the same flawed reasoning and disingenuous tactics for years, despite being called on them again and again. I can provide specific examples, if you like. (It's better to do this through private message; the comment boards are best suited for sound bits.)
...I freely admit that Craig can be superficially persuasive--he's intelligent, articulate, organized, and exudes a preternatural confidence. But as they say, the devil is in the details, and in my opinion, his arguments can't withstand serious scrutiny.
If you've sought out and considered the arguments against Dr. Craig's position and still find him compelling, so be it. I can respect any conclusion as long as it was reached after giving due weight to both sides.
I did, i said i dont know. I may never know in my lifetime. Generations after me might never know or will never ever know. You start gathering knowledge by accepting the fact that you wont ever know everything. Dont decieve yourself and others with an arrogance claiming to know.
Present me a hypothesis i can test and verify, everything else is just your imagination. Trying to disprove phantasies is pointless.
Talking to a christian is like talking to a fish. There is nothing there. They open there mouth and down the rabbit hole we go. Delusion has griped it's claws to deep for reason to release them. They want to be Wonderland.
@scotttebben This is one of the biggest problems with the new atheism, the lack of humility and respect. Why do you all the time talk about Christians like there only exist one type of Christian; like everyone is the same? Do you really believe that, considering the difference between denominations? At least I as a Christian has the intellectual honesty to not generalize about atheists. Try make up objections against Christianity rather than playing this childish game.
"Why do you all the time talk about Christians like there only exist one type of Christian; like everyone is the same? Do you really believe that, considering the difference between denominations? At least I as a Christian has the intellectual honesty to not generalize about atheists."
There are also many theories besides or including the BBT
watch?v=_bGx3UB-Slg
btw the BB was not an explosion it is explained why in the above video.
Anyway arguing someone had to cause the beginning implies that there was time before the BB. But Time began with the BB, there was no "before" in the BBT. Also there was no space for "nothing" or "anything" to be in it. Also Darwin explained how the eye evolved if you read further.
@mymom1234 - True. Watched a great video with Michio Kaku and his group looking for alternative theories. The Big Bang (or standard model) is apparently difficult to explain and requires a million cases of special pleading to function.
One question how does the immaterial bring about the material?
Requiemxtoxinnocence 2 months ago
The Arrogant Know-It-All Atheist Troll Horde of Youtube ladies and gentlemen.
HolyMisfit 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 7 months ago
Why did you block ClumsyRoot from commenting? That action seems to be typical of creationists here on YouTube, and it has been noted elsewhere. None of the secular posters have a problem with people expressing views. Perhaps because the evidence backs them up.
MsCoralline 7 months ago
Dr. Craig's arguments were debunked before Rome built an empire. Everything has a cause (Aristotle). The Cosmological Argument......Quantum Mechanics 1914 killed this one. All his rhetoric can be lined up and knocked down and has been but he just keeps repeating it to the audience of the willfully ignorant. You believe Craig's BS because you want to believe it. Think for yourself. Stop listening to these empty suits who lie to you and take your money.
asiekdilsa 7 months ago
Comment removed
ClumsyRoot 7 months ago
@ClumsyRoot This is what passes for an atheist rebuttal? Sheesh...
rfvidz 7 months ago
It's funny, I read atheist works for devotionals also.
MereChristianLogic 7 months ago
There is no such movement. These people have nothing in common other than atheism. They're not even 'new' people.
inkstersco 7 months ago
Comment removed
Alexdurrant7 7 months ago
Who IS this subliterate clown? Never heard of him until now.
A super-god -- omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibeneficent -- would, by definition, be utterly static, and therefore utterly irrelevant. Wouldn't need anything, wouldn't feel anything, wouldn't want anything, wouldn't do anything -- wouldn't think anything. A nullity.
THIS clown doesn't even consider this. He, essentially, gives no thought to anything.
is3it7lonar 7 months ago
Dennett is far above the other 3 in intellectual prowess. How can you possibly put Dennett in the same category simply because he wrote a book on religion? It wasn't even a polemic, like the other 3 wrote, it was an account of how evolution could have produced religion.
Alexdurrant7 7 months ago
@Alexdurrant7 Have you read Dennett?! Have you seen him in interviews and debates?! He's a putz! Look what happened when Craig tore him apart. Dennett had ample opportunity to respond to Craig and he didn't: watch?v=TL0HQk32hlk. Dennett is a dodger. He just doesn't understand religious issues and he's not much of a philosopher.
rfvidz 7 months ago
@rfvidz You've clearly never read his serious works. Craig was discussing cosmological philosophy with Dennett, something he has never in his life written a serious work about. Why on earth should Dennett be competent in that area? The vast majority of his works have dealt with epistemology, consciousness and free will, and that's where his strengths lie, and that is where he is competent. It's like expecting Shelly Kagan to be competent in discussing political philosophy. Ridiculous.
Alexdurrant7 7 months ago
@Alexdurrant7 "....Why on earth should Dennett be competent in that area? ..." because youtube atheists claim that Craigs arguments are universaly refuted:-))
girtkaz 7 months ago
@girtkaz And the spurtings of youtube users has what relevance to the fact that the area of philosophy Dennett has spent decades researching and writing about has nothing at all to do with cosmological philosophy? If you want refutations to Craig's arguments, read Quentin Smith, Graham Oppy and Wes Morriston - they're the ones who work in cosmological philosophy - not Dennett, whose areas of expertise are free will, consciousness and to an extent epistemology.
Alexdurrant7 7 months ago
@Alexdurrant7 so you agree that Craig have a valid argument that has to be delt on academical level?
girtkaz 7 months ago
Comment removed
Alexdurrant7 7 months ago
Comment removed
Alexdurrant7 7 months ago
Comment removed
Alexdurrant7 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@girtkaz When have I disputed this? I've read The Kalam Cosmological Argument and fully admit that his work is rigorous and academic. My quarrel is with the expectation of some ostensibly uninformed observers that Dennett, a philosopher whose entire corpus (excepting a few recent digressions) has dealt specifically with the philosophy of consciousness and free will, should be competent in discussing cosmological philosophy, an area he has never even attempted to address in an academic context.
Alexdurrant7 7 months ago
@Alexdurrant7 then why he coment on theology one more subject that he is uncompetent in? Anyway Craig prooves once more that christian position has more than a bit of evidence for their possition. And if one wants to argue he has to do it more serious than new atheists do.
girtkaz 7 months ago
@girtkaz
Bull. Craig's arguments are barely logical, and they're anchored not in any physical evidence, but in uncertain postulates. He generalizes from basically nothing. For philosophy to be useful in anything other than the pedagogical sense, it has to start from reasonable premises, which Craig consistently fails to do. It's navel-gazing, pure and simple.
MsCoralline 7 months ago
@MsCoralline without logic your words are meaningless and you are not able to provide any evidence to support your view. I can make such claim too - Atheists has no arguments just ranting - so what does it prooves - nothing.
girtkaz 7 months ago
@girtkaz
I'm not saying that logic isn't useful -- it is! eminently so!. But I'm saying that Craig's particular Gish-galloping around logic is disingenuous and has been picked apart many times. In particular, he starts from bad premises and goes wandering off from there.
Your post here has no substance other than argument from assertions. Try again.
MsCoralline 7 months ago
@MsCoralline "....In particular, he starts from bad premises and goes wandering off from there." So then you will have no problem to demonstrate an example of his bad premise and how it is logicaly invalid, right? And I will admit my wrongness!
girtkaz 7 months ago
@girtkaz
No room on YouTube. See League of Reason's take. What follows aren't even bad premises, but crappy reasoning. But, summarily:
1) Kalam. He somehow gets from "things are" to "there must be a creator". He pushes that further, to "therefore, Jesus". It's ridiculous. Not even his touted logic can get him there.
2) He doesn't understand probabilities.
3) Fine-tuning: utter non-starter. He misrepresents physics in doing so (my specialty).
4) Personal experience of God. B.S. and anecdotal.
MsCoralline 7 months ago
@MsCoralline I do not see refutation - it seems to as emotional outburst without rational. so mybe you can give some reason to support any of your 4 points? without reason there can be no disscussion don't you agree?
girtkaz 7 months ago
@girtkaz
On YouTube? You're really expecting me to address the points (thus, my "summarily" above) one-by-one on YouTube?!?
No. I won't. No one wants to read it anyway. For those who want to do a little background research, Krauss (who performed abhorrently against Craig in a debate recently), has posted his own post-analysis, here (url munged because YouTube is a jealous taskmaster):
scienceblogs . com/pharyngula /2011/04 /lawrence_krauss_vs_william_lan .php
MsCoralline 7 months ago
@MsCoralline I followed your link and what I found: "Craig began with an attempt to demonstrate his scientific and mathematical credentials by writing a rather meaningless equation on this first slide, which he then argued would be the basis for his 'evidence'. " If that is analize of arguments then I am a talking rabbit. Krauss did badly in debate and was not a man afterwards. If Craigs argument is poor then show it. Krauss did not adress any in debate.
girtkaz 7 months ago
@girtkaz
Krauss *did* do badly in the debate. However, it's well understood that this is because Krauss attempted to address Craig's stupid arguments. Craig's arguments have been done away with multiple times elsewhere, and Craig just keeps dishonestly using them. Hitchens, at least, had it right: If Craig is so dishonest that he keeps using bad arguments, then ignore them.
YOUR disingenuousness of implying that the link's "analize" is all that you posted is transparent and reprehensible.
MsCoralline 7 months ago
@MsCoralline ".... Krauss attempted to address Craig's stupid arguments. ..." no it was becouse Krauss demonstrated how poor thinker he is if you watch the debate once more you will notise that Craig does not argues against science that is what disarmed arguments of Krauss. I posted the begginnig it was enough evidence for disshonesty of all that but if you want my analyse of his arguments whrite privat no need to spam here. I doubt you want consider it deep.
girtkaz 7 months ago
@girtkaz Debates are demonstrative of nothing but the oratory ability of the speaker. It's only the pseudo-intellectuals that act as though formal debates actually demonstrate anything more.
Alexdurrant7 7 months ago
@Alexdurrant7
Hear, hear! That's exactly right.
MsCoralline 7 months ago
@Alexdurrant7 "Debates are demonstrative of nothing but the oratory ability of the speaker. ..." only if one cannot follow the argument apart of speaker.
girtkaz 7 months ago
@girtkaz
This is patently wrong.
MsCoralline 7 months ago
@girtkaz
Again, see League of Reason's take on it. The arguments have been dealt with elsewhere; your kneejerk defense of WLC is ironic in that it's utterly irrational.
And see what I've done? I've taken WLC's favorite tactic: Make assertions and expect YOU to refute every one of them. If you don't, then I proclaim victory.
(Actually, I haven't done that, because I think it's 1) stupid, and 2) underhanded).
MsCoralline 7 months ago
@MsCoralline what you did not grasp is that Craig is honest and his points are what atheists avade because they lead to conclusions they are unwilling to make. it is exactly why nobody of " horsmen" tried to address his points. those are sound academic arguments. If you can nether refute them nor conter them. then your position is logicaly unsound. That is exactly why Krauss was so upset because he really looked stupid with all his degrees and name :-) wach the debate yourself.
girtkaz 7 months ago
@girtkaz
If you really find Dr. Craig's "arguments" to be persuasive, then I must conclude that you aren't at all familiar with the critiques of those arguments.
Craig is a sophist; he is far more interested in defending his metaphysical views than in discerning truth.
ClumsyRoot 7 months ago
@ClumsyRoot those are not Craigs arguments (genetic fallacy). Arguments stand on their own. It is evryones(who seak the truth) duty to consider them. I am familiar with his critics - but I always can be missing something. So you can fix my ignorance then.
girtkaz 7 months ago
@girtkaz
I didn't commit the genetic fallacy. I wasn't claiming that the arguments are flawed BECAUSE it is Craig who makes them. My belief that he's a sophist isn't an a priori assumption; it's a conclusion based on his semantic games (esp. equivocation), his abuse of philosophical jargon, his tendency to misrepresent his opponents' position, and his willingness to "skip steps" in the reasoning process--all in the service of buttressing his religious preconceptions... (cont.)
ClumsyRoot 7 months ago
@ClumsyRoot "I didn't commit the genetic fallacy. I wasn't claiming that the arguments are flawed BECAUSE it is Craig who makes them." you claim this and then
"..My belief that he's a sophist isn't an a priori assumption; it's a conclusion based on his semantic games (esp. equivocation), his abuse of philosophical jargon.." It does not matter what Craig does or does not( he is true gentelman in debates) genetic fallasy is to attack him not the argument. So your argument is?
girtkaz 7 months ago
@girtkaz
You misunderstand. The genetic fallacy was not committed by ClumsyRoot. He did not attack Craig as the originator of Craig's arguments; he attacked the arguments (e.g. equivocation, semantic games, begging the question, etc.).
MsCoralline 7 months ago
@MsCoralline then he have to back up his possition with an argument why he think so, as I do not find any of the kind, thus adressing the very argument not the dr. Craig's skills.
girtkaz 7 months ago
@MsCoralline
Thank you. I'm not sure Girtkaz has a clear understanding of what the genetic fallacy is.
ClumsyRoot 7 months ago
@ClumsyRoot
You may be right. He seemed to have given a moderately good definition of it several posts down, but then continues to mis-use it later. It's as though he's a student, forced to learn definitions, and then unable to apply them to any real-life situations.
MsCoralline 7 months ago
@girtkaz
I'm not sure where the confusion is. It's not a fallacy to take a person to task for using flawed arguments. I'm not saying, "Ignore Craig's arguments because he's a slippery debater."
My issue with Craig is that continues to use the same flawed reasoning and disingenuous tactics for years, despite being called on them again and again. I can provide specific examples, if you like. (It's better to do this through private message; the comment boards are best suited for sound bits.)
ClumsyRoot 7 months ago
Comment removed
ClumsyRoot 7 months ago
Comment removed
ClumsyRoot 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@girtkaz
...I freely admit that Craig can be superficially persuasive--he's intelligent, articulate, organized, and exudes a preternatural confidence. But as they say, the devil is in the details, and in my opinion, his arguments can't withstand serious scrutiny.
If you've sought out and considered the arguments against Dr. Craig's position and still find him compelling, so be it. I can respect any conclusion as long as it was reached after giving due weight to both sides.
ClumsyRoot 7 months ago
@Alexdurrant7
It's amusing that "cosmological philosophy" would be of any interest, rather than rigorous science.
MsCoralline 7 months ago
@theism77
I did, i said i dont know. I may never know in my lifetime. Generations after me might never know or will never ever know. You start gathering knowledge by accepting the fact that you wont ever know everything. Dont decieve yourself and others with an arrogance claiming to know.
Present me a hypothesis i can test and verify, everything else is just your imagination. Trying to disprove phantasies is pointless.
mymom1234 7 months ago
The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.
MereChristianLogic 7 months ago
@theism77
You dont need faith, you need to stop filling what you dont know with a god and start saying what really is the case. You dont know.
mymom1234 7 months ago 2
Talking to a christian is like talking to a fish. There is nothing there. They open there mouth and down the rabbit hole we go. Delusion has griped it's claws to deep for reason to release them. They want to be Wonderland.
scotttebben 7 months ago 3
@scotttebben Talking to you is like talking to a shallow-brained child. No matter how much evidence you're shown you refuse to listen.
rfvidz 7 months ago
@rfvidz LOL o niccceeee brooo lololol stupid atheist LOL only fools says there is No God. Go Hard N Rep God
CL0Z3R 7 months ago
@rfvidz Evidence? Lets see some then....
BooMeRLiNSKi 7 months ago
@rfvidz
Be careful, my friend!
MindTheHeart 7 months ago
@scotttebben what is the purpose of the universe and human life?
lightbrownpoop 7 months ago
@scotttebben This is one of the biggest problems with the new atheism, the lack of humility and respect. Why do you all the time talk about Christians like there only exist one type of Christian; like everyone is the same? Do you really believe that, considering the difference between denominations? At least I as a Christian has the intellectual honesty to not generalize about atheists. Try make up objections against Christianity rather than playing this childish game.
leidenhag 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@leidenhag
"Why do you all the time talk about Christians like there only exist one type of Christian; like everyone is the same? Do you really believe that, considering the difference between denominations? At least I as a Christian has the intellectual honesty to not generalize about atheists."
What lovely irony!
MsCoralline 7 months ago
Not all Marxists are atheist. Many are theist.
gilbertodpaiva 7 months ago
Not all Marxists are atheist. Many are theist.
gilbertodpaiva 7 months ago
A philospher trying to argue like a physicist?
watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
There are also many theories besides or including the BBT
watch?v=_bGx3UB-Slg
btw the BB was not an explosion it is explained why in the above video.
Anyway arguing someone had to cause the beginning implies that there was time before the BB. But Time began with the BB, there was no "before" in the BBT. Also there was no space for "nothing" or "anything" to be in it. Also Darwin explained how the eye evolved if you read further.
mymom1234 7 months ago
@mymom1234 - True. Watched a great video with Michio Kaku and his group looking for alternative theories. The Big Bang (or standard model) is apparently difficult to explain and requires a million cases of special pleading to function.
groundhog0339 7 months ago
I know I already uploaded this video before. But this video quality is much better.
rfvidz 7 months ago
@rfvidz Great post. thanks for the upload (:
xTheUnknownTruthx 7 months ago