Even when a video is dishonestly edited to make Craig look good, he STILL loses due to his reliance on arguments from ignorance and fundamental misunderstandings of the same scientific theories he thinks actually justify his ignorant beliefs.
Nice editing skills you fucking moron!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! this debate is ove 2 hours long and somehow you make each speakers points in less then 10 minutes your good man
I think any intellectual would rather not debate Craig. He has no basis in rational fact for any premise, is unfamiliar with the scientific method and totally unprepared to participate in a meaningful discussion. I want it to be this way is simply not an argument worth making.
Typically, you cannot prove a negative. So, if the proposition to be proved is: god does not exit, Hitchens looses. But if the proposition is: god exists, Hitchens wins because there is no credible evidence to prove god's existence. If the proposition is: god exists as described in the Bible, then Hitchens wins and he gets to entertain us.
Infinity is a imaginary number that does not exist as Dr. William Lane Craig clearly puts. Thus God does not exist because God exist only in a fact less arbitrary space that can't be proven by anything.
Timeless & spaceless, for the sake of argument, let us grant. What reasoning suggests that these things necessarily came into existence as the willful act of a being & not just a natural process or accident? But let's grant willful authorship: If it was created by a being why should it suggest the act of only 1 being & not 2 or more beings? Big Bang doesn't suggest that time & space could never have existed before, or that this being functions outside of time. Too many holes in his reasoning.
It was cruel of them to publish those photos of Dr. Craig when he got caught cross-dressing last year. It was in the privacy of his own home, and he wasn't hurting anyone. If he wants to dress up as a ballerina, he's perfectly entitled.
Craig is useless. These arguments are dead and flawed. Give up Craig trying to match the universe to your faith, your faith is based on hindsight. We could have evolved into worms, thinking we are superior. Thats your narcissistic view of the cosmos, I am special, god speaks to me, WOW!!! What a giant arrogant fool.
Can you prove to me that pixies dont exist? Its so dishonest.
Metaphysics vs empirical evidence, I know which I prefer.
@314Aurelius Because he is so full of it he just has to spread it around. The idea that any other theological and moral belief might be right is seemingly beyond the man.
Edited to almost pure refined bullshit. William Lane Craig waffles in a way that must impress people who are scared of the dark and scared of death. All he really does is present a basic circular argument (based totally on the I am right because I am mindset) and then tries to dress it up as best he can.
@TheWalkingdead321 Where did I say I was an atheist? Lane-Craig offers little more that a circular argument based around the principle 'I wouldnt like it if my idea was wrong - therefore my idea cannot be wrong - therefore everyone else is wrong - my idea is right' as demonstrated in his often used quote about rapists. He is a professional debater who is not interested in evidence, only his belief - ignoring the many other belief systems and focusing only on Cristianity.
William Lane Craig proves nothing here. He just spouts belief and uses out of context quotes and throws in theoretical mathematics. He also contradicts himself. If infinity is not possible, Where did god come from? Is god infinite? Is god energy? Does't that not contradict his no infinity theory? Did his god not come from nothing? His limited narrow vision of possibilites makes him look like a fool. Once again... no proof.
Many theists think Hitchins 'lost' the debate. In reality he just refused to play WLC's game. Craig always goes first in debates, he uses machine gun tactics to stack up six arguments, demands they are refuted and demands the opponent gives arguments to 'disprove God' (wtf?) He loves to stack up the tasks and control the debate.
As we see here, Hitches just wouldn't play. He could easily have answered WLC's question, it wasn't hard, but preferred to wind him up by being evasive instead ;-)
Craig talks a lot and says little. Atheists(in general) don't seek to "disprove" God they simply don't accept the "proofs" that are presented.Because these proofs are logically flawed, without evidence and simply "don't hold water".
Now why do Evolutionist and Atheist have to come up with proof if Theist do not? that is a little hypocritical. "logical claim huh? prove it" - "Sorry we cant believe in your religion there is insufficient evidence for your claim" - "oh yeah? prove we dont have evidence! where is your evidence that we have no evidence!" lol if you want to argue like a child then so be it! WE ASKED YOU FOR EVIDENCE FIRST!!!!!
Sorry dude but even with editing Hitchens still wins. Coz you have to look at their arguments. Since Craig's are retarded and have been destroyed many times buy many different people, giving . him more air time makes do difference.
Because Craig cannot produce any real evidence to support his case, that's why!
It's typical of most creationists to shift the burden of proof away from themselves, because they know deep down inside that they don't have any good reasons to justify their beliefs.
"HITCHENS GETS BEATEN UP IN A DEBATE" Wait..what? You can't edit a video to only show one of the sides arguments and then declare the other side defeated.
Yes, it is edited short so that it only shows Craigs arguments.
What do you mean, the audio and the video doesn't go in the same track? What does that have to with anything? No, Hitchens did not hitchslap himself, the video barely shows Hitchens or his arguments. I am not ignorant and the last time i checked i was not a cunt, so sorry but no.
@ASleepyMind Proove that it is edited? it shows only craig's aruguement? dont u hear the voice of hitchens? dont you have the common sense to understand the conversation between them are matching each other? when u say it is edited, in terms of what it is edited? lol,
@TheWalkingdead321 You want proof? Just view the fucking video and there's your proof.
Yes, i can hear Hitchens, for a few moments, but the major part of the video is basically Craig going on about how everything exists and therefore god(the christian one of course!) exists. I guess i don't have the common sense to fully understand your comment due to bad spelling on your part. In what terms? It's cut short in order to make Craig look good something that obviously failed.
then go watch the whole debate. It's on youtube. The whole thing. And then come back on here and tell me that Hitchens doesnt get beaten soundly. Because he absolutely does get beaten in this debate. Many atheists would completely agree.
@repthe9011 I have seen the whole thing and now i'm back to tell you that Hitchens does NOT get beaten soundly. "many atheists would completely agree" - are you one of them?
@ASleepyMind COMMON SENSE ATHEISM . com/?p=1230 make common sense athiesm one word.
Craig won the debate. Hitchens gives no sound reasoning for the belief that God does not exist and looked to be scared to answer questions at times. You have to realize that this is not a trial. This is a debate. The burden of proof is on BOTH sides. Honestly, I think it takes a much stronger test of faith to believe atheism rather than theism. There's no evidence for atheism!
@ASleepyMind I mean there is no evidence that there is no God. To just disprove my reasoning does not mean that God does not exist. All of my arguments could fail, and God could still exist. there
@ASleepyMind would still need to be positive evidence for the non-existence of God for any theists to change their beliefs. I think the fact that we are here and the fact that the universe began
@ASleepyMind thats still an agnostic point of view. in order to be an atheist you must have positive arguments for atheism, not just negative arguments for the opposition. would you agree with me...
@ASleepyMind well let me help, haha. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. the universe began to exist. therefore the universe has a cause. so what could possibly be the cause? it has to be something outside of the universe, because the universe can't exist to make itself and not exist at the same time. therefore the cause has to be supernatural. the cause has to be extremely powerful in order to create the universe. sounding familiar? there's more.
@ASleepyMind the cause must be immaterial because it does not exist in the physical world. what else do we know of that exists, but not in the physical world? abstract items like numbers, and the meta-physical like minds. well numbers can't create anything so it must've been a mind. making the cause a personal being.
@ASleepyMind the cause is timeless, because there has to be a first cause. if there was no first cause than the universe never would've began to exist because of an infinite loop of causes. all this adds up to a cause that is timeless, immaterial, non-physical, all powerful, and personal. That is God. I don't need any other proof than that for my belief system.
@ASleepyMind it was never really an argument, I gave some points and all you did was tell me I was wrong and wouldnt tell me why. I tried. absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. you are an agnostic, just thought you should know.
@repthe9011 "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
Of course it is!! Absence of any positive evidence for a thing is very good evidence of the thing's non existence. It's not definitive proof, but it is nevertheless, most certainly evidence! Think about it.
"a cause that is timeless, immaterial, non-physical, all powerful, and personal."
So a timeless, spaceless being created time and space?? An immaterial force created all material in the universe?? Nonsense!!!
@AmazingSpiderDan I've given you positive evidence for theism, but I still have never heard any positive evidence for atheism. Even in this video Hitchens cannot give any arguments FOR atheism. If someone is murdered but there is no evidence of who did it, does that mean that no one did it? absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. even if you disprove all of my evidence, that does not allow you to logically conclude that I am wrong. you must prove the opposite of my view.
@repthe9011 "even if you disprove all of my evidence, that does not allow you to logically conclude that I am wrong. you must prove the opposite of my view. "
What evidence? So even if all your evidence is refuted you're still not wrong? How do you figure that out? For all intents and purposes the biblical god does not exist. Whether or not there is something that kick started the universe I don't know but does it matter? Nothing would be any different if that was the case
@repthe9011 "based on logic and necessity, this is what I believe. how do you think that the universe began? explain to me what you believe."
Logic?? It is supremely illogical to think time and space came from an entity that is timeless and spaceless. The premise disproves itself!
I have no idea how the universe began and to be honest I don't care. It has no bearing or relevence to my life whatsoever!! I believe that the universe exists and we must deal with that accordingly
@AmazingSpiderDan How do you know an omnipresent, omnitient being with unfathomable power did not create everything? Oh and the big bang is just nothing that exploded. Who is delutional now? How can nothing that exploded be a sufficient answer to the universe we see now. Everything has order in the universe, not tending to disorder and chaos. Something or someone had to establish that order.
@MrPieter1978 Humans need a beginning and an end. An order, explanation they can understand and follow. This is necessary for humanity since 1000ds of years. Therefore they always seeked for a reason fex. for catastrophes and found a superiour power who is responsible for everything. Because for most people it is not acceptabel that there is only nature. But... nature doesn´t care if most people need a god. If god doesn´t exist there is nothing you can do about it.
@MrPieter1978 "Oh and the big bang is just nothing that exploded. Who is delutional now?"
The Big Bang was not an explosion as there was nothing to explode into. it was an expansion of the universe. Learn a bit about it before you dismiss it.
"Everything has order in the universe, not tending to disorder and chaos. Something or someone had to establish that order."
Does it? So the Andromeda Galaxy being on a collision course with ours is order? The universe is very disorderly!
@hurrayforvideogames Because its easier to let the smart kids in the class do all the homework lol. We know how to study and they know how to listen We know how to critically think and they know how to do as their told. We know that nothing can be known it can only be further understood and they think they know everything
I don't really understand what's up with the like bar, did people dislike it because it doesn't support their view? You're looking pretty childish athiests~
We are rating the video quite honestly, and we don't approve of the video, as it's clearly biased towards WLC. Childish of the author of the video, quite frankly. I downrated the video because I disliked it.
Besides considering that atheists make up a minority of the population, it's reasonable to assume this is simply a very bad video... most pro-christian videos tend to get poor ratings.
WLC cannot ever be taken seriously as a professional person. He had admitted that his worldview is built first and foremost on a belief in the Holy Spirit, and that if all evidence turned contrary to the existence of God, he'd still believe God existed.
It is not about evidence for this man, it is about molding facts to fit his agenda.
Nice editing Animalsfunny1. you do a superb job at giving 1 side of the argument for nearly half of the video while cutting out specific parts which help you paint a nice picture... of your choosing.
This is just silly. I'm a spiritual person, with a belief in a "higher power", just not one that is understandable by our limited human perspective- I'm an agnostic.
I love healthy organized religion, but this video does nothing to empower that social construct.
@Stellazzio does calling someone "aggressively emotionally retarded" make you feel like a king? do you have some inner struggles you need to resolve? nothing outside of you has the power to annoy or harm you until you judge it or give significance to it.
How about "WE DON'T KNOW WHERE IT CAME FROM YET!!!". At least we don't say "well, I guess we'll never know then. let's stop trying to find out forever and just assume god created it because it says so in Bronze age mythology!
@oscarmarin1995 the cosmological arguments are based upon deductive reasoning. This form of reasoning is dependent upon the validity of the premises. The premises are wrong. For example the notion that "everything that has a beginning has a cause"comes from where? It comes from our experience in the world. Do we know for instance that everything that has a beginning in the quantum world has cause? Is everything outside and apart from the universe that has a beginning have a cause? How do we know
@adstanra Quantum mechanics is very vague and ambiguous to me. I haven't learned about that stuff yet. And that's the only evidence you have against the cosmological argument. How can you believe the universe made itself and we are products of highly improbable accidents? That sounds like faith to me.
@oscarmarin1995 I am just challenging where WLC gets his premises. It seems reasonable in our experience to think that 'everything that has a beginning has a cause". If I come across a lot with a building on it, but I experienced the lot as being empty a year earlier, then I know that something caused the building to exist. I could probably easily find the cause and locate the materials used. What I would find is that no violation of the laws of physics occurred during its construction.
@adstanra "I could probably easily find the cause and locate the materials used. What I would find is that no violation of the laws of physics occurred during its construction." But God is different. He is infinite, not limited to physics. The building materials are missing the builder.
@oscarmarin1995 humans are part of the universe and every thing they do is constrained by the laws of conservation. WLC is talking about something completely different , but he derives his premises from observations of this world under certain conditions and has no business equivocating so recklessly. The premises are not congruent with the conclusion.
@oscarmarin1995 I would find that what happened was that one state was transformed into another state with no outside interference, according to conservation laws. William Ln., Craig derives his premises through experience in this world the changes the rules ( equivocates) when he's talking about God who he imagines causes the world in a completely different way ( magically from nothing). What does it mean to assert that a space timeless being "caused" time and space itself?
@oscarmarin1995 in fact our limited experience would require us to say that 'everything that has a beginning in time is a cause in time with the cause effect is transformation of one state to another under certain conservation laws. This is just the first premise. The rest of the premises are even worse. We don't know if the universe began. What we can say is that the universe began to inflate 13.6 billion years ago. That does not mean the universe began. What is a space timeless being anyway?
@oscarmarin1995 the moral argument could not be any worse. Morality is entailed by conscious finite beings in the physical world. It has nothing to do with any authority from a space timeless entity that is incoherent.
@oscarmarin1995 when there are individuals in a limited world, morality evolves naturally. We are social creatures that are very vulnerable as individuals. The laws of physics care not whether we survive or not As a result we have developed social structures that involve sense of morality. Without this there would be nothing but chaos and we would not survive.
@oscarmarin1995 the universe inflated as a result of a quantum flux of immaterial timeless space...we think. Not exactly sure though...but what makes you think a space timeless alien did it?
@adstanra So you admit you believe in an infinite universe?
Well, it seems reasonable to believe an Eternal Being made us. One with infinite knowledge, power and presence. It can't be proven, but it can't be disproven either... I still believe the cosmological and moral arguments are valid..The Bible is good evidence of God as well...
@oscarmarin1995 I think it is reasonable to conclude that the universe has always existed, in fact it entails existence. There is no existence "apart from" or "prior to" the universe. This is incoherent. What we can derive from our knowledge of cause and effect and the cosmological argument is that the universe exists necessarily.Cause and effect, in our experience, is always the transformation of one state to the next, so there must exist a primordial universe that exists necessarily.
@adstanra But I thought the universe is expanding? And it's philosophically and scientifically impossible for the universe to be infinite.
Well, I believe it is of divine origin because of the prophecies such as today's suffering Damascus, see Jeremiah 49:23-27, Isaiah 17, Amos 1:3-5. Also recent Egypt, Isaiah 19. Israel rose again in 1948 fulfilling Ezekiel 4:4-6. Increase in wars and rumors of wars, signs in the heavens, earthquakes, future one world govt., I can PM you more prophecy
@oscarmarin1995 the universe is expanding. Time began 13.6 billion years ago. That does not mean that the universe came into existence 13.6 billion years ago. The prophecies have never impressed too many people. The problem with prophecies is that people can read into them anything they want and often the authors are writing them into their narrative after the fact. Look at the prophecies yourself and decide if you think they are anything more than Nostradamus. You can tell a fake prophecy
@oscarmarin1995 when the person supposedly making the prophecy issues vagaries. These allow the the believer to read into them. For example the prophecies made by Jesus could be made by any teenager. If you read Isaiah, Amos,you will understand that the authors are talking about the nation of Israel. None of these people envisioned the past 2000 years. You can read just about anything you want into the Bible if it suits you. Do not be fooled.
@adstanra My understanding of the moral argument is
1. Is there is no God then there is no objective morality
2. There is objective morality.
3. Therefore God exists.
you may object and say morality has evolved... but has it really? Think about it.. Stealing, lying, killing, etc. has always been frowned upon. Still today. And I believe we still do as much evil as we did in the past. Like wars, and greed. They've always been around. Also from an atheistic naturalistic worldview...
@oscarmarin1995 where'd you get premise number one from? There is objective morality because the laws of physics are not random. Objective morality results naturally from conscious beings in a finite world has nothing to do with the space timeless being.are you a proponent for example of divine command theory?
@adstanra What is the purpose of being moral? It doesn't help our survival. Monkeys steal from each other and think nothing of it, sharks forcibly copulate with another, but it's not rape. Yet they maintain life. What bad would it do to survival for us humans to steal and rape according to your worldview?
@oscarmarin1995 morality is defined as that which increases the happiness and survival of conscious creatures in a finite world. There are certain behaviors and policies that enhance human survival and happiness and other behaviors and policies that cause suffering. Even if there is some evil God we would still have to define morality in this way
@oscarmarin1995 I don't think that any particular society that condones stealing and rape would survive in the world. These things naturally cause suffering, not only for the victim but for the most part for the perpetrator as well. We are going to die out as a species if we do not have rules of conduct based upon our mutual survival and benefit.
@adstanra@adstanra I do not agree... What teenager would even be interested in making prophecy? And how would they be so accurate and correct? There's much more to it than what you say.
If you read the scriptures I refered to, you would know what they talk about.
Can any teenager make a mathematically correct prophecy? And it coming true?
@oscarmarin1995 anyone can say that in the future there will be wars and rumors of wars, famine and earthquakes. This is exactly what psychics do to fool people. our minds is such that we look for connections. What God is going to reveal himself through such vagaries? There are no mathematically correct prophecies that I'm aware of that do not amount to selective interpretation, in the same way codes can be found in Moby Dick and the words of Nostradamus.
@adstanra Because there's no need. The Midianites were enemies of the Israelites. Jesus commands Christians to love and pray for enemies. And to turn the other cheek when struck
@oscarmarin1995 well this is the crux of the moral argument.in numbers 31 God through Moses orders to soldiers to go back and kill all the civilians except for the virgins who they divide up as booty ( ghastly). This is the same God that Jesus worshiped apparently. But with respect to turn the other cheek, why is it that no Christians ever do this? Should we turn the other cheek to Hitler and Stalin, bin Laden?
@oscarmarin1995 sometimes violence is definitely does make things better. Let me ask you something? Imagine you have a daughter who is being raped in front of you. Would you use violence stops a rapist or offer him your other daughter?
@oscarmarin1995 it would be absolutely insane for rational people to turn the other cheek to their enemies, except if you believed that the end of the world was imminent anyways. Given the last 2000 years however, turning the other cheek will get you and your family killed or tortured. This is the reality.
@adstanra Numbers 25 tells how the Midianites, specifically the women, led the Israelites astray into worshiping the Baal or Peor. The Lord’s anger burned against Israel, and He struck them with a plague. The plague ended when Phinehas, the grandson of Aaron, killed an Israelite man and the Midianite woman he brought into his family
@adstanra (Numbers 25:6-9). The relations with Midianite women were in direct violation of God’s commands in Deuteronomy 7:3-4: “[N]either shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For he will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of Jehovah be kindled against you, and he will destroy thee quickly.”
also I find it Deuteronomy 7 rather sickening, along with Ezra seems to denote some sort of genetic purity. This is the sort of thing that divides people and hasn't really helped the Jewish people over the past 2000 years, has it!
@adstanra also you've made an interesting statement about babies who die.I guess you believe that they automatically go to eternal life in paradise. Is it a blessing then to die before the age of accountability? Still not sure of your explanation as to why God spared the virgin females. These are the ones that caused the men of Israel to send the 1st Place and God in Deut 7 forbids these unions.
@adstanra to allege that the God of the Bible is some sort of “monster” for ordering Israel to destroy the inhabitants of Canaan exhibits an ignorance of biblical teaching. Those inhabitants were destroyed because of their wickedness (Deuteronomy 9:4; 18:9-14). They were so evil that their Creator no longer could abide their corruption. That they had numerous opportunities to repent is evident from the prophetic books (Nineveh did repent, for example, and for a time stayed
@adstanra the day of destruction). Complaining about Jehovah’s order to destroy innocent children is a vain gesture when one realizes that the children were spared an even worse fate of being reared as slaves under the domination of sin. Instead of having to endure the scourge of a life of immorality and wickedness, these innocents were ushered early into the bliss of Paradise.
@adstanra If the male children had been allowed to mature, they most likely would have followed the pagan ways of their forefathers, and eventually would have taken vengeance on the Israelites. Killing the males not only prevented them from falling into the same abominable sins as their parents, but also kept Israel from having to battle them later.
@oscarmarin1995 I thank you for your response. I see you are Jehovah's Witness which allows me some perspective. He said that God spared the virgins as an act of mercy on the one hand but killed the male children also is an act of mercy.Hmmm. In fact the ancient Israelites are the virgins because of several false assumptions. In the 1st Place they believed that sin was inherited through the male line. A Larmarkian fallacy. This is why they killed the male babies. They spared the virgin females..
@oscarmarin1995 no, Israel was conquering the land like millions of tribes before them. They committed genocide, pure and simple. They justified it by trying to state some sort of divine command theory. The soldiers were actually returning home having felt it morally correct to spare the civilians, but Moses sent them back. What man will do if they think God is inspiring them! How abominably God acts in the Bible. Of course it's not God but a Semitic tribe.
@oscarmarin1995 Hmmmm, nice comeback. I was a Christian for almost twice as long as you've been alive. If you have something rational to say I will respond
@adstanra Isn't it hilarious(ly depressing) when young Xians try to step up to adult atheists, agnostics, and non-Xians in a debate, thinking they have a handle on things? I'm right there with you, adstanra; 3/4 of my life was spent in that world. It's good to be free of it.
@PaladinHero "It's good to be free of it."....I know what you mean Mate, particularly if you have been taught it from childhood....the idea "get them while they are young" expresses this.
@adstanra Not to mention admitted by a prominent Catholic (can't remember who). Doug Stanhope had a good routine on the correlation of youth and religion.
@oscarmarin1995 because they did not feel that females contributed any heritable material. This is false. Do you really think that they needed to kill the babies? this was a typical conquest of land that has occurred countless times in the history of humankind. If God really wished to get rid of these people why didn't he just snapped his fingers? What would have been your response to Moses instructing you to go back and bludgeon babies to death?
@adstanra What if a particular individual approved stealing and rape? The person wouldn't have trouble surviving. Unless of course the person got arrested
@oscarmarin1995 most of us human beings are endowed with a sense of empathy. We also find ourselves living in a very harsh world governed by cold impersonal laws of physics. Some part of me might think that raping some person would be a good idea, but another part of me thinks that this would be very harmful not only to the other person but myself and society in general. I don't need some divine command to tell me this. Have you read numbers 31? Would you have returned to kill the men, women
@oscarmarin1995 and children because you thought God commanded you to? Even if there is a God we can never be sure about what he wants. Look at the confusion in the world of religion. Whether we like it or not we are on our own to figure out how we can best live our lives to the well-being of all people. It's been a difficult process but I think we're getting better.
@oscarmarin1995 BTW mate....I see that you are 16 years old....I must say, I appreciate that you have thought about these important issues...well done and all the best. It is 1:00 where i live , so going to bed...may check later if you have left anything else...take care.
The absence of evidence destroys religion all together. I don't think it is bigoted to rule out a god all together. We only even think of there being a god because we use our stoneage brains and come to the conclusion that things look special. With a further look you see things are not that special. The word god is reference to something superior to our own abilities. There very well could be things in the universe superior to us, doesn't mean they know of us, or care about us. Idiocy by Craig
5:27 "Infinity is an idea that exists in your mind not in reality" Then I guess your infinte God exists in your mind and not in reality. That is game, set, and match, you just pwned your own punk ass, William Lying Craig.
"Atheists have tried for centuries to disprove God" Bullshit, Bullshit, Bullshit!! Name one atheist who has tried to disprove God. How can you disprove God? How can you disprove Allah, or Zeus, or Jupiter, or Odin, or Superman? It is impossible. One cannot prove a negative, You are a lying piece of shit WIlliam Lane Craig.
Gah his tired old Kalaam argument...It's pathetic.
Just one example of his illogical ramblings..only 2 things can exist beyond space and time, abstract things like numbers and a MIND!?!...Since when can a mind exist beyond space and time, when has that EVER been proven by ANYONE to be the case? Assumptions with no evidence and nothing more.
That anyone takes him seriously baffles me. He may be a good speaker, but his arguments are laughable and littered with fallacies.
justification that a good God does not exist..1 ).It is not available to our senses 2) the confusion about it 3) the universe governed by cold impersonal forces of physics 4) the suffering of children.
These conditions are exactly required if atheism is true and very surprising if the God of classical theism is true ( a God who wishes loving relations with humans) and require an explanation.
Even when a video is dishonestly edited to make Craig look good, he STILL loses due to his reliance on arguments from ignorance and fundamental misunderstandings of the same scientific theories he thinks actually justify his ignorant beliefs.
TheTexanCanadian 3 days ago
An infinite past is as absurd as an infinite god.
Xwowplaya 3 days ago
Nice editing skills you fucking moron!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! this debate is ove 2 hours long and somehow you make each speakers points in less then 10 minutes your good man
orion1two 5 days ago
Although A Sleepy Mind (and a poorly functioning one) seems to think it is!
regoryadilloh 1 week ago
I think any intellectual would rather not debate Craig. He has no basis in rational fact for any premise, is unfamiliar with the scientific method and totally unprepared to participate in a meaningful discussion. I want it to be this way is simply not an argument worth making.
regoryadilloh 1 week ago
@4:27 Hitchens looks like he wishes he would have done what Dawkins did... Not debate Craig..
imax1971 1 week ago
Typically, you cannot prove a negative. So, if the proposition to be proved is: god does not exit, Hitchens looses. But if the proposition is: god exists, Hitchens wins because there is no credible evidence to prove god's existence. If the proposition is: god exists as described in the Bible, then Hitchens wins and he gets to entertain us.
etsneroj 1 week ago
How can u disprove something that hasn't be proven to be true?
missallioopful 1 week ago
Infinity is a imaginary number that does not exist as Dr. William Lane Craig clearly puts. Thus God does not exist because God exist only in a fact less arbitrary space that can't be proven by anything.
Promotech2000 1 week ago
Timeless & spaceless, for the sake of argument, let us grant. What reasoning suggests that these things necessarily came into existence as the willful act of a being & not just a natural process or accident? But let's grant willful authorship: If it was created by a being why should it suggest the act of only 1 being & not 2 or more beings? Big Bang doesn't suggest that time & space could never have existed before, or that this being functions outside of time. Too many holes in his reasoning.
mouthyweasel 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It was cruel of them to publish those photos of Dr. Craig when he got caught cross-dressing last year. It was in the privacy of his own home, and he wasn't hurting anyone. If he wants to dress up as a ballerina, he's perfectly entitled.
xxxHYPNOTISTxxx 1 week ago
Craig is useless. These arguments are dead and flawed. Give up Craig trying to match the universe to your faith, your faith is based on hindsight. We could have evolved into worms, thinking we are superior. Thats your narcissistic view of the cosmos, I am special, god speaks to me, WOW!!! What a giant arrogant fool.
Can you prove to me that pixies dont exist? Its so dishonest.
Metaphysics vs empirical evidence, I know which I prefer.
benaberry 1 week ago
the artful dodger craig at it again
lhurien 2 weeks ago
Major F*ing FAIL.
jezmundberserker 2 weeks ago
Dr. William Lane Craig is ecumenic?
FranklinGO777 3 weeks ago
How does WLC get from his horse shit argument to 'therefore Jesus Christ is the designer'?
314Aurelius 3 weeks ago
@314Aurelius Because he is so full of it he just has to spread it around. The idea that any other theological and moral belief might be right is seemingly beyond the man.
Nyctasia 2 weeks ago
Edited to almost pure refined bullshit. William Lane Craig waffles in a way that must impress people who are scared of the dark and scared of death. All he really does is present a basic circular argument (based totally on the I am right because I am mindset) and then tries to dress it up as best he can.
Nyctasia 3 weeks ago 2
@Nyctasia maybe try to find another way to defend your atheism bullshit....
TheWalkingdead321 2 weeks ago
@TheWalkingdead321 Where did I say I was an atheist? Lane-Craig offers little more that a circular argument based around the principle 'I wouldnt like it if my idea was wrong - therefore my idea cannot be wrong - therefore everyone else is wrong - my idea is right' as demonstrated in his often used quote about rapists. He is a professional debater who is not interested in evidence, only his belief - ignoring the many other belief systems and focusing only on Cristianity.
Nyctasia 2 weeks ago
William Lane Craig proves nothing here. He just spouts belief and uses out of context quotes and throws in theoretical mathematics. He also contradicts himself. If infinity is not possible, Where did god come from? Is god infinite? Is god energy? Does't that not contradict his no infinity theory? Did his god not come from nothing? His limited narrow vision of possibilites makes him look like a fool. Once again... no proof.
MrGuyvonjon 3 weeks ago
Many theists think Hitchins 'lost' the debate. In reality he just refused to play WLC's game. Craig always goes first in debates, he uses machine gun tactics to stack up six arguments, demands they are refuted and demands the opponent gives arguments to 'disprove God' (wtf?) He loves to stack up the tasks and control the debate.
As we see here, Hitches just wouldn't play. He could easily have answered WLC's question, it wasn't hard, but preferred to wind him up by being evasive instead ;-)
SAHBfan 3 weeks ago
Hitch is brilliant...he has to sift through all the BS, then gets to a valuable point....incredible intelligence.
adstanra 3 weeks ago
cont.
4- all the indiscriminate suffering in the world--consistent and expected with A, requires another ad hoc explanation given CT
5-billions and billions of galaxies---consistent with A, strange given CT
atheists have little explaining to do...classical theists have a lot of rationalisationing to do.
adstanra 3 weeks ago
good arguments that atheism (A) is more reasonable than the god of classical theism(CT)--
1-god is unavailable to our 5 senses (in the same way unicorns are) exactly as required given A, but unexpected and requiring an explanation in CT
2-the confusion about God.absolutely expected id A, unexpected given CT and requires another ad hoc explanation
3-the observation that the universe is governed by impersonal probabilistic forces of physics. exactly as expected given A but strange given CT..cont
adstanra 3 weeks ago
Infinity is just an idea and doesn't exist in reality, just like the power of God.
ZeksVonReptar 3 weeks ago
You gotta at least pronounce it right dude.
Tippersnore 4 weeks ago
Craig talks a lot and says little. Atheists(in general) don't seek to "disprove" God they simply don't accept the "proofs" that are presented.Because these proofs are logically flawed, without evidence and simply "don't hold water".
MrArtstacks 1 month ago
@MrArtstacks Couldn't say it better.
KiraNirvanna 4 weeks ago
Actually in realise Hitchens won because he answers his question with proof, while Mister Craig only uses faith and belief.
Mindaugas7100 1 month ago
Now why do Evolutionist and Atheist have to come up with proof if Theist do not? that is a little hypocritical. "logical claim huh? prove it" - "Sorry we cant believe in your religion there is insufficient evidence for your claim" - "oh yeah? prove we dont have evidence! where is your evidence that we have no evidence!" lol if you want to argue like a child then so be it! WE ASKED YOU FOR EVIDENCE FIRST!!!!!
JusBenLawyered 1 month ago
5:00 Okay cool - so Craig has shown that nothing can be infinite. So god has a creator. Who was that creator? Men.
chilledkirby 1 month ago
craig is such an idiot
russellchannel 1 month ago
Sorry dude but even with editing Hitchens still wins. Coz you have to look at their arguments. Since Craig's are retarded and have been destroyed many times buy many different people, giving . him more air time makes do difference.
PrometheusFireNZ 1 month ago
hurrayforvideogames:
Because Craig cannot produce any real evidence to support his case, that's why!
It's typical of most creationists to shift the burden of proof away from themselves, because they know deep down inside that they don't have any good reasons to justify their beliefs.
BattleshipAgincourt 1 month ago
"HITCHENS GETS BEATEN UP IN A DEBATE" Wait..what? You can't edit a video to only show one of the sides arguments and then declare the other side defeated.
ASleepyMind 1 month ago 31
Comment removed
steveinchelsea 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ASleepyMind Well, that's what they do. Honesty is not a strong suit with Dr. Craig and his acolytes!
steveinchelsea 1 month ago
@ASleepyMind its not edited, the audio and the video doesnt go in the same track, so admit that hitchens hitchlapped himself, u ignorant cunt...
TheWalkingdead321 3 weeks ago
@TheWalkingdead321 *not shure if trolling or just very stupid*
Yes, it is edited short so that it only shows Craigs arguments.
What do you mean, the audio and the video doesn't go in the same track? What does that have to with anything? No, Hitchens did not hitchslap himself, the video barely shows Hitchens or his arguments. I am not ignorant and the last time i checked i was not a cunt, so sorry but no.
ASleepyMind 3 weeks ago
@ASleepyMind Proove that it is edited? it shows only craig's aruguement? dont u hear the voice of hitchens? dont you have the common sense to understand the conversation between them are matching each other? when u say it is edited, in terms of what it is edited? lol,
TheWalkingdead321 2 weeks ago
@TheWalkingdead321 You want proof? Just view the fucking video and there's your proof.
Yes, i can hear Hitchens, for a few moments, but the major part of the video is basically Craig going on about how everything exists and therefore god(the christian one of course!) exists. I guess i don't have the common sense to fully understand your comment due to bad spelling on your part. In what terms? It's cut short in order to make Craig look good something that obviously failed.
ASleepyMind 2 weeks ago
@ASleepyMind
then go watch the whole debate. It's on youtube. The whole thing. And then come back on here and tell me that Hitchens doesnt get beaten soundly. Because he absolutely does get beaten in this debate. Many atheists would completely agree.
repthe9011 1 week ago
@repthe9011 I have seen the whole thing and now i'm back to tell you that Hitchens does NOT get beaten soundly. "many atheists would completely agree" - are you one of them?
ASleepyMind 1 week ago
@ASleepyMind COMMON SENSE ATHEISM . com/?p=1230 make common sense athiesm one word.
Craig won the debate. Hitchens gives no sound reasoning for the belief that God does not exist and looked to be scared to answer questions at times. You have to realize that this is not a trial. This is a debate. The burden of proof is on BOTH sides. Honestly, I think it takes a much stronger test of faith to believe atheism rather than theism. There's no evidence for atheism!
repthe9011 1 week ago
@repthe9011 Thank you!
Well Hitchens point is that we DON'T know that there is a god and that god is a unfalsifiable hypothesis. What do you mean by "evidence for atheism"?
ASleepyMind 1 week ago
@ASleepyMind I mean there is no evidence that there is no God. To just disprove my reasoning does not mean that God does not exist. All of my arguments could fail, and God could still exist. there
repthe9011 1 week ago
@ASleepyMind would still need to be positive evidence for the non-existence of God for any theists to change their beliefs. I think the fact that we are here and the fact that the universe began
repthe9011 1 week ago
@ASleepyMind is enough evidence for me, that God does in fact exist.
repthe9011 1 week ago
@repthe9011 Yes, but there isn't any evidence for the existence of god.
And atheism isn't saying "there is no god" it's saying that there isn't any evidence for god.
ASleepyMind 1 week ago
@ASleepyMind the atheistic view is the belief that there is no God. the agnostic view says that there is no good evidence for God.
How would you explain the beginning of the universe?
repthe9011 1 week ago
@repthe9011 Yes, because lack of evidence.
I can't, that's sort of my point!
ASleepyMind 1 week ago
@ASleepyMind thats still an agnostic point of view. in order to be an atheist you must have positive arguments for atheism, not just negative arguments for the opposition. would you agree with me...
repthe9011 1 week ago
@ASleepyMind if i said that the universe definitely had a beginning?
repthe9011 1 week ago
@repthe9011 Yes, the universe had a beginning. I just have a problem with getting to "there is a god" from there.
ASleepyMind 1 week ago
@ASleepyMind well let me help, haha. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. the universe began to exist. therefore the universe has a cause. so what could possibly be the cause? it has to be something outside of the universe, because the universe can't exist to make itself and not exist at the same time. therefore the cause has to be supernatural. the cause has to be extremely powerful in order to create the universe. sounding familiar? there's more.
repthe9011 1 week ago
@ASleepyMind the cause must be immaterial because it does not exist in the physical world. what else do we know of that exists, but not in the physical world? abstract items like numbers, and the meta-physical like minds. well numbers can't create anything so it must've been a mind. making the cause a personal being.
repthe9011 1 week ago
@ASleepyMind the cause is timeless, because there has to be a first cause. if there was no first cause than the universe never would've began to exist because of an infinite loop of causes. all this adds up to a cause that is timeless, immaterial, non-physical, all powerful, and personal. That is God. I don't need any other proof than that for my belief system.
repthe9011 1 week ago
@repthe9011 Yep, that sounds familiar, i've heard those arguments before and like before they don't change my thoughts.
ASleepyMind 1 week ago
@repthe9011 You won't change my mind and i won't change yours, so i'm going to stop arguing with you now, this is just a waste of my and your time.
ASleepyMind 1 week ago
@ASleepyMind it was never really an argument, I gave some points and all you did was tell me I was wrong and wouldnt tell me why. I tried. absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. you are an agnostic, just thought you should know.
repthe9011 1 week ago
@repthe9011 "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
Of course it is!! Absence of any positive evidence for a thing is very good evidence of the thing's non existence. It's not definitive proof, but it is nevertheless, most certainly evidence! Think about it.
"a cause that is timeless, immaterial, non-physical, all powerful, and personal."
So a timeless, spaceless being created time and space?? An immaterial force created all material in the universe?? Nonsense!!!
AmazingSpiderDan 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AmazingSpiderDan I've given you positive evidence for theism, but I still have never heard any positive evidence for atheism. Even in this video Hitchens cannot give any arguments FOR atheism. If someone is murdered but there is no evidence of who did it, does that mean that no one did it? absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. even if you disprove all of my evidence, that does not allow you to logically conclude that I am wrong. you must prove the opposite of my view.
repthe9011 1 week ago
@repthe9011 "even if you disprove all of my evidence, that does not allow you to logically conclude that I am wrong. you must prove the opposite of my view. "
What evidence? So even if all your evidence is refuted you're still not wrong? How do you figure that out? For all intents and purposes the biblical god does not exist. Whether or not there is something that kick started the universe I don't know but does it matter? Nothing would be any different if that was the case
AmazingSpiderDan 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AmazingSpiderDan So a timeless, spaceless being created time and space?? An immaterial force created all material in the universe??
based on logic and necessity, this is what I believe. how do you think that the universe began? explain to me what you believe.
repthe9011 1 week ago
@repthe9011 "based on logic and necessity, this is what I believe. how do you think that the universe began? explain to me what you believe."
Logic?? It is supremely illogical to think time and space came from an entity that is timeless and spaceless. The premise disproves itself!
I have no idea how the universe began and to be honest I don't care. It has no bearing or relevence to my life whatsoever!! I believe that the universe exists and we must deal with that accordingly
AmazingSpiderDan 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AmazingSpiderDan All you've done is tell me I am wrong. Tell me why I'm wrong. explain to me using logic that my arguments are completely false.
repthe9011 1 week ago
@AmazingSpiderDan How do you know an omnipresent, omnitient being with unfathomable power did not create everything? Oh and the big bang is just nothing that exploded. Who is delutional now? How can nothing that exploded be a sufficient answer to the universe we see now. Everything has order in the universe, not tending to disorder and chaos. Something or someone had to establish that order.
MrPieter1978 1 week ago
@MrPieter1978 I know it didn't create everything, because it didn't create itself.
DuTriDu 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DuTriDu you're right, because that is logically impossible. God is eternal and uncreated.
repthe9011 5 days ago
@MrPieter1978 Humans need a beginning and an end. An order, explanation they can understand and follow. This is necessary for humanity since 1000ds of years. Therefore they always seeked for a reason fex. for catastrophes and found a superiour power who is responsible for everything. Because for most people it is not acceptabel that there is only nature. But... nature doesn´t care if most people need a god. If god doesn´t exist there is nothing you can do about it.
daswenzel 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrPieter1978 "Oh and the big bang is just nothing that exploded. Who is delutional now?"
The Big Bang was not an explosion as there was nothing to explode into. it was an expansion of the universe. Learn a bit about it before you dismiss it.
"Everything has order in the universe, not tending to disorder and chaos. Something or someone had to establish that order."
Does it? So the Andromeda Galaxy being on a collision course with ours is order? The universe is very disorderly!
AmazingSpiderDan 4 days ago
@repthe9011 And i don't believe that god exists or doesn't exist because there isn't evidence to prove any of those claims.
ASleepyMind 1 week ago
Why does everyone think the burden of proof lies with atheists?
hurrayforvideogames 1 month ago
@hurrayforvideogames Because its easier to let the smart kids in the class do all the homework lol. We know how to study and they know how to listen We know how to critically think and they know how to do as their told. We know that nothing can be known it can only be further understood and they think they know everything
JusBenLawyered 1 month ago 5
I don't really understand what's up with the like bar, did people dislike it because it doesn't support their view? You're looking pretty childish athiests~
TheCaptainJazz 1 month ago
@TheCaptainJazz
We are rating the video quite honestly, and we don't approve of the video, as it's clearly biased towards WLC. Childish of the author of the video, quite frankly. I downrated the video because I disliked it.
Besides considering that atheists make up a minority of the population, it's reasonable to assume this is simply a very bad video... most pro-christian videos tend to get poor ratings.
BattleshipAgincourt 1 month ago
WLC cannot ever be taken seriously as a professional person. He had admitted that his worldview is built first and foremost on a belief in the Holy Spirit, and that if all evidence turned contrary to the existence of God, he'd still believe God existed.
It is not about evidence for this man, it is about molding facts to fit his agenda.
TheGeneralCritic 1 month ago
Nice editing Animalsfunny1. you do a superb job at giving 1 side of the argument for nearly half of the video while cutting out specific parts which help you paint a nice picture... of your choosing.
omnic1000 1 month ago
>All dese buttmad edgy atheistic teenagers
Keep crying ~ Quentin
SouthExpectations 1 month ago
@SouthExpectations
>Implying you are Quentin
>Implying Quentin is not a huge faggot
Erectionproblem 1 month ago
This is just silly. I'm a spiritual person, with a belief in a "higher power", just not one that is understandable by our limited human perspective- I'm an agnostic.
I love healthy organized religion, but this video does nothing to empower that social construct.
7Sse7enN7 1 month ago
Why is William Craig so aggressively emotionally retarded? He should really relax.
Stellazzio 1 month ago
@Stellazzio does calling someone "aggressively emotionally retarded" make you feel like a king? do you have some inner struggles you need to resolve? nothing outside of you has the power to annoy or harm you until you judge it or give significance to it.
lightbrownpoop 1 month ago
How about "WE DON'T KNOW WHERE IT CAME FROM YET!!!". At least we don't say "well, I guess we'll never know then. let's stop trying to find out forever and just assume god created it because it says so in Bronze age mythology!
JohanTW 1 month ago
Also, Lawrence Krauss already proposed a quantum theory debunking WLC's First Cause justification for his Creator-Savior.
PaladinHero 1 month ago
William Lane Craig is WINNING
oscarmarin1995 1 month ago
@oscarmarin1995 winning...he is losing big time...his arguments are terrible and he needs to retire.
adstanra 1 month ago
@adstanra How so? His arguments are pretty sound
oscarmarin1995 1 month ago
@oscarmarin1995 his arguments are flawed beyond repair. Is there any particular argument you are impressed with.
adstanra 1 month ago
@adstanra Cosmological argument and moral argument are the only ones I know of right now. What's wrong with them?
oscarmarin1995 1 month ago
@oscarmarin1995 the cosmological arguments are based upon deductive reasoning. This form of reasoning is dependent upon the validity of the premises. The premises are wrong. For example the notion that "everything that has a beginning has a cause"comes from where? It comes from our experience in the world. Do we know for instance that everything that has a beginning in the quantum world has cause? Is everything outside and apart from the universe that has a beginning have a cause? How do we know
adstanra 1 month ago
@adstanra Quantum mechanics is very vague and ambiguous to me. I haven't learned about that stuff yet. And that's the only evidence you have against the cosmological argument. How can you believe the universe made itself and we are products of highly improbable accidents? That sounds like faith to me.
oscarmarin1995 1 month ago
@oscarmarin1995 I am just challenging where WLC gets his premises. It seems reasonable in our experience to think that 'everything that has a beginning has a cause". If I come across a lot with a building on it, but I experienced the lot as being empty a year earlier, then I know that something caused the building to exist. I could probably easily find the cause and locate the materials used. What I would find is that no violation of the laws of physics occurred during its construction.
adstanra 1 month ago
@adstanra "I could probably easily find the cause and locate the materials used. What I would find is that no violation of the laws of physics occurred during its construction." But God is different. He is infinite, not limited to physics. The building materials are missing the builder.
oscarmarin1995 1 month ago
@oscarmarin1995 humans are part of the universe and every thing they do is constrained by the laws of conservation. WLC is talking about something completely different , but he derives his premises from observations of this world under certain conditions and has no business equivocating so recklessly. The premises are not congruent with the conclusion.
adstanra 1 month ago
@adstanra part of the cosmological argument is that the minds can exist outside of matter and time ! where does he get this from?
adstanra 1 month ago
@oscarmarin1995 I would find that what happened was that one state was transformed into another state with no outside interference, according to conservation laws. William Ln., Craig derives his premises through experience in this world the changes the rules ( equivocates) when he's talking about God who he imagines causes the world in a completely different way ( magically from nothing). What does it mean to assert that a space timeless being "caused" time and space itself?
adstanra 1 month ago
@adstanra Where would you believe the matter would have come from?
It means that we have a Maker. It's reasonable to believe that.
oscarmarin1995 1 month ago
@oscarmarin1995 the matter came from energy as it cooled from expansion.
adstanra 1 month ago
@oscarmarin1995 in fact our limited experience would require us to say that 'everything that has a beginning in time is a cause in time with the cause effect is transformation of one state to another under certain conservation laws. This is just the first premise. The rest of the premises are even worse. We don't know if the universe began. What we can say is that the universe began to inflate 13.6 billion years ago. That does not mean the universe began. What is a space timeless being anyway?
adstanra 1 month ago
@adstanra So you think the universe may be infinite?
oscarmarin1995 1 month ago
@oscarmarin1995 there is such equivocation as to the word "infinite". What I would say is that the universe exists necessarily.
adstanra 1 month ago
@oscarmarin1995 the moral argument could not be any worse. Morality is entailed by conscious finite beings in the physical world. It has nothing to do with any authority from a space timeless entity that is incoherent.
adstanra 1 month ago
@adstanra Where do we get our sense of morality?
oscarmarin1995 1 month ago
@oscarmarin1995 when there are individuals in a limited world, morality evolves naturally. We are social creatures that are very vulnerable as individuals. The laws of physics care not whether we survive or not As a result we have developed social structures that involve sense of morality. Without this there would be nothing but chaos and we would not survive.
adstanra 1 month ago
@adstanra I don't agree with morality evolving... I think it's pretty much remained the same...
You're beating around the bush... Does the universe have a beginning or not? If it does, what caused the beginning?
oscarmarin1995 1 month ago
@oscarmarin1995 the universe inflated as a result of a quantum flux of immaterial timeless space...we think. Not exactly sure though...but what makes you think a space timeless alien did it?
adstanra 1 month ago
@adstanra So you admit you believe in an infinite universe?
Well, it seems reasonable to believe an Eternal Being made us. One with infinite knowledge, power and presence. It can't be proven, but it can't be disproven either... I still believe the cosmological and moral arguments are valid..The Bible is good evidence of God as well...
What is the energy and where did it come from?
oscarmarin1995 1 month ago
@oscarmarin1995 I think it is reasonable to conclude that the universe has always existed, in fact it entails existence. There is no existence "apart from" or "prior to" the universe. This is incoherent. What we can derive from our knowledge of cause and effect and the cosmological argument is that the universe exists necessarily.Cause and effect, in our experience, is always the transformation of one state to the next, so there must exist a primordial universe that exists necessarily.
adstanra 1 month ago
@adstanra But I thought the universe is expanding? And it's philosophically and scientifically impossible for the universe to be infinite.
Well, I believe it is of divine origin because of the prophecies such as today's suffering Damascus, see Jeremiah 49:23-27, Isaiah 17, Amos 1:3-5. Also recent Egypt, Isaiah 19. Israel rose again in 1948 fulfilling Ezekiel 4:4-6. Increase in wars and rumors of wars, signs in the heavens, earthquakes, future one world govt., I can PM you more prophecy
oscarmarin1995 1 month ago
@oscarmarin1995 the universe is expanding. Time began 13.6 billion years ago. That does not mean that the universe came into existence 13.6 billion years ago. The prophecies have never impressed too many people. The problem with prophecies is that people can read into them anything they want and often the authors are writing them into their narrative after the fact. Look at the prophecies yourself and decide if you think they are anything more than Nostradamus. You can tell a fake prophecy
adstanra 1 month ago
@oscarmarin1995 when the person supposedly making the prophecy issues vagaries. These allow the the believer to read into them. For example the prophecies made by Jesus could be made by any teenager. If you read Isaiah, Amos,you will understand that the authors are talking about the nation of Israel. None of these people envisioned the past 2000 years. You can read just about anything you want into the Bible if it suits you. Do not be fooled.
adstanra 1 month ago
@adstanra The history of the Bible is completely accurate and correct being shown time and time again by archeology and other historical documents.
The morality and truth in what the bible teaches.
The evil that man is prone to.
Creation is evidence as well...
oscarmarin1995 1 month ago
@oscarmarin1995 the Bible was written by human beings. What makes you think it has defined source? What is your understanding of the moral argument?
adstanra 1 month ago
@adstanra sorry I meant divine source?
adstanra 1 month ago
@adstanra My understanding of the moral argument is
1. Is there is no God then there is no objective morality
2. There is objective morality.
3. Therefore God exists.
you may object and say morality has evolved... but has it really? Think about it.. Stealing, lying, killing, etc. has always been frowned upon. Still today. And I believe we still do as much evil as we did in the past. Like wars, and greed. They've always been around. Also from an atheistic naturalistic worldview...
oscarmarin1995 1 month ago
@oscarmarin1995 where'd you get premise number one from? There is objective morality because the laws of physics are not random. Objective morality results naturally from conscious beings in a finite world has nothing to do with the space timeless being.are you a proponent for example of divine command theory?
adstanra 1 month ago
@adstanra What is the purpose of being moral? It doesn't help our survival. Monkeys steal from each other and think nothing of it, sharks forcibly copulate with another, but it's not rape. Yet they maintain life. What bad would it do to survival for us humans to steal and rape according to your worldview?
oscarmarin1995 1 month ago
@oscarmarin1995 morality is defined as that which increases the happiness and survival of conscious creatures in a finite world. There are certain behaviors and policies that enhance human survival and happiness and other behaviors and policies that cause suffering. Even if there is some evil God we would still have to define morality in this way
adstanra 1 month ago
@oscarmarin1995 I don't think that any particular society that condones stealing and rape would survive in the world. These things naturally cause suffering, not only for the victim but for the most part for the perpetrator as well. We are going to die out as a species if we do not have rules of conduct based upon our mutual survival and benefit.
adstanra 1 month ago
@adstanra @adstanra I do not agree... What teenager would even be interested in making prophecy? And how would they be so accurate and correct? There's much more to it than what you say.
If you read the scriptures I refered to, you would know what they talk about.
Can any teenager make a mathematically correct prophecy? And it coming true?
oscarmarin1995 1 month ago
@oscarmarin1995 anyone can say that in the future there will be wars and rumors of wars, famine and earthquakes. This is exactly what psychics do to fool people. our minds is such that we look for connections. What God is going to reveal himself through such vagaries? There are no mathematically correct prophecies that I'm aware of that do not amount to selective interpretation, in the same way codes can be found in Moby Dick and the words of Nostradamus.
adstanra 1 month ago
@adstanra Hold on... Can any teenager make a mathematical prophecy that actually came true?
God wouldn't command me to kill any women, children or men. You don't understand why that happened.
oscarmarin1995 1 month ago
@oscarmarin1995 well mate, read Numbers 31.
adstanra 1 month ago
@adstanra Yes I've already read that
oscarmarin1995 1 month ago
@oscarmarin1995 well then, why would you say that God wouldn't command you to kill women and children and men?
adstanra 1 month ago
@adstanra Because there's no need. The Midianites were enemies of the Israelites. Jesus commands Christians to love and pray for enemies. And to turn the other cheek when struck
oscarmarin1995 1 month ago
@oscarmarin1995 well this is the crux of the moral argument.in numbers 31 God through Moses orders to soldiers to go back and kill all the civilians except for the virgins who they divide up as booty ( ghastly). This is the same God that Jesus worshiped apparently. But with respect to turn the other cheek, why is it that no Christians ever do this? Should we turn the other cheek to Hitler and Stalin, bin Laden?
adstanra 1 month ago
@adstanra I know that the nations of this world won't turn the other cheek EVER, but does violence + violence make things any better?
oscarmarin1995 1 month ago
@oscarmarin1995 sometimes violence is definitely does make things better. Let me ask you something? Imagine you have a daughter who is being raped in front of you. Would you use violence stops a rapist or offer him your other daughter?
adstanra 1 month ago
@oscarmarin1995 it would be absolutely insane for rational people to turn the other cheek to their enemies, except if you believed that the end of the world was imminent anyways. Given the last 2000 years however, turning the other cheek will get you and your family killed or tortured. This is the reality.
adstanra 1 month ago
@adstanra I know what turing the other cheek would do. It's what Jesus did, do I will do it too, even if it means death or torture.
Numbers 31 God ordered them killed because they transgressed His law. And the virgins were shown mercy and allowed to know God and be part of Israel.
oscarmarin1995 1 month ago
@adstanra Numbers 25 tells how the Midianites, specifically the women, led the Israelites astray into worshiping the Baal or Peor. The Lord’s anger burned against Israel, and He struck them with a plague. The plague ended when Phinehas, the grandson of Aaron, killed an Israelite man and the Midianite woman he brought into his family
oscarmarin1995 1 month ago
@adstanra (Numbers 25:6-9). The relations with Midianite women were in direct violation of God’s commands in Deuteronomy 7:3-4: “[N]either shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For he will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of Jehovah be kindled against you, and he will destroy thee quickly.”
oscarmarin1995 1 month ago
@oscarmarin1995
also I find it Deuteronomy 7 rather sickening, along with Ezra seems to denote some sort of genetic purity. This is the sort of thing that divides people and hasn't really helped the Jewish people over the past 2000 years, has it!
adstanra 1 month ago
@adstanra also you've made an interesting statement about babies who die.I guess you believe that they automatically go to eternal life in paradise. Is it a blessing then to die before the age of accountability? Still not sure of your explanation as to why God spared the virgin females. These are the ones that caused the men of Israel to send the 1st Place and God in Deut 7 forbids these unions.
adstanra 1 month ago
@adstanra to allege that the God of the Bible is some sort of “monster” for ordering Israel to destroy the inhabitants of Canaan exhibits an ignorance of biblical teaching. Those inhabitants were destroyed because of their wickedness (Deuteronomy 9:4; 18:9-14). They were so evil that their Creator no longer could abide their corruption. That they had numerous opportunities to repent is evident from the prophetic books (Nineveh did repent, for example, and for a time stayed
oscarmarin1995 1 month ago
@adstanra the day of destruction). Complaining about Jehovah’s order to destroy innocent children is a vain gesture when one realizes that the children were spared an even worse fate of being reared as slaves under the domination of sin. Instead of having to endure the scourge of a life of immorality and wickedness, these innocents were ushered early into the bliss of Paradise.
oscarmarin1995 1 month ago
@adstanra If the male children had been allowed to mature, they most likely would have followed the pagan ways of their forefathers, and eventually would have taken vengeance on the Israelites. Killing the males not only prevented them from falling into the same abominable sins as their parents, but also kept Israel from having to battle them later.
oscarmarin1995 1 month ago
@oscarmarin1995 I thank you for your response. I see you are Jehovah's Witness which allows me some perspective. He said that God spared the virgins as an act of mercy on the one hand but killed the male children also is an act of mercy.Hmmm. In fact the ancient Israelites are the virgins because of several false assumptions. In the 1st Place they believed that sin was inherited through the male line. A Larmarkian fallacy. This is why they killed the male babies. They spared the virgin females..
adstanra 1 month ago
@adstanra No, I'm not a JW.
Israel was delivering judgement
oscarmarin1995 1 month ago
@oscarmarin1995 no, Israel was conquering the land like millions of tribes before them. They committed genocide, pure and simple. They justified it by trying to state some sort of divine command theory. The soldiers were actually returning home having felt it morally correct to spare the civilians, but Moses sent them back. What man will do if they think God is inspiring them! How abominably God acts in the Bible. Of course it's not God but a Semitic tribe.
adstanra 1 month ago
@adstanra You don't understand... Try to learn some theology
oscarmarin1995 1 month ago
@oscarmarin1995 Hmmmm, nice comeback. I was a Christian for almost twice as long as you've been alive. If you have something rational to say I will respond
adstanra 1 month ago
@adstanra Isn't it hilarious(ly depressing) when young Xians try to step up to adult atheists, agnostics, and non-Xians in a debate, thinking they have a handle on things? I'm right there with you, adstanra; 3/4 of my life was spent in that world. It's good to be free of it.
PaladinHero 1 month ago
@PaladinHero "It's good to be free of it."....I know what you mean Mate, particularly if you have been taught it from childhood....the idea "get them while they are young" expresses this.
adstanra 1 month ago
@adstanra Not to mention admitted by a prominent Catholic (can't remember who). Doug Stanhope had a good routine on the correlation of youth and religion.
PaladinHero 1 month ago
@PaladinHero thanks , I'll check him out.
adstanra 1 month ago
@oscarmarin1995 because they did not feel that females contributed any heritable material. This is false. Do you really think that they needed to kill the babies? this was a typical conquest of land that has occurred countless times in the history of humankind. If God really wished to get rid of these people why didn't he just snapped his fingers? What would have been your response to Moses instructing you to go back and bludgeon babies to death?
adstanra 1 month ago
@oscarmarin1995 also given your support for Israel, do you recommend that they turn the other cheek?
adstanra 1 month ago
@adstanra What if a particular individual approved stealing and rape? The person wouldn't have trouble surviving. Unless of course the person got arrested
oscarmarin1995 1 month ago
@oscarmarin1995 most of us human beings are endowed with a sense of empathy. We also find ourselves living in a very harsh world governed by cold impersonal laws of physics. Some part of me might think that raping some person would be a good idea, but another part of me thinks that this would be very harmful not only to the other person but myself and society in general. I don't need some divine command to tell me this. Have you read numbers 31? Would you have returned to kill the men, women
adstanra 1 month ago
@oscarmarin1995 and children because you thought God commanded you to? Even if there is a God we can never be sure about what he wants. Look at the confusion in the world of religion. Whether we like it or not we are on our own to figure out how we can best live our lives to the well-being of all people. It's been a difficult process but I think we're getting better.
adstanra 1 month ago
@oscarmarin1995 BTW mate....I see that you are 16 years old....I must say, I appreciate that you have thought about these important issues...well done and all the best. It is 1:00 where i live , so going to bed...may check later if you have left anything else...take care.
adstanra 1 month ago
I want to see Willian Lane dabate Stephen Hawking
leogatobhzte 1 month ago
It is immediately clear that Craig does not understand Mathematics. What a joke...
lizzardlovver 1 month ago
Comment removed
lizzardlovver 1 month ago
"Infinite is an idea in your mind.." like that thing you call god? Check please.
TheBycon 1 month ago
The absence of evidence destroys religion all together. I don't think it is bigoted to rule out a god all together. We only even think of there being a god because we use our stoneage brains and come to the conclusion that things look special. With a further look you see things are not that special. The word god is reference to something superior to our own abilities. There very well could be things in the universe superior to us, doesn't mean they know of us, or care about us. Idiocy by Craig
NICH0LASM 1 month ago
5:27 "Infinity is an idea that exists in your mind not in reality" Then I guess your infinte God exists in your mind and not in reality. That is game, set, and match, you just pwned your own punk ass, William Lying Craig.
jmg94j 1 month ago
"Atheists have tried for centuries to disprove God" Bullshit, Bullshit, Bullshit!! Name one atheist who has tried to disprove God. How can you disprove God? How can you disprove Allah, or Zeus, or Jupiter, or Odin, or Superman? It is impossible. One cannot prove a negative, You are a lying piece of shit WIlliam Lane Craig.
jmg94j 1 month ago
Gah his tired old Kalaam argument...It's pathetic.
Just one example of his illogical ramblings..only 2 things can exist beyond space and time, abstract things like numbers and a MIND!?!...Since when can a mind exist beyond space and time, when has that EVER been proven by ANYONE to be the case? Assumptions with no evidence and nothing more.
That anyone takes him seriously baffles me. He may be a good speaker, but his arguments are laughable and littered with fallacies.
OddityDK 1 month ago
justification that a good God does not exist..1 ).It is not available to our senses 2) the confusion about it 3) the universe governed by cold impersonal forces of physics 4) the suffering of children.
These conditions are exactly required if atheism is true and very surprising if the God of classical theism is true ( a God who wishes loving relations with humans) and require an explanation.
adstanra 1 month ago