DOES GOD EXIST? William Lane Craig vs Antony Flew (HQ) 5/11

[froweey]

Does the Bible indicate whether the dead experience pain?

Ps. 146:4: “His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground; in that day his thoughts* do perish.” (*“Thoughts,” KJ, 145:4 in Dy; “schemes,” JB; “plans,” RS, TEV.)

[froweey]

Ezek. 18:4: “The soul* that is sinning—it itself will die.” (*“Soul,” KJ, Dy, RS, NE, Kx; “the man,” JB; “the person,” TEV.)

“The concept of ‘soul,’ meaning a purely spiritual, immaterial reality, separate from the ‘body,’ . . . does not exist in the Bible.”—La Parole de Dieu (Paris, 1960), Georges Auzou, professor of Sacred Scripture, Rouen Seminary, France, p. 128.

Jehovah's Witnesses reject the false doctrine that says the soul survives the death of the body.

[froweey]

Eccl. 9:5, 10: “The living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all . . . All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol,* the place to which you are going.” (If they are conscious of nothing, they obviously feel no pain.) (*“Sheol,” AS, RS, NE, JB; “the grave,” KJ, Kx; “hell,” Dy; “the world of the dead,” TEV.)

Jehovah's Witnesses reject the false hellfire doctrine.

[B00D0]

so if i go to hell all i have to do is believing in god? sounds quite easy...

[josephboy1000]

Does A god exists? Maybe. Does the Christian god exist?Certainly not.



[chaosofhumanity]

A crowd of idiots.

[AgeOfReasonXXI]

that servile worm called Craig doesn't even realize how pathetic and despicable his defense of Hell is. He's the perfect exaample of how badly religion can poison a person's mind

[RetSquid]

@AgeOfReasonXXI

Look up "Ad Hominem".

[HMSRedbeard]

@AgeOfReasonXXI Dear Sir, WLC's "defense" of hell is pathetic and despicable ONLY if hell does not exist or if hell is not as he describes. There are many realities of this realm that are repugnant and even horrific but that does not mean this realm does not exist. The fact that we deplore the idea of something does not prove its non-existence. The question of debate is "Does God Exist?" If you are going to consider the existence of hell and its conditions, that's a different debate.

[squint1991]

wh ywould anyone suggest that this guy debate in anything. I dont think he should even debate about what diapers to wear before he came to this event

[BabySatch1]

Flew became a deist not a theist.

Deists arent christians or part of any other religious group.

[Isterdrivenkaosmask]

@BabySatch1 Just for the record..Deism is a form of theism. If you are a deist, you believe in a certain kind of god, hence you are a theist since theism is the basic belief that there is atleast one deity of some kind. This would include monotheism, pantheism, deism and so forth.

[BabySatch1]

@Isterdrivenkaosmask Yes you're right. I was under the false impression that deism was a belief in a non interventional deity and that theism was interventional. Thanks.

[quranresponse]

@BabySatch1 Quran:

(SURAH-3-THE FAMILY OF IMRAN-VS-30)

On the day that every soul shall find present what it has done of good and what it has done of evil, it shall wish that between it and that (evil) there were a long duration of time; and allah makes you to be cautious of (retribution from) himself; and allah is compassionate to the servants.

[mygodDYLAN1]

hes wrong when he says the brain isnt sad but a person is. your brain releseases diffrent chemicals that make you sad

[mygodDYLAN1]

@9verlie wrong

[wachnathan]

sounds like this guy is going to die any second now.

[VerseInfinitum]

Professor Flew shouldn't argue about a certain indoctrination such as hell, he should have pointed out that the Sky God was the first deity ever professed in faith and revered in known written history. Then the God Mother was the next deity long before the Sun God of Egypt and the Greek and Roman mythological gods. Professor Flew should have addressed the historic and evolution of our concept of gods including Paganism, Pantheism and Monotheism.

[SoSaCA100]

7:18 funny

[oodlesofosz]

is he a lunatic? wtf did he just spend about 15 mins babbling about?

[1noen1]

@oodlesofosz -- He was senile at the time. This video is an abomination. It should be taken down.

[oodlesofosz]

@1noen1 Right. He managed to get up on time, get dressed, get the location, do everything else but since his points are weak we'll just dismiss it as being senile

[1noen1]

@oodlesofosz -- He is incoherent and barely able to form an argument. Have a little respect, you'll be old one day too. WL Craig is a skilled debater. He didn't need to take advantage of Flew's senility. It was beneath him to have participated in this charade.

[oodlesofosz]

@1noen1 Mhmmm yeah, of course.

[lukeism2]

what the fuck... nothing... NOTHING - is worthy of eternal punishment.. how can he stand there and believe this and talk about gods love?.. and people are clapping?.. sociopathic.. disgusting.

[lukeism2]

good argument to show that william lane craigs god doesn't exist.. no evidence ever. but oh my... he can make shit sound delicious!.

[JohnBaptist702]

Anthony Flew did not propose a strong argument against the existence of God...

He was not well prepared with the quotes and notes, he was very nervous and fidgety, moving his arms too much, he did not support his argument with truly scientific and empirical evidence, but used his own philosophical ideas which cannot be well supported.

[xybersurfer]

@Buruc well i do agree that i expect that a specific lottery number that i choose, being picked is improbably. but the chances of them drawing any number is quite high i would say. i'm even skeptical about how everything is done electronically these days, but i would reasonably trust that they are telling the truth, not blindly but because they usually do (previous experience but nothing is black and white).

[hekskey]

...That said, this isn't the topic of the debate and Craig is correct in pointing out that even if Flew's argument was sound, it's not an argument for the non-existence of God but an argument against his benevolence or against the truth of the doctrine of Hell.

[xybersurfer]

@hekskey i'm not in the know about this but isn't benevolence one of the defining properties of "god" ?

[hekskey]

@xybersurfer Not from a logical standpoint it isn't. Benevolence is an attribute of God in the Judeo-Christian view of who and what God is, but it is not logically necessary that a being who transcends the physical universe and has the ability to produce that universe also happens to be benevolent. An argument against his benevolence is not logically relevant to or determinative in a debate about the possibility of the existence of a transcendent being responsible for the design of the cosmos.

[xybersurfer]

@hekskey from this point of view, it seems like religions have many unnecessary text for the existence of "god". Craig is also supplying information that is logically unnecessary for the existence of "god".

[hekskey]

@xybersurfer I'm not sure what your worldview is, but I appreciate the civil discussion. Religious texts intend to convey what is true about God, not only what is logically necessary about him. They also generally assume his existence rather than attempt to prove it. So I don't see that such texts are unnecessary. Can you draw my attention to Craig's logically unnecessary info? He may have presented some but I don't recall it off the top of my head. Take care

[xybersurfer]

@hekskey Craig unnecessarily talks about the concepts of sin and how "god" responds. and as for my worldview, i'm an atheist ( i lack religious beliefs ). what is yours?

[hekskey]

@xybersurfer But in the part you're talking about, Craig prefaces his comments by saying that Flew has raised an objection that doesn't logically argue against God's existence but that he, Craig, will respond to it ANYWAY (caps used in place of italics, not shouting). The difference is that Flew was trying to argue against God's existence using an argument that was irrelevant to that existence, whereas Craig was RESPONDING to that particular argument after ACKNOWLEDGING that it was off-topic.

[xybersurfer]

@hekskey ok true it's a bit of a side discussion, but it seems that Craig doesn't argue for the existence of "god" but just dispels Flew's arguments.

ex: Flew argues against the omnipotence of "god" using the inability to control freewill. Craig seems to try to counter this by saying, that "an omnipotent being cannot make someone do something".

this seems baseless and also inconsistent, in that an inability to do something is proof of against omnipotence. btw what's your worldview?

[hekskey]

@xybersurfer Hi. Prior to this, Craig summarized his positive argument for God's existence. This is Craig's rebuttal of Flew's arguments. But if I can politely correct your presentation of Craig's argument, he doesn't say God's can't make some do something. He says God's omnipotence doesn't allow him to do what is logically impossible, and it is logically impossible to MAKE someone do something FREELY. That is a contradiction of terms. (continued in next post)

[hekskey]

(There were typos in the last post, but I think the meaning is clear. Moving on...) So, while it is logically possible to have a world of free agents that never choose to carry out evil, it is logically impossible to have a world of free agents where God MAKES them never choose to carry out evil, because that would, by definition, preclude them from being FREE agents. This is why Flew's argument fails. As for my worldview, I'm a theist. Take care.

[hekskey]

This is the problem with the doctrine of Hell. You have Atheists using it to argue against God, though it actually only argues against the benevolence of God, and then you have theists arguing a ridiculous defense of it. Not all people who believe in God and the Bible believe that Hell is a genuine Biblical doctrine and would actually use Flew's argument to say that it doesn't make any sense and flies in the face of an objective sense of justice (continued above...)

[xybersurfer]

@Buruc by your own words, Craig gave arguments for the existence of "god" and asked Dr. flew provide arguments that "god" does NOT exist. so Craig asked him to argue against something different from what Craig has argued for. Dr. flew countered his arguments like he was supposed to. and whether Dr. flew changed his mind afterwards does not change the arguments he provides here. i think you have it backwards. the burden is on those making extraordinary claims which require extraodinary proof.

[xybersurfer]

@Christianjr4 craig is a sneaky bastrd. he keeps changing the issue from proving "god exists" to "proving god does not exist" like it is the same question. he is thus attacking straw-men/fake-targets and using them to justify his stance.

[freeatheist1]

If god sends you to hell becasue you didnt love him, he is evil. you know that.

[Set4Life22]

I noticed how mad Atheists got about this debate. Flew was crushed and made to look like a blubbering fool. Im glad he finally came to his senses and now believes in the Lord.

[cifa2510]

I FEEL BAD FOR FLEW HE IS VERY OLD. I'll pray for him.

[redninjastarx]

A person's fate is pretty much determined. So where does the free will lie?

[redninjastarx]

The present actions determine our future effects, in other words, past actions cannot be changed and have no effect on our present actions which means free will does not exist.

Stick to philosophy please, Mr. Craig. A senile old man should not have to argue with the likes of you. Free will cannot exist if God is omniscient. The capacity, or potential for actions are called agency, that does not mean it is free.

If God were to be omnipotent, then that would mean that

[Dhalsim06]

Flew sounds downright senile

[Dejan2116]

All atheists can do is spill rhetoric out of their mouths, not real arguments, as is shown by this man's hatred for the God of the Bible.

[dinkolino2]

it is a bit sad to see Craig dismember Flew like this..

[ScreeminMeeme]

A five year understands the concept of design requiring a Designer. Flew does not, inspite of being surrounded by design on every level. An intellectually honest person is forced to the conclusion that the intricacies of the human eye were designed with purpose, and were not the end result of billions of years of purposeless and mindless matter in motion. Just shows how far one will go to avoid confrontation with THEIR Designer and Creator.

[irishmauddib]

The issue is that these things you speak of are not designed, and since they are not designed a designer is not required.

The illusion of design is powerful, but there is no evidence for it.

[Crunkmastaflexx]

@ScreeminMeeme this was a lengthy paragraph to say: "my emotions believes otherwise."

[AlShaddai]

Flew is not a Christian. He is more like a Deist like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were, two founding fathers of your "Christian" country.

[ladyEulaelie]

Isn't Flew a Christian or creationist now??

[p3rs0nan0ngrata]

@ladyEulaelie

Flew believes that a force, which might vaguely be termed as an Aristotelian god, caused the universe.

If you understand the implications of Aquinas' First Cause argument, you'll have an idea of what Flew believes.

(And no, Aquinas did not conclude the existence of a conscious God from the notion of a first cause)

[megawolf7]

@ladyEulaelie Yes, Flew now believes God exists.

[lukeism2]

@ladyEulaelie dead... but he became a deist

[ladyEulaelie]

@lukeism2

I know now that the rumors were false and that he was deist, but thanks for clarifying again.

[JusJuiceIt]

@lukeism2

he died? and whats a deist?.. if you could please tell me

[lukeism2]

@JusJuiceIt believing in some form of a god without organized religion

[JusJuiceIt]

@lukeism2

i see, thank you 

[MrMohjong]

@ladyEulaelie No Flew never became a christian

[mygodDYLAN1]

@ladyEulaelie no not a christain but he started beliving in deism

[MrMohjong]

@ladyEulaelie No Flew converted to Deism but he did say that Christian would be the religion to talk about.

[lukeism2]

@ladyEulaelie dead 

[TheArcaneSanctum]

@ladyEulaelie he is a deist

[ladyEulaelie]

@TheArcaneSanctum

Oh wow, this was a year ago and I know more about him now, but thank you.

[TheArcaneSanctum]

@ladyEulaelie

hehe behold the effects of no sleep ....observation becomes minimal.

In any case was just trying to help.

Peace ^^

[quranresponse]

@ladyEulaelie Quran:

(Surah-2-the cow-vs-186)

And when my servants ask you concerning me, then surely I am very near; I answer the prayer of suppliant when he calls on me, so they should answer my call and believe in me that they may walk in the right way.

[nehmanator333]

@ladyEulaelie No no no. He's a deist. Big difference. I'm a fantastically fierce atheist, yet I might on a given day concede to deism. "While reason, mainly in the form of arguments to design, assures us that there is a God, there is no room either for any supernatural revelation of that God or for any transactions between that God and individual human beings." - Antony Flew

In other words, get it right.

[ladyEulaelie]

@nehmanator333

Dear, this was a fleeting comment written a year ago.

Lol...but thanks again, again, again and again. (Look below).

[nehmanator333]

@ladyEulaelie Good. Because it was a stupid comment, which deserves to be criticized again again again and again. (look below).

[meangreen4321]

The same damn argument by Craig that people put "themselves in hell" or that God could justly condemn for denying his incompatible character as presented in the Bible.

[inday811]

Yes! God does not guarantee how free creatures will choose. Very nice explanation.

[slartibartfats]

Agreed but a loving deity would not:

1) punish rejection

2) allow beings to suffer (think of cancer or dementia)

[inday811]

thanks. but then can you guarantee to me , that your deity is so loving - that he don't punish and case believer to suffer form cancer and or dementia?

those consequences has been brought about to a said person bcoz of many influences.... like the chemicals that we are eating.. and other stuffs.. and or so.. to believe that its is a said curse from God since the beginning to those people who dis-obeyed HIm.,, up to the third generations. i hope you understand what i mean.

[inday811]

Foolish!Dont seems it. Bcoz it will be so. Disobedience has csome consequences to it - that each and everyone has to face. A watch in a bush? An artifact? Admit it. It is ALL because of your hardened heart.

[frankgrimes17]

Craig sounds like a speak and spell come to life. Flew may be a bit old and hard to follow, but you can still feel his passion in his arguments. Craig is just reciting shit. I think Flew pwned him, but if he was 10 years younger it would have been even MORE apparent that he pwned him.

[therealdrag0]

I prefer Craig's cripsness. If the Christian was passionate people would criticize him for being all passion and no logic-- after all, religious people can't think.

[ChemEBeaver]

If an omnipotent being cannot do something, then it is not omnipotent. Simple as that.

I find it humorous to think a god being angry at his OWN imperfect creations and punish them. How childish is this god to punish his own creation for his own shortfall? Its like building a clay figure and taking vengeance on it for not being what you want it to be.

[meangreen4321]

@ChemEBeaver

I would add to that: the God of the Bible seems to have an expectation that his creatures somehow need to obtain his impossible standard of holiness. We humans can't even think a lustful thought about a woman that he created with breasts and a sexy figure, for the very purpose of attraction, or so we are taught. We can't turn our hormones on and off like a light-switch! How ignorant of human behaviour! How cruel of a creator to bully and intimidate.

[Mammo86]

judoyodan, you still have not responded to the fact that Flew believes in God. Dont make up some nonsense like, "oh he is an idiot now." Do you think you have a more legitimate stance on existence than he? He is quite old and has entertained philosophy longer than you have been alive. Second of all, dont presume to teach me evolution; I have spent my college tenure studying biology, in which I have my degree and every PhD I have worked with will tell you what I told you about evolution.

[ChemEBeaver]

Mammo86: "I have spent my college tenure studying biology"

Mammo86: "Thats why its still a theory"

-Apparently you did not study biology (or science for that matter) long enough to know that a scientific theory is the highest level obtained (ie theory of gravity, relativity, atom)

Theory starts out as hypothesis and does not become laws (mathematical theory) or facts (which is explained by a theory/law).

Perhaps you shouldnt concern yourself with science since you are completely ignorant of it.

[lucasdasilvamaria]

RUDE BUT RIGHT

im a biologist too and agree

[Mammo86]

Hmm...Flew is a theist now, just so you know. What is your valid point for atheism? It surely is no more valid than those that Flew had, and he now believes in God.

[judoyodan]

First of all, you are wrong. Flew is a deist, not a theist. He doesn't believe in your god any more than I do.

Secondly, it wouldn't matter. You still have NO proof of your god. It is still a delusion, a superstition, a bane on society.

[Mammo86]

I have something better than proof, it called FAITH. Also, being a deist or a theist is still a large leap, and you have not admitted that you are wrong in rejecting God. Also, given that God does exist, which He does, there can only be ONE true interpretation, and dont tell me nobody has it. It is here, it is alive, and it is called Christianity. Open up your heart and put your anger aside, You are merely revolting in light of events that happened to you.

[judoyodan]

"FAITH", by definition, is ignorance. You believe in something without evidence.

The only "given" here is that you take part in a bronze age superstition that has retarded the advancement of mankind since it's inception.

Christianity is nearing an end. People can only remain ignorant for so long.

[Mammo86]

NO...your definition is wrong and shows the only "ignorance" in this matter. You also believe in something without evidence. Let me explain, evolution is prob the best physical explanation for the dawn of species, but no man has lived long enough to see it unfold with his own eyes. This matters. Thats why its still a theory, and even if it were a law in science it would have no more bearing than theory. Science can only answer "what" is happening. You are left in the dark if thats all u believe

[judoyodan]

Religion makes people stupid. Christianity has certainly done it's job on you. You're remarks on evolution illustrate this very well. Not to mention your rantings about some sky daddy.

Aren't you a little old to have an invisible friend?

[frankgrimes17]

Flew did not convert. He said it himself. He was taken advantage of in that book.

[diuryl]

after TRYING to listen to flew's arguments, i've already concluded that he lost this debate.

and what's that moderator's problem? if craig PWNED flew then they SHOULD applaud him. LOL!!!

[MrDarkbloom]

Question:

Is God sovereign? Is God by nature the ultimate in perfection and love? Has God designed everything that happens in existence as part of his perfect plan?

Conclusion 1:

If objective morality comes from God then genocide, torture and child rape can only be perfect and lovely. There are no bad things - How could there be?

Conclusion 2: There is no free will. How could there be?

[Mammo86]

No you are wrong. The genocide, rape and torture that are happening occur because people FREELY CHOOSE to perform them. You are mistaken if you think humans have no free will.

SIDE NOTE: you are denying free will because you do not want to be responsible for your actions, because that makes life difficult. Believe me, I have been down the atheist road and it is one where people COMPLAIN that life is so hard, where people want things to be easy. Come out of your "dark bloom" my friend.

[Mylth]

Flew has already stated why he believes there are no bodiless persons as inconsistent with the evidence, he knows of no bodiless persons. Craig draws out some mental and perhaps spiritual characteristics of humans. But he fails to show how these could exist without a body.

[trenton1980]

an absence of evidence is not evidence against a belief. craig gave the 3 possibilities and refuted 2 of them. I don't understand what your objection is. It doesn't matter if they can or cannot exist apart from a body.

[Mylth]

Craig says that we freely choose hell. Yet the problem he should be debating is the existence of hell, not our own choice, which he uses to try to justify its existence.

[trenton1980]

wrong. he simply went down the logical path of answering flew's objection. the doctrine of hell is not evidence for or against the existence of a god.

[Mylth]

Craigs argument against Flews assertion that God could not make beings that obey him is not convincing at all... Omnipotent. He makes two assumptions about the nature of omnipotence that I don't find very convincing at all.. also that God only works within logical systems and that is is logically impossible to make someone freely doing something which then assumes the libertation defination of freedom. To many assumptions I would not agree with.

[trenton1980]

how could god work outside the nature of logical systems. how could he create a rock so big he couldn't lift it ... are you actually arguing that a god could exist outside logical systems?

can you explain to me any logical construct of forcing someone to do something freely?

[wackid89]

If God knows everything that will ever be or ever was, what is the point of existence? The point of this guinea pig experiment? What do I have to live with some trauma of having to decide if there's a god or not, and look at all the contradictory evidence and suffering if He already knows my thoughts and what I'll decide to believe? Why will I be condemned for a choice I make which will inevitable from the very beginning I was made? How unfair and inhumane can that be?

[BloodskullMannoroth]

Maybe with our freewill and a system of random chance that appears to exist in this realm, one can not know all, even God.

[dansonta]

because the fact of free will, you are given a choice. Just because God knows all, doesn't mean he is condeming you for something inevitable. You have the option...If there wasn't free will we would all be robots, and whats is the worth of Love to God if it is forced? Thats pointless. God wants you to show your love for him, hence free will. God isn't playing puppet master, he gives everyone a choice.

[wackid89]

And you'd know that how? Proof please.

[dansonta]

um the bible and something called LOGIC? As Dr. William Lane Craig uses. Play detective and figure out who God says he is, then you can see start to look into his logic. People place false expectations on God which is where a lot of error comes from.

[wackid89]

Show me where it says what you just said in the Bible. And then prove the Bible is true.

[dansonta]

Why don't you watch the debate?...all the information I stated is just reiterating what Dr. Craig says. If you are that naive that I have to re-state whats in the video, then you really won't care what I have to say will you? As you are too stubborn to realize you are wrong.

[dansonta]

humans are such selfish creatures. Instead of blaming yourself for your own sins and wrong doings you would rather blame God or use that as so called "proof" for the non-existence of God. Your basically saying if God knows I'm going to kill someone, why is he going to punish me for a decision he already knows I'm going to make. Well..think about it. YOU Make the decision, not him, he just happens to know that you will murder. But if he interferes...that ruins free will..doesnt it? Think dude

[wackid89]

No he'd supposedly already know that I'd do what I was going to do, and what you were going to do, and everyone else. So what's the point in us being here. He's watching the movie when he knows the ending. Why make someone if you know you're going to punish them. Not only for murder, but for petty other thing. You don't need that bullshit psudo-logic to be a good person.

[Scientialist]

First i never made the argument that the Bible is wrong because it was written down by ignorant twits. I just said they were ignorant twits.

Second i didn't say anything about an Omniscience not existing In fact i started out making the ontological argument which would be an argument for a god's existence. Come on, keep up.

I'm waiting for you to show me where in the Bible does it say or imply Yahweh is Omniscient.

[CmRoddy]

Psalm 139:1-4; Psalms 147:4-5; Matt. 11:21;

There are other verses that talks about knowing people since before the foundation of the earth, implying further his omniscience. Also, there are hundreds of prophecies about Jesus that were fulfilled 400 years after they were written. No man could have written those prophecies with such details unless truly inspired by an omniscient God.

[Scientialist]

Matthew 11:21 (New International Version)

21"Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.

[Scientialist]

You don't have to be Omniscient to number the stars, or read people's thoughts. But an Omniscience wouldn't be able to change it's mind, feel regret, do psychological experienments on people who have no knowledge of right and wrong and so on.

Not to mention if an Omniscience wrote a book it would be amazing, better than anything anyone could possible imagine. The Bible stinks ass. Even by their comtemporary standards.

[CmRoddy]

And God does change his mind and he does regret. Apparently you have spent a total of ZERO time studying the Bible, yet you make such rash assertions about it. You don't even know what it teaches. You have made that very clear.

[Scientialist]

Exodus 32:14 (New International Version)

14 Then the LORD relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.

Genesis 18:20-32 (New International Version) 20 Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21 that I WILL GO DOWN AND SEE if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I WILL know."

[CmRoddy]

How does quoting the Bible prove you have read it and know what it teaches? I can go look up verses in the Quran, or in any other religious writings and put them up on here, does that mean I studied them? Nope.

You have more then proven that you are completely ignorant towards what the Bible teaches about God.

[Scientialist]

Oh things are being made clear. Do you want more dumb-ass shit your Yahweh pig has done. I could go on.

[Tredoslop]

It's funny how the moderator asks everyone to refrain from applause and they clap right after that. Hehe...:)

[Scientialist]

Oh well isn't that nice, how merciful.

[Scientialist]

A real "libertarian" God would allow people to make their mistakes end up in hell and find their way back to him. That would be the only God worthy of the name.

[TheAmazingCristian]

Sin against an eternal/infinite being requires an eternal/infinite punishment

[CmRoddy]

That's a heretical teaching called Universalism that isn't Biblical.

[Scientialist]

I haven't heard Craig say much at all that is Biblical. Who gives a rats ass about that filthy book anyway. I can think of far better gods than Yahweh, so using the Ontological argument Yahweh loses. He's already a big fat looser. Ha! Take that Yahweh you evil pig dog "f"er!

[CmRoddy]

Really? And what gods might those be? You do realize that the Christian God is 100% different than all the other ones right? So which ones do you think are better and why?

And I mentioned Universalism because of your assumption of God not allowing people to go to hell. No need to get offended.

[Scientialist]

Krishna kicks Yahweh's ass! The there is the Brahman. But i can imagine even better than that. An omniscient god. Way cooler than yours cuz in his mind would be an infinite number of histories of an infinite number of worlds with infinite detail. It would include an infinite number of worlds with me in it including this one. That god wouldn't have to single out any worlds for "creation", because they already exist in his mind.

[Scientialist]

Krishna kicks Yahweh's ass! The there is the Brahman.

But i can imagine even better than that. An omniscient god. Way cooler than yours cuz in his mind would be an infinite number of histories of an infinite number of worlds with infinite detail. It would include an infinite number of worlds with me in it including this one. That god wouldn't have to single out any worlds for "creation", because they already exist in his mind.

[CmRoddy]

So, a God with an infinite number of imaginary worlds in his mind is better than Yahweh? You do know that Yahweh is omniscient right?

[Scientialist]

Yes, because every possible world would already exist perfectly in his mind. There could be no such thing as "creation", because that couldn't make any difference.

No, Yahweh is not Omniscient. Where are you getting that from? Not the Bible. Trust me i've read it. He is supposed to know a lot but there are a lot of thing he didn't know.

An Omniscience would have no experience left for him to have because he already knows all possible experiences down to the infinitesimally smallest detail.

[CmRoddy]

Oh wow, I doubt you read the Bible if you don't think that God is Omniscient. How does the future as it appears to US HUMANS (which is this alleged experience left for him, btw) disprove God's omniscience? God sees all of history as a whole, we see just one part of the puzzle. In case you missed it, that's teaching is in the Bible.

[Scientialist]

Right, show me.

Yahweh is the imaginary greyback of barbaric warlords over bronze-age goats herders who wouldn't know the concept of Omniscience from a hole in their goat.

[CmRoddy]

This, sir, is the genetic fallacy. You are very wrong to say that what was written is wrong simply because of where it came from. It's a fallacious argument. If you can't even think logically than why should I talk to you?

[Scientialist]

No, you've got it wrong "BTW", all possible experiences we can or will have an Omniscience would already know in infinite detail. She would have already experienced them. She would know exactly what it's like to be you reading this thinking your just a little piss ant for Jesus.

[CmRoddy]

Yes, God can see all possible outcomes of every event of human history with infinite details, but what does that have to do with God's non-existence? What is the point that you are trying to put across?

[Scientialist]

I can see you want to weasel out now.

[Theologica37]

Craig owns.. FLEW NOW BELIEVES IN GOD... just so you know..

[fishboi87]

how can man have a free will if his will is chained to his nature, If man loves sin and drinks it down like water how can he ever come to god who loves righteousness, justice, and is love?

[TheAmazingCristian]

By repenting and putting faith in Christ.

[fishboi87]

god doesnt send people to hell?

and i say to you my friend do not fear those who kil the body and after that do no more, but ill tell you who to fear, fear the one who after he has killed has the power to CAST INTO HELL; yes i say to you, fear him!-Luke 12:4,5

O but he does.

[dionusos2]

Lane's defense of Hell is patently absurd. Hell is a self-inflicted punishment? Does a man hang himself? No. Does a man build the plank and put the noose around his neck when he's executed? No. And would someone really reject god under conditions of extreme suffering? of course not! atheist, first off, don't reject god. rejection implies believing he exists. It's no wonder Lane wanted to avoid discussing the doctine of hell at any length.

[Christianjr4]

Actually for the most part I agree you with. It seems ridiculous and absurd to think that people would continue to choose extreme torment rather than heaven, much less choose it on an eternal basis too. However his third option of hell seems quite reasonable to me.

But it's incorrect to say he wanted to avoid the subject. He has debated this entire topic alone before.

[ProudToBLoud]

its good that anthony flew followed the evidence and realised the evidence points to god, its a shame that bigot dawkins dishonestly attacked flew for doing so, william craig is a great intelligent man, no wonder he runs from debating craig , and he prefers to take cheap shots at anthony flew for following the evidence and believing in god.

[Tholz09]

First: Man does hang himself all the time. Second: Athiests, by definition, do reject God (or at least the idea of God) it does not imply that He exists, in fact the whole point of Athiesm is that there is no God. So how can you say that rejection implies existense. I reject Santa Claus as a real person, does that mean I also believe he exists? NO, of course not, that makes no sense. Third: If you want to make an argument, have some intelligence. please.

[dionusos2]

First: It should have been obvious that I was referring to a hypothetical in which the person did not want to be hanged. Second: Thanks for making the distinction. People often say you go to hell for "rejecting god." That's a different statement to make than, "rejecting a personal belief in a god." Get it? Christians would have us believe that atheists intuit god but don't want to abide by his rules so they reject him. third: arrogance and stupidity are a horrible combination.

[StevieWonder501]

@dionusos2 I think he's saying that atheists or believers of other religions reject God freely because you can't look around the world, seeing how it has to have some sort of intelligent design, and not wonder about a God above. God doesn't send people to Hell, because they do themselves. Why would a loving God send us to Hell? He had to go through that pain already with Jesus (before he was ressurected).

[darrinrasberry]

Libertarian free will is not held by Christianity. See e.g. John 6, Romans 9. If Christianity is true, Calvin was right.

[Theologica37]

calvin was wrong: James 2:24

[Saibomb]

Craig > Any Atheist