The Inadequacy of Intelligent Design 3/3

[evewale]

where's dr craigs part of the debate??

[Christianjr4]

@evewale

Hi evewale. See my channel for Craig's opening statements. You can find the videos by looking at the most recent ones (ie. "date added").

[goodbryan]

That is just not what it means to be a creationist. You can accept evolution and believe in God. You can believe god startet the process of evolution.

A creationist does not accept evolution.

[itry2brational]

You're delusional. Copy/Paste:

Lichtspielhaus234 (4 days ago)

"cont.. Animals do kill for survival, that would appear reasonable for them. Yes, but you brought up the animal argument not I. Not entirely unknowable, unprovable? Well logic suggest cause and effect. Undefinable? Yes, you can not simply define God, because you can not completely understand Him."

YouTube sends me responses to my comments via an email. Check the All Comments page, dude.

I'll be happy to accept an apology.

[itry2brational]

Lichtspielhaus234,

If you are saying that we do not know what is causing the universe to expand, I would say...I AGREE! We don't know! But the point is, we are observing it expanding!!

"So, you're speculating as well."

Are you saying there ARE people who HAVE observed what happened before the big bang?? No? Then I am not speculating, we don't know what happened 'before' the big bang.

You are descending into ridiculousness when you deny simple observation and inductive reasoning.

[itry2brational]

"You're being dishonest and quote mining without answering the question."

What question have I not answered?

"yet you deny faith"

Who is really being dishonest? Where have I denied faith??

Look, by your own logic and standards you have invalidated the concept of God. I did not quote mine, I quoted the entire premise! I suppose you telling me you were "off to bed" was material to your 'cause effect' validation argument??? Give me a break!

[itry2brational]

"@itry2brational I didn't say this, who are you quoting?

I did not make that statement, who are you quoting???"

If you mean this:

"Undefinable? Yes, you can not simply define God, because you can not completely understand Him."

I am quoting you. According to YouTube you wrote that 4 days ago. I even have it in my email.

[itry2brational]

"Remember, you can not validate a cause by the effect, the cause must be observed. In other words, you can not claim a fact that an unobserved cause was responsible for an observable effect."

Then you have proven that the concept of God is invalid. Thank you.

[itry2brational]

"Now, why is your unobserved cause not faith, and my unobserved cause faith?"

Because the big bang is based on observations. We OBSERVE the universe is expanding. If its expanding currently, that logically means it was contracted to a smaller size before. Ipso facto.

Basic physics, which by the way are only usefully to within billionths of a second after expansion 'began'...beyond that, we simply don't know.

On the other hand, you admit you are "speculating".

[itry2brational]

"Exactly. What prevents a mother from killing her babies?"

You tell me! lol

"Oh so you're saying that it's not valid because their not "social" I see, "moving the goal posts"?"

Not at all. Concepts of morality and altruism are defined by interaction in social structures. Those concepts are simply inapplicable to solitary animals. If you can, lets hear it (this should be funny). Otherwise, all you did was create another false analogy, which you have been prone to do.

[itry2brational]

"What they believe to be rational..."

So, rationality is purely relative. If that is true, and by YOUR logic, then MY rationality states that you are irrational. See what happens?

I mean seriously, how can you even make an argument if there are no objective standards of logic?

And honestly, you think animals are making choices on "what they believe to be rational"? So an alligator has a running internal dialog with itself about what behavior would be logical?

[itry2brational]

"Yes, you can not simply define God, because you can not completely understand Him."

Why believe in that which is undefinable? Why believe in that which you cannot understand?

God is undefinable and incoherent yet you "know" what he is, what he can do, where he is located and his 'mind'...all while not being able to define ANY of these things.

Seriously, what is there to argue about?

[itry2brational]

"you don't need to be physical to have intelligence."

I am asking you to prove this. How can there be a mind without a brain? How can there be intelligence without a brain?

"Studies have shown in the paranormal that contradict what you're saying..."

What am I saying? lol I am asking you questions! Show me a study in the paranormal which refutes anything. It would turn our understanding of the entire universe and physical world on its head if it were true, so far, it hasn't happened.

[itry2brational]

Its not logical to ask you what your unobservable, unprovable thing is made of? Yet you posit an answer? Are you for real?

Where did you observe spirit to confirm its composition? Who tested it? How did you come to your conclusion? What differentiates spirit from energy?

The universe IS everything, observed or not. That is how its defined. Hopefully quoting dictionaries and encyclopedias won't be necessary.

[itry2brational]

"Because I don't have to know the makeup. I don't know how God created it, but I know He exists. There is no contradiction."

If you don't have to know the makeup or how the universe was created, then why do I? Double standard much?

The contradiction is that you ADMIT you don't know squat and in the same sentence say "I know". THAT is the very definition of a contradiction! Here:

"I don't know...but I know"

The 'how' and the 'what' or 'who' are inseparable; don't bother with that objection.

[itry2brational]

"do Cat's know it's wrong to murder their babies? Does an Eagle know it's stealing from another Eagle?"

Their own babies? If they don't, what prevents them from doing that?

These are poor examples because neither of these animals are 'social'. They do not live in social groups. However, cats are known to adopt animals from other species and raise them as their own.

[itry2brational]

"No, that "altruistic behavior" is called SURVIVAL."

Then you admit that morality is based on survival.

"Altruism is a well-documented animal behaviour...in which an animal sacrifices its own well-being for the benefit of another animal."

"No, they do not KNOW their punishing and they do not know stealing..."

There are studies of birds which refutes your claim. Look up 'avian altruism', 'mobbing' and toss in 'warblers' or 'pied flycatcher'.

[itry2brational]

By acting altruistically towards others we improve our ability to survive. You scratch my back, I scratch yours. You watch my back, I watch yours. We act altruistically towards the group, the group reciprocates and we gain an advantage in survival.

So, in a sense, altruism is selfish because in the end it is our OWN survival we are concerned with. It just happens that when we form social groups there are inherent advantages to that structure.

[itry2brational]

"I have demonstrated that logic, NOTHING CAN EXIST WITHOUT A CREATOR."

Then who is God's creator? And his creator? This is what is called an infinite regression. If God does not have a 'creator', and nothing can exist without a creator, then God must not exist.

To argue that God requires no creator is a demonstration of special pleading...you request a special exception to your logic in the case of God. Special pleading is logically fallacious.

I also say you have NOT demonstrated anything.

[itry2brational]

"Who is the ULTIMATE giver of truth?"

I will default to your answer here:

"one does not required divine agency to realize everything..."

So the answer, as you put it, is no one (let alone a 'define' One) is required to discover truth other than an observer.

I see no reason why truth or information requires a 'giver'...ultimate or immediate.

[goodbryan]

What the hell are you talking about? I'm sorry, but seem to be fantastically ill informed on the subject.

The man giving the presentation: Prof. Ayala, a priest and highly distinguished evolutionary biologist..

He is not a creationist, yet also a devout believer.

There are enough people who believe in God without commiting themselves to obvious nonsense.

[goodbryan]

No Lichtspielhaus234. Dawkins doesn't debate Craig because he is a creationist. As you might have noticed.

Dawkins does not debate creationist for the same reason historians debate Holocaust deniers.

You seem to be only 'Spiel' and no 'Licht', maybe your name should be ClownSpielhaus.

[myjizzureye]

Once again because its testable and falsafiable. There is several sources of dating and all of them put the age of the earth well past what your bible says. Ice cores alone go back 500 thousand years plus. Let me ask you do you accept the earth then is at least older then 500'000 years? You wont answer this straight up cause your gutless fence sitter and you know just how fucking nutty it is yet you dont want to piss off your fundie friends who are even more backward.

[myjizzureye]

Yours if faith because its not testable, falsifiable or refutable. I can switch out god with anything and make the same statement. No one has observed the mighty pink unicorn but i believe he exists based on the effects i perceive to be cause by him. I accept the big bang on the other hand as its the most plausible theory that matches the facts, it is testable, it is indeed falsifiable and it is observable. Cant be tested=belief/faith. Can be tested = acceptance of logical conclusion.

[ndjm00]

I have come to the conclusion that you are actually retarded! I have refuted all of your arguements several times and you keep restating them. I have no interest anymore. I just pity you simplemindedness and hope that someday... the science that you so vehemently reject, finds a cure for your mental disability!

[myjizzureye]

(part 2) You then go on to say that Jesus can be proved and so can god due to effects and evidences left from their presence.

All your arguments are like this.

Nothing can cause something

Nothing caused god

Special pleading then switcharoo nuttiness

Yeah I can totally use a self refuting argument or one that supports my views but when it also supports yours we will just ignor that bit and say its invalid.

And for the last time I accept things due to testable and refutable evidences for them

[myjizzureye]

(part 1) Just like to get on record that lich here after seeing wind blown debris , plant matter, over turned cars and randomly blown down buildings with large amounts of debris strewn all over the place would say earthquake with same probability as typhoon if he wasn't around to see it. I think that speaks volumes on his reasoning and deduction capability's. So basically nothing can be known from the past by observation of the effects and evidence left from it.

[myjizzureye]

Special pleading

1) Something can never come from nothing

2) Therefore my god did it

3) My god is magic and dosnt believe in 1)

I just dont get how you can say, something cannot come from nothing, then say that gods always been there and nothing caused him. If you are saying god is nothing then well thats very close to the truth. You cannot make the first statement without god having a cause. Anything else is special pleading.

[myjizzureye]

The tree ring data shows an incorrect lag time with actual recorded data in the last 70's so they suggested the tree ring data was out due to actual measurements being taken directly at the locations at time. They then replaced it with real time recorded measurements for accuracy of the model. Spastic

[myjizzureye]

I accept the age of the earth due to testable and falsifiable evidence. If something new is found that refutes a past claim i will then as many instantly revise my position. Nothing is faith as one again, its accepted on the testable, falsifiable evidence for it.

[myjizzureye]

Once again, due to testable and falsifiable evidence. Lets say somebody suggested that all matter in the universe was once contained in a single speck. We observe all matter rushing out from a central location at faster and faster speeds. If we are to find even one of the billions of galaxy moving in a different direction the theory is falsified. Why do i accept scientific facts, falsifiable evidence. If other evidence refutes a claim later i will also adapt to the new evidence.

[myjizzureye]

Please make it deadly clear what question im avoiding and not answering? What about ERV's? And please tell me is the earth older then 10'000years yes or no, dont give soft pussy answer they can straddle the fundi fucktard fence. Do you think its older then 10'000 yes or no. And look up speciation while your at it cause i think it will fix the problems you are having grasping the common ancestor question. We both diverged on different paths chip and human. Really not that hard to get.

[myjizzureye]

"Why is it that you people make claims without backup?" Holy shit projection meter off the freaking scale here

[myjizzureye]

(part 2) If you entered city that was flattened with trees uprooted and cars flipped on end. Bits of trees branches and trash everywhere would you say earthquake or typhoon? If you wish to use the "we weren't there" argument it actually works more against you then for because really there is no physical testable evidence for jesus divinity to be found anywhere. Redlight shift is testable and measurable and also falsifiable. Please tell roughly how old is the earth? I just cant wait (^.o)

[myjizzureye]

Well your using false logic thats the problem. I'm quite certain my father was born though i wasn't there to see it. The degree of the claim is weighed against the evidence supporting it. Small claim smaller evidence would be needed for probability. Right now everything is moving faster and faster away from the center of the universe. Logical conclusion would be if you go back in time everything meets at a central point. There is lots of other evidence for this if you wish to look Redlight shift

[afielsch]

@Lichtspielhaus234

technically all fossils are intermediates as you call them. they show the gradual "transition" from one form to another.

[afielsch]

@Lichtspielhaus234

faith = believe without evidence

[myjizzureye]

You do realize there is more then one fossil but a mountain of them and other intermediates. Secondly our common ancestry is an open and shut case with just genetics alone let alone the strata layers. I really feel I've mad you give a clear indication of just how well you know the subject with your "well what was it?" remarks. Lets let the rest of youtube decide who is the looney. BTW see you got nephilumfree in yours favs, nuff said really.

[myjizzureye]

Okay lets say there is a coffee table in your room. You can measure its length, depth and hight. You can test how much weight it can hold. If you bang it with your knee it hurts. Do you just "believe" the coffee table is there or do you accept it is due to overwhelming testable and falsifiable evidence for it. For example if things you placed on it dropped right to the ground as if nothing was there you could mount a case that it is indeed an illusion. This is how i accept science.

[myjizzureye]

Are you a simpleton? Do you even understand the basics of evolution. PLEASE point out to me directly where i lied. We share a common ancestor, yes this ancestor was NOT completely chip like and was not completely human like. Australopithecus will give you a good example of what im talking about. I'm almost to the point where it seems you might be a troll. If you are dude you got me good. I'm still on the fence really not sure cause the "then what was it" comment has me thinking its a joke.

[myjizzureye]

You get in a plane, you drive a car, you even use a mobile phone. You benefited no end from all of these men and womens hard won gains yet you have no problem spitting directly in the face telling them they dont know what they are talking about from the comfort of your pc. You disgust me. When you have a medical problem would you go to a hospital or that dam scientific medical theory's tested with peer reviewed refutable science journals cant be trusted unless your sick?

[myjizzureye]

Yep I do indeed value the opinion of scholars who have spent their lifetime emmerced in their work in the region, the bulk of which say exactly that the authors of the gospels are unknown but the rough times and dates they are written are not due to 6 forms of evidence within them. Also if you are going to call me an idiot for accepting what thousands of scientists with hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed, testable, refutable papers on a subject over some guy then i guess im stupid.

[ndjm00]

Okay... first of all, you can't block me froma page which isn't yours. Secondly.. any attempt to block me would show just how afraid you are. You continually prove my assertion that you are a rrtard with every comment you post, which validates that assertion and therefore ceases to make it ad hom.

''Its spelled ''favor'' not ''favour''.

I am Irish and we spell english the same way the Brits do. We would rather spell words correctly then revert to spelling them phenetically...cont

[ndjm00]

like the Americans do. Justg because the Americans are systematically trying to rape the English language of its beauty and complexity... doesn't mean the rest of the English speaking world has to follow suit.

''All the CLAIMS you make in your pathetic video, only indicate your not educated enough IN SCRITURE to give an effective arguement.''

Once again.. a statement which could only come from a retard. First of all... the clams are scientifically proven and completely independent...cont

[ndjm00]

of scripture... so I don't see how have an understanding of scripture has anything to do with it.

You also keep stating that you have used logic to validate that your argument that God created the Universe is correct. But I have repeatedly shown you why that logic is faulty. You seem to be under the immpression though.. that if its an arguement that came form the mouth of WLC... it has to be correct. But, you keep forgetting that WLC is also a scientific illiterate and... cont

[ndjm00]

every arguement he gives for the existence of God contains logical fallicies. But you dogmatically repeat his arguements as logically full proof when I have shown you that they are not in anyway logically full proof. Yet you continue to say they are logical and have yet once to refute any of the logical absurdities I have pointed out in your so called ''logical'' arguements.

''It has not been OBSERVED''

You made this statement without stating what hasn't been observed...cont...

[ndjm00]

but Im guessing you are referring to the Big Bang. But you know what else hasn't been observed?.... Nobody obseved your disgusting Deity poofing matter out of nothing. Nobody has ever seen this and yet you postulate that it actually happened. Whereas the Big Bang has left a trail of evidence in its wake that proved it happened... as pointed out in that video if you bothered to watch it... your Deity has left no evidence whatsoever that he took any part in creating matter or that he even exists.

[ndjm00]

his arguements are full of logical fallacies. I have repeatedly pointed out these fallacies to you... but you have ignored this and have not once attempted to refute any logical fallacy I have pointed out in your arguement. You just repeatedly dogmatically state that WLC's arguements are logically full proof and contain no fallicies even though I have pointed out numerice fallicies you have yet to refute.

''It has not been OBSERVED''

I take it you are referring to the Big Bang...cont

[ndjm00]

(Swap the last two comments around to put them in the correct order.)

''You do not know how, yet you believe it, FAITH''

I have refuted this arguement several times now and yet you still make it. Lets go through it real slow again...

I know the Universe exists because I am in it. I do not believe that the Universe exists on faith. The Universe is observable. No faith needed there. I also sso that the Big Bang is responsible for the creation of the Universe because of the evidence..cont

[ndjm00]

trail the Big Bang has left in tis wake and because of the validated predictions the theory of the Big Bang makes. However... what I, and everybody else doesn't know is how the Big Bang singularity formed and so I am reserving my judgement on how this singularity formed until the evidence comes in. NONE OF MY BELIEFS ARE BASED ON FAITH. All are supported by evidence. The Universe exists and overwhelming evidence supports this. The Big Bang occured and overwhelming evidence supports this...cont

[ndjm00]

All I don't know is how the singularity formed and have no evidence to show how it might have formed. Therefore INSTEAD OF MAKING A FAITH BASED ASSSERTION ON HOW THIS SINGULARITY FORMED... I AM SAYING I DON'T KNOW... YET! NO FAITH REQUIRED... you fucking idiot. And all though this is now the 3rd or 4th time I have explqined this I have no doubt your retarded brain will be unable to comprehend this explanation and you will continue to make the assertion that my beliefs on...cont..

[ndjm00]

the creation of the Universe are faith based even though I have stated verifiably otherwise.

My belief that the Big Bang occured is not faith based even if I havent observed it happening. Thats like saying a hurricane didn't strike New Orleans because I didn't see that either. You see.. just as that hurricane left evidence behind that it happened... so did the Big Bang and the evidence for its occurence is overwhelming and you just dismiss it off hand without giving any logical refutation

[ndjm00]

All of your arguements are retarded and utterly devoid of logic all though you have been brainwashed into thinking they are logical by that fucktard WLC. You are pathertic and you Bible is wrong from page 1. I ccould just use your own argumement if I were as illogical as you and say... you never seen God create the Universe form nothing so therefore your wrong. And there is no evidence which shows that God created the Universe in 6 days. Everything points to natural processes which took... cont

[ndjm00]

billions upon billions of years. You are just too simple minded to comprehend a complew explanation for existence and so Have to revert to the position: ''Gaud did it''. I feel sorry for you!

[myjizzureye]

So please state it CLEARLY. Do you believe the gospels are named after the people who wrote them and the time they where written was within jesus's life or 70CE in random places by unknown authors. Mark's language contains a number of "Latinisms" hmmm what possible reason could there be for this? Well bible schollars know exactly why but ignorant simpletons to thick to even type "who wrote the gospels" into google and look for credentials isnt worth my time. You sir are a thick cunt.

[myjizzureye]

This ancestor was not human or ape dumbass. Are you fucking RETARDED. You are related to your cousin and uncle, ARE YOU YOUR COUSIN OR UNCLE??? NO NO NO YOU THICK CUNT. We shared a common ancestor, this is from the australopithecus line which was obviously NOT human and NOT chimp as we both diverged from it. Now I have clearly demonstrated you are a simpleton ignorant of the most easily googled facts with peer reviewed scientific journals to back them i bid you fair well.

[myjizzureye]

You still never answered me..... do you accept that man shares a common ancestor with chimps yes or no.

Also I noticed you went a little quite on the who authored the gospiles thing, did a little research in our off time did we (^.o)

Please dont reply unless your going to asnwer the first one though cause i want it on record that your a poorly educated fuckwit whos elergic to science facts. Sort of hands me the win by defult on both ocasions as it shows you clearly cannot do research.

[ndjm00]

Oh my God... you are actually retarded. YOu are so retarded you have to make up my arguements and then refute them instead of taking on my real arguements. You are a dip shit and intellectually devoid.

''Good, then you believe it on faith''

Believe what on faith? I just told you that everything I believe about the creation of the Universe, I believe on evidence and showed you what that evidence was. I also stated that I do not know how the Big Bang singularity formed... cont

[ndjm00]

and am waiting for evidence in that regard. I am quite happy to say I don't know how the singularity formed instead of making a faith based assertion about how it formed with no evidence.

You on the otherhand state you know it all and this assertion is made completely on faith with absolutely no evidence. You believe God caused the Universe even though I have pointed out all the flaws in such a belief. YOu never even attempted to tell me why my refutations were wrong...cont

[ndjm00]

but instead just ignored them (because you knew I was right) and continued making your baseless and faith based assertion that ''Gaud doue it''.

I had to laugh also when you made this statement:

''The Big bang is not testable. It has not been tested or observed''

I nearly wet myself when I read that. Are you that scientifically illiterate? I have no intention of spending the next hour writing out all the proofs for the Big Bang. Here is a vid:

watch?v=uyCkADmNdNo&feature=ch­annel_page

[ndjm00]

Please do yourself a favour and don't make anymore ridiculous, fallacious and baseless assertions till you have watched that vid!

[itry2brational]

"They are capable of rational thought to their own species."

What does this mean? Rational thought "to" their own?

Is it irrational to kill their babies or is it immoral? What exactly would be the difference?

It sounds like you are arguing that morality is subjective to each and not objectively defined. If its objectively defined, then how "they see it" is, like I said, irrelevant. If it can be shown to help them survive, then no omnipotent agent is required. And I think it has been.

[itry2brational]

"Because it is LOGICAL."

Again, 'because' is not an answer. I could say because shoe laces.

"They are capable of rational thought to their own species."

Do you mean that animals can reason? They can draw conclusions from facts, evidence and observation? Apply logic etc.

Incidentally, your claim is that morals are defined objectively by an unmanifest, unknowable, unprovable and seemingly undefinable, all-powerful agent...so how animals "see it" should be irrelevant.

[itry2brational]

Well, one of us is certainly failing.

I am still waiting to hear how you can have a mind without a brain.

Incidentally, your definition says: "the element, part, substance, or process that reasons".

Element, part and substance all seem pretty material to me.

Now, again, explain how you can have all of these things: "reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges, etc"

WITHOUT a brain.

[itry2brational]

"Spirit is not made of physical matter, so the question is asinine."

I never assumed it was physical. I merely asked you to define it! Geez. And you question my age?

"I said the KNOWN Universe. NOT EXISTENCE."

Dude, that is how the universe is defined! All of existence. The universe is EVERYTHING. Everything is all of existence. Pretty simple.

You are redefining terms when you claim that the universe is not everything in existence. Which is why your arguments descend into incoherence.

[itry2brational]

"the Universe is physical matter, as the cake is."

A cake is not all of existence, the universe IS. A cake is not comprised of all matter and energy there ever was or will be, the universe IS.

"Because is an anchor to the reason. IT'S LOGICAL."

Then demonstrate the logic. Its really that simple.

"I don't know, what it is made of or how it works..."

Then why do you profess to know? You don't know anything but you know its God? Do you see the contradiction here?

[myjizzureye]

Yeah its pure logic im failing to grasp.....(bangs head through table)

[itry2brational]

"Morals come from choices, one must be living and knowledgeable of those choices."

You're making progress.

I would argue that morality does not require much knowledge of the consequences of the choices. Here is why (see how this works!)

Animals in nature exhibit altruistic behavior certainly without the rationality that we have. They exhibit moralistic behaviors of punishing one that steals or treats another unfairly. Therefore, self-awareness is not a requirement.

[itry2brational]

Your answers are empty when you say 'because ____'

I can easily say the universe was created by the big bang because of logic. However, that does not explain anything.

You can say 'because logic' until you are blue in the face, but you must DEMONSTRATE the logic. This is where your argument is failing.

You have claimed something MUST be a certain way without demonstrating WHY it must. To say 'because logic' is just as incoherent as saying because chocolate. lol

[itry2brational]

To learn does not require a teacher. To be taught something does.

I honestly don't see where you are going with equating revelation with realization. One does not require divine agency (or an agent in general) to 'realize' everything they come to understand. This should be obvious.

[ndjm00]

''But you need faith to assume that is what caused the universe into existence''

No I don't need faith for that either. Big Bang theory is also a scientifically testable theory and it has answered many of the questions about the formation of the Universe from pure energy. Nothing in this theory is faith based. It is all logically and empiracly proveable. You just won't look at the evidence. I suggest Brian Greenes, 'The Elegant Universe'. I do not base any of my beliefs on faith and...cont

[ndjm00]

am completely comfortable with the idea that the Big Bang theory still hasn't explained everything. Because of this I am happy to say ''I don't know'' in some regards. Saying ''I don't know'' is not a statement of faith. Its quite the opposite and it gives the science world the reason to find out with out just giving up the research and sttributing everything to an improvable and illogical God.

[itry2brational]

"To know the difference between right and wrong, you MUST be a living entity capable of rational thought."

You're getting warmer, but still not explaining WHY it 'must' work that way. Why is 'rational thought' a requirement?

Are baboons capable of 'rational thought'? Chimps, birds, wolves and buffalo?

"one must give the revelation, because it is truth."

So all the greatest scientific discovery were 'revealed' by someone to scientists. They did not observe it themselves and figure it out?

[itry2brational]

Incidentally, I would like to hear how a mind can exist without matter...ie a brain. Go!

[itry2brational]

"God is spirit."

What is spirit made of?

"He exists outside of the known Universe, He is not matter."

How can there be existence 'outside' all of existence? So I know what God is not, tell me what it IS.

"Then you're just a nay sayer skeptic, and you need something to validate that belief for yourself."

I am indeed a skeptic, thank you. When we are talking about ultimate truth, yes, I do require validation. Therefore, I would not be operating on faith, which requires no validation.

[itry2brational]

News flash, the universe is NOT analogous to a cake!

"it applies because it's logical"

Again, so your answer is 'because'. End of argument.

"God is infinite mind and you're asking how a finite mind could figure out how an INFINITE mind created everything?"

This is classic fallacious rhetoric. So, you are a finite mind and you have figured out that God created everything despite this. hmmm

What is an 'infinite' mind? What is it made of? How does it work? How the heck do you know?!? lol

[ndjm00]

Haha... It has been scientifically proveen that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. I do not need faith for pointing out this demonstrable fact. It is not a fatih based assumption you retard. YOu are just conpletely and utterly scientifically illiterate and are taking the intellectually easy option of... ''Gaud done did it!''

So tell me... what did God create matter and energy from if he is the creator of everything?

I bet you won't give that question an answer!

[per50n]

You are simply an undereducated idiot. Peer review is not the best because it is infallible, but because it is the most reliable.

I do not expect someone like you to honestly examine the evidence, it is there and you are a hypocrite for accepting science only when you like it, when your entire way of life is based on the efforts of countless scientists discovering new things and putting them through peer review.

Your are an ignorant hypocrite, goodbye

[itry2brational]

"Because it is logical."

Ah, so your answer is 'because'. Well that concludes your argument.

"You're asking, why must yellow be yellow."

Don't be ridiculous. I am asking why morals MUST be self aware. It would be more correct to say you are claiming that yellow MUST be self aware. A color or concept is self aware!

"Well apparently to you, you are the ultimate authority..."

No, according to what YOU have said and your logic/reasoning. Which is why I quote you each time.

[per50n]

Peer review is responsible for virtually every single piece of modern scientific knowledge that you take for granted. I am not scapegoating, I am merely referring to a standard that is universally accepted among those who are not scientific illiterates. Of course not all peer reviewed conclusions are right, but at least they stand up to scrutiny until new evidence is found.

Global warming is no lie and an honest look at the emails shows that

Theologians are no better than experts on Harry Potter

[itry2brational]

"someone must know the difference"

You are not explaining the 'must'! Where is this axiom of logic? What is it?

"a learned attribute, we must be taught right and wrong"

"realization comes from revelation"

Which is it? Learned or revelation?

Is the danger of fire 'revealed' or 'realized'? How many things do children learn on their own? They are not taught EVERYTHING. Nor is anyone. Clearly we have many examples where realization does NOT come from revelation.

[per50n]

No, I don't, which is why I asked you to provide a peer reviewed source. Peer review is the best process for determining the validity of scientific ideas. Physicists are on my side not yours, same goes for biologists and climate scientists.

If you want to try using argument from authority, you should at least make sure that the authority is on your side before doing so.

[itry2brational]

"God is not physical matter."

Ah, get right to the point of it...what is God?

[itry2brational]

"if you create something, you must exist outside of your creation."

We are not talking about baking a cake here, we are talking about the origin of the universe. Applying this to the universe descends into incoherence.

"you don't even know a fraction of what is on your own planet, and yet expect to know how God created it."

Clearly that is YOUR position, not mine. Yet another contradiction: you know God did it, yet you don't know.

[itry2brational]

"Because it must know the difference between right and wrong"

"it must be self aware."

You are not answering the question. WHY MUST they? You are arguing that a concept (it) must be self aware. Kind of silly.

I want to explain why morality is indeed part of survival but I want to hear your explanation first.

"You are moral according to you own code."

"you MUST have an ultimate authority on what is right and wrong"

Are you saying that *I* am the ultimate authority of right/wrong?

[per50n]

Find me a peer reviewed article saying that energy is borrowed.

You have no support for your claim that life cannot come from non life. However, much research shows that it is very possible with the right conditions.

You are undereducated in this area and dishonest, unfortunately for you, that does not add to the weight of your arguments.

[itry2brational]

"murder is deemed a sin, by God"

Is it wrong because God believes it or is it wrong because God says so? Euthphro's dilemma.

Explain how the following two quotes are not the very definition of contradiction/hypocrisy.

"you failed to understand the Bible."

"Ah, see, "You have no basic understanding of science" That is an excuse to get out of the debate, it's a sort of "what ever", it's totally childish."

How is your claim of lack of understanding the Bible not an 'excuse' to avoid the debate?

[itry2brational]

Honestly, even though you are misrepresenting cosmology, which theory has fewer grand assumptions? That an unobservable, indescribable agent who's origin is unexplainable, that exists 'outside' of everything(a contradiction) created the universe by an unknown/unknowable process from nothing OR there is a matter/energy duality (which we can observe/prove) and we don't fully understand where it all came from?

Is observing how the universe works really an exercise in faith?

[itry2brational]

"natural selection is not a living entity capable to discern right and wrong."

So. What rule says that it must? If you are so short sighted that you cannot see the survival benefits of altruism(morals) then what hope have you of grasping these concepts?

"MUST have an ultimate authority"

I do not believe in an ultimate authority. I do not believe in murder. As morals are understood I am moral. Explain.

I think you are conflating natural processes with intelligent agency.

[myjizzureye]

Here is the way i see it

1) Nothing can come into existence by itself

2) Everything needs a cause

3) God totally dosnt need a cause dude.

ERRR EERRRR both 1 and 2 have now been rebuked by your own dumbass logic.

If a god dosnt need a creator and can just have been always why cant the matter that the universe have always existed and just gotten rearranged from time to time by natural forces?

You cant have your cake and eat it, its infinite regression or the matter in the universe is infinite.

[myjizzureye]

So you are saying we do not share a common ancestor with chimps? Just want to get you on record so we can just your opinion on other matters accordingly thanks.

[per50n]

Nothing is causing itself into existence, theings can just start to exist without a cause, very different.

You are ridiculously dishonest, as is expectedd of you I guess. I said it was possible there was nothing in relation to the big bang, I then went on to say that generally, things come from nothing all of the time.

There does not need to be borrowing involved, quantum mechanics is not a field where you can just use your intuition to draw conclusions.

I said you argument was void.

[BDMblue]

moral values are diffrent where ever you go, and are you realy telling me its hard to think of a natural way for them to evolve ?

Think of any animal that does not kill its young for food. If morality did not exist only animals that reproudce in mass would go on living. There for natural selection selects for it.

[ndjm00]

So many words and such little content. It is totally futile to reason with you. You have no basic understanding of science whatsoever. Once again you make an arguement I have alread dealth with:

''Matter must be created, since matter is physical, It cannot bring itself into existence''

You make this statment even though I have already told you about Einsteins theory of relativity and E=MC2. It has been proven that energy can be turned into matter. There is no doubt in this regard...cont

[ndjm00]

Nobody, is saying that matter has brought itself into existence. What we are saying is is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed and as far as we know it has allways existed. It logically has to have allways existed if it cannot be created. We also know that energy can be converted into matter and the Big Bang explains this conversion beautifully. There is no need for a Designer God. None whatsoever. What we don't know... yet... Is why a singularity of energy formed... cont...

[ndjm00]

in order for the Big Bang expansion to occur, and God is not a reasonadble answer because it answers nothing. We may very soon have the answer to that question though with experiments been carried out on the Large Hadron Collider.

''Maybe God is energy... ever think about that''

That would mean energy is Sadistic, childish, murderous, jealous, narcissistic, homophobic and every other personality trait God has in the Bible. Since energy does not have a personality I think we can.. cont...

[ndjm00]

discount your theory.

''You believe that something can cause itself into existence from absolutely nothing''

Another Strawman. Thats right... tell me what I believe and then refute that instead of refuting what I actually believe...Pathetic.

I don't believe that things cause themselves. You believe that by believing in an uncreated God. I believe that energy has always existed and that matter can be created from energy via its own gravity. You are the one that believes God poofed...cont

[ndjm00]

everything out of nothing.

''You have not explained anything''

Correction... I have explained loads of things. You just choose to ignore them and then repeat your theory that ''God did it''. Your God is a God of the gaps and with every scientific revelation another gap closes. Your infinite Gods time is running out. Your explanation is that a God you can't prove exists poofed everything out of nothing and that is no explanation. Its down right pathetic!

[per50n]

Firstly, stop being dishonest, I did not say there was nothing, I said it is possible that there was nothing, which is completely different.

Secondly, they do come from nothing in the vacuum, they simply need to stay within confines set by the uncertainty principle, there is no borrowing involved.

In addition, that argument is void since if particles form in such a way to have a total mass-energy of 0 (as is thought by many to be how the universe was formed), they can exist indefinitely.

[ndjm00]

I don't believe this... I just explained why Craigs and your arguements are invalid on why the Cosmological arguement is wrong. I have no intention of writing it all again. If you want to ignore that and then Strawman the rest. Thats your business. But I will say a couple more things which you have given me the oportunity to mention:

''Can something come from nothing??? NO, its illogical to you because you have already denied the existencxe of a designer''

Lets get one thing straight..cont

[ndjm00]

I am not the one saying: ''that something came from nothing''. You are the one that is making that case... not me. Your arguement is that God came form nothing and then He proceeded to create the Universe, our Planet and everyliving thing on it out of nothing. You air saying that he poofed material things out of nothingness.

This largely contrasts to my arguement. It has been proven for quite some time now that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed but can be ...cont...

[ndjm00]

transferred from one form to another. So if anything were to be eternal, it would not be a complex designer Deity but rather... energy. I don't have all the answers but I certainly have more than you and am comfortable in my ignorence with the hope that some day science will discover the origins of the Universe. You believe you have the answer now but your answer is not logically sound or empiracly proveable. Your arguement is ridiculous yo say the least. Read a science book for Petes sake!

[per50n]

Quantum mechanics is actually one of the most accurate theories ever made and its implications have been observed countless time, your claim betrays a deep ignorance of physics.

As I said, quantum mechanics shows things can come from nothing, your lack of understanding of physics is not an argument.

Modern physics has also shown that there is not necessarily such a thing as 'before' the big bang.

[ndjm00]

I'm just going to concentrate on your evidence for God because the rst of your arguement is utterly ridiculous and illogical and I am wasting my time trying to reasopn with a clear idiot such as yourself. No wonder you deem WLC such an intellectual authority because you obviously arent very fucking smart. Your own logic is self refuting and you can't even see it. Lets get to your arguement for Gods existence:... cont...

[ndjm00]

''God is loghically eternal, because it would take an eternal and infinite mind to create the complexity of the Universe''

Really? And your going to empirically prove that in your next reply... arent you? So a complex and material Universe needs a creator, but an all powerful, immaterial complex creator does not need a creator and you can logically and empirically prove this? I didn't think so!... Also, you seem to be under the presupposition that the Universe had a creator when you...cont

[ndjm00]

have no evidence whatsoever for making that claim. Your mind is just so simple that you believe every thing that exists or is complex has to have a creator. Have you ever seen a snow flake under a microscope. This is a highly complex structure that has been formed completely naturally from a simple and disorderly state. No God was needed. Anyways... lets move on:

''A bike is not complex, unless your stupid''

I beg to differ. A bike is constructed from alloys in a factory... cont...

[ndjm00]

It employs geometry and a knowledge of physiccs on its construction. It uses plastic and rubber polymers created in a lab for reflectors, pedals and breaks. But this has nothing to do with my arguement. I just wanted to point out the idiocy of your statement.

''God does not need a cause because He is not matter''

Really... thats interesting. How do you know God exists and is not made from matter. But you actually help my arguement here because you say if something is not matter it...cont

[ndjm00]

a cause. Well energy is not matter and so by your logic it doesn't need a cause either. However, if you check out some of Einsteins empiracly verifiable theory of relativity and the formula E=MC2, you will note that energy can be converted into matter and vice versa. Hence... no God is needed for energy or matter to exist as you just said that anything which is not matter (energy) does not need a cause.

But besides all of this I still have a massive problem with your ''evidence''...cont

[ndjm00]

Your evidence is a version of the Kalam or the Cosmological Arguement which goes as follows:

1.)Whatever begins to exist has a cause

2.)The Universe began to exist

3.)Therefore theUniverse has a cause

This argument is ridiculous because it begs the question by referring to itself in order to validate itself. This what we call a circular arguement. The arguement presupposes that everything that begins to exist needs a cause, but discoveries in Quantum Physics utterly...cont

[ndjm00]

refute that notion. Also the use of the word cause is utterly incorrect. ''Causes'' occur on and are only relevant to timelines. If you don't have a timeline then to use the word 'cause' is meaningless. Since time did not exist before the beginning of the Universe... then how can you logically say the Universe was 'caused'?

For a better explanation of the futility of the Cosmological Arguement, watch this video:

watch?v=WHtxnIkzros&feature=fv­w

[per50n]

You have two completely unfounded premises in your argument.

1. Your question 'can something cause itself into existence' is based on a false dichotomy (that either something is externally caused, or caused by itself). Modern science, such as quantum mechanics, has shown that things can come into existence without cause, invalidating your premise.

2. Saying god is eternal because he made something complex is completely unfounded

As for god and cause, that is an absurd claim

[ndjm00]

''Dr. Craig is a philosopher within reason and science.''

Is he a philosopher.... Yes. With reason and science.... .absolutely not. He is a charlatan in those regards andby your logic anybody could qualify to be a philosopher of reason and science and that incldes my little sister. WLC has absolutely no scientific qualifications and is therefore not qualified to make credible scientific statements and expect to be taken seriously. That is why Dawkins won't debate him. Dawkins has debated...cont

[ndjm00]

far more intelligent creationists then the likes of WLC. Lennox is a respected mathematician and Alastir is is not a YEC who has strong belief in the verasity of Evolution.

You asked the question: Can something cause itself into existence.

I counter: Did God cause himself into existence and if He didn't how can you logically verify that he is eternal? Is it cus da Bible dus says so?

If you believe everything complex needs a cause then you logically have to amit that God does too.

[ndjm00]

''Anything you say from here is only an excuse''

Ah, the ultimate cop out clause so you don't have to continue with your ridiculous and fallacious arguments. He has debated Lennox and Alistar because these are men of science with qualifications in science. WLC has no qualifications in science but only in communications, theology and philososophy and is not an official representitive from any church as a priest or bishop would be. He is not afraid to debate WLC but instead he fears... cont..

[ndjm00]

he would be belittling science by taking on such an obvious Charlatan who has no regard for science or or reason. My little sister could take on a WLC argument, and so it is belittling to the scientific world for such a great mind such as Dawkins to give WLC the intellectual smackdown he deserves. Tell you what though... give me an example of WLC's strongest arguement fot the existence of the Christian God and I gauruntee you that I can logically refute it... and me without Dawkins credentials.

[myjizzureye]

If this Zietgiest group is stating that the gospels where not actually written by the authors they claim then yes they would be going on what is pretty much known and undisputed within the theological world. Might i chance that you also dont know the fact of evolution. I think theres a healthy chance you dont judging by the depth of your knowledge in other areas. A simple Google search should get you what you need to know and why,

[myjizzureye]

Actually funnily enough the history channel did do a program on the other gospels not included in the bible where in they actually do mention the exegesis and hermeneutics used to date and place the other gospels. The gospel of Thomas being the only one written within the lifetime of jesus being one of the many omitted by the church when formulating the cannon. Go figure. But this is nothing startling or new. Most people with the least bit of theological knowledge know this as fact.

[myjizzureye]

Where the colossal failure of this argument lies is the massive jump you get from 1) there must be a creator 2) therefore it must be the one i believe in and not the other guys. 3) My main proof for this (insert piss weak argument in here) Just about all other faiths can formulate an argument this way. I think is hilarious Christians tell jews exactly what their own book says and the meaning of their own Hebrew langue when they dont even speak it themselves. What the hell is a Zietgiest btw?

[myjizzureye]

Okay firstly i have no problem with WLC seems upfront and nice guy. Secondly I never said anything about jesus existance which i believe to be fact. My only comment was on how weak WLC arguments and reasoning was. So you are telling me Luke wrote Luke and Mathew wrote Mathew? Because you will find thats not what documented historians or anybody with decent credentials theologians or otherwise say. Both of these have been time and dated and none of them are in the lifetime of jesus.

[myjizzureye]

@Lichtspielhaus234 Schooled in what exactly? The man uses written accounts of an empty tomb as proof of jesus res erection and therefore god. How can anybody listen to him say that and not be just gob smacked at how retarded he is. Eye witness accounts are bad, from 2000 years ago worse, and when the author of the account never lived in the time of the thing that took place its not even worth mentioning. Thats right folks Luke never wrote Luke, Mathew never wrote Mathew and on it goes.

[Dark1777]

Ayala knows the material but is not a debater so his presentation could be more effective.

Craig is a (professional) debater but does not know much about evolution or physics.

Not as interesting as I had hoped as two ships pass in the night.

[hedleypanama]

lwc felt offended when he mentioned the monkeys!

[ndjm00]

@Lichtspielhaus234 I suggest you visit the home page of the user for this video, He has an upload featured where Dawkins explains why he won't debate WLC. Then I suggest you read the chapter in Dawkins book, 'The Devils Chaplain' where he shows an e-mail conversation he had with the late Steven J. Gould regarding debating creationists. YOu will find that his reasons are more than adequate and they are definitely not because he holds a fear of any creationist Douchebag!

[ndjm00]

Haha! Have you actually ever heard a WLC arguement. He is Pathetic!

[MaltyT]

Thanks for posting this btw. :)

[MaltyT]

Gotta say that on the whole this debate was very disappointing.

I was hoping to see Craig propose and defend ID, and Ayala refute it, instead Craig didn't have to defend anything because Ayala seemed to think the debate was on a different topic??

Weirdest debate I've seen in my life.

Craig doesn't understand evolution and Ayala didn't seem bothered to engage with ID.

Weird, Weird, Weird.

[Theologica37]

This is the first debate I have seen where Craig has met his match.

Please continue uploading!

[wood9670]

You are joking right?

Craig demolished this guy.

Part 1

watch?v=PgSnrat_P3U

Part 2

watch?v=luJg-amDjWE

[ndjm00]

Sure he did! Give me Craig most powerful refutational arguement.

[geoffreyefloyd]

ya man...craig won this debate. Ayala didn't deal with ANY of Craig's objections. He just talked about whatever he wanted.

[divineson05]

It's pretty clear that they both talked about what they wanted. They both had there presentations prepared before arriving. It wasn't formatted like it should have been.