William Lane Craig vs. Paul Draper (The Existence of God) Part 6

[omgopet]

he did not(!) just say blood clotting mechanism is irreducably complex!!

this has been disproven over and over again. what a dishonest prick.

[Requiemxtoxinnocence]

Craig sounds like a creationist when he speaks of evolution and if he were to debate dawkins on the subject his argument would be eliminated. If they debate that I think Craig would not win. But the two of them are on opposite ends one on metaphysical the other scientific.

[Wrath0fKhan]

Michael Behe? The guy whose hypothesis lost even in court? Time to wake up, Dr. Craig. Time to wake up...

[seflersinsburg10]

This is without a doubt the BEST debate about the existence of God that I have every seen!

The arguments on both sides are wonderful in every way- they're well-qualified, effective, logically consistent, well-articulated and (perhaps most importantly in a debate like this) they make only minimal use of appeals to emotion.

[TimeEffect]

Yeah the debate is great. Wish I had the video of it though.

And it's time I uploaded more videos too

[menonfire12]

@TimeEffect Are you going to get the video ?

[Lanter1000]

I agree. I´m an atheist but it is ear-candy to hear two such brilliant and intelligent men discuss. Considering that other atheists Craig debated like Atkins, Hitchens or Wolpert were pretty lame.

I would totally love to see a debate between Craig and Dawkins.

[awesomewelles90]

So would Craig but it seems Dawkins is too scared.

[TheHonestTheist]

/watch?v=fFH0khjgA0U

[MercifulMing]

can't believe he quoted behe. . .

[philopathy]

It does seem to me that we should expect those that become Christians to be better than they would have been if they were not Christians. If that were not the case, then I think that would tell against Christianity. But now its not at all obvious that the claim is true. Seems to me its false in fact. So the first claim is pretty obviously true, but isn't really evidence against Christianity. The second would be evidence against Christianity, but is not true (or not obviously true anyway).

[philopathy]

Suppose that Christians, on the whole, are exactly as good as non Christians. Its not obvious to me that this is more likely to be the case if Naturalism is true. In fact, one might expect that its the really rotten people who wind up becoming Christians. After all, there's no fooling us that we need forgiving. But then you might be comparing a very rotten, but much improved group of people with very good people and unimproved people.

[philopathy]

wow. I've never really heard him attack Darwinian orthodoxy before in that way. I think a safer bet would have been to argue that evolution is improbable on naturalism given the fine tuning of the universe. Or perhaps even to have taken up Plantinga's EAAN. Then again, perhaps that argument would have been too complex to get into. I don't know.

[seflersinsburg10]

I was surprised too. In fact I was a bit disappointed, because Craig's arguments seemed quite convincing to me until he made a reference to Michael Behe. After that I questioned whether his argument that "the evolution of sentient beings is unlikely given naturalism" was factually accurate. If he can quote Behe, he can quote anyone whether they're reliable as a source or not.

[DazedSpy2]

@seflersinsburg10 then just look up who he quotes and weather they ARE reliable or not?