DOES GOD EXIST? William Lane Craig vs Antony Flew (HQ) 10/11

[ClamCrunchy]

Freedom of the will? To base one's faith in free will is dangerous as it is being undermined by neurological science. Lane Craig claims that the Big Bang must have had a cause, and thus assumes that the origin of the universe was deterministic. But if the origin of the universe was a quantum mechanical event, it may not have needed a cause. Otherwise, Lane Craig does a decent job defending his beliefs.

[mygodDYLAN1]

i struggle to see how if god is outside the relms of our universe outside of time and space or whatever how can he be with us always? as far as im concerned and i think people like stephen hawkings would agree with me it is impossible for things to cross between universes.. if you say well "hes god he can do what ever he wants" then i guess it makes sense but that just leads to nothing

[AmenMaranhata]

@mygodDYLAN1 Do not struggle my friend. GOD is mind, and everything is within HIM and inside of HIM, nothing outside. "For in Him we live, and move, and have our being" Bible, Acts 17:28

Therefore HE is very close to you. Call HIM, ask HIM. He wants you to work for HIM.

[mygodDYLAN1]

@AmenMaranhata what about proof that he is close to us outside of the bible

[AmenMaranhata]

@mygodDYLAN1 yes. You have to read the Bible, Wisdom 1: 1-6. It say what you have to do to find God.

I can tell you without the Bible but the space here is too short. :)

[6thwing]

@mygodDYLAN1 You mean like PERSONAL INTERACTION? lol. You know you'd deny that no matter what, so why even ask for it?

[VerseInfinitum]

First of all anyone could become inspired from any source. Professor Craig claimed he read the New Testament of the Bible and was arrested by the person of Jesus and his words have the ring of truth about them and there was an authenticity of his character. His description appears psychological and emotional, which reflects many other people who embrace their religious faith and denomination has always been part of human nature.

[cromwell99]

"something can't come out of nothing" Craig has been repeating this statement on and on through the whole debate yet he doesn't seem to mind that it actually can be applied to god himself therefore negating the claim that god just "popped" into eternity. how consistent :)

[JusJuiceIt]

@cromwell99

lol God did not come from nothing, and God never did "come". He has always been. He is not bound by the time of the universe

[cromwell99]

@JusJuiceIt if god is not bound by "the time of the universe" then the sentence "he has always been" and the use of the word "never" are meaningless because they denote time. so if you say he is not bound by time then inevitably you can't say he has always been. so decide which of the two you would like to maintain. I guess it is fuitile to ask how you know that there is no time outside the universe and how you know that god has always been since you haven't always existed and "stuff".

[JusJuiceIt]

@cromwell99

well i kind of understood your comment and i thank you for replying back nicely, but im sure your argument can be debated, i didnt fully get what you said, sort of confused me in the first sentence.

[cromwell99]

@JusJuiceIt Well I'd be more than happy to try to make myself clearer and I invite any challenges to what I say. In your comment you wrote: "God never did "come". He has always been." and "He is not bound by the time of the universe". It seems to me that these two statements assert things that are contradictory. In the first part you mention the words "always" and "never" which refer to time but in the other sentence you claim that god is atemporal (independent of time).

[cromwell99]

@JusJuiceIt you cannot assert both that he is temporal and that he is atemporal. it is a contradiction. a bit clearer this time?

[JusJuiceIt]

@cromwell99

yes, thank you, i appreciate that. ok so what your saying is, my comment was basically wrong, in a way that it doesn't make sense, your saying, i said one thing but then the next thing i said cant go with the first thing i said.. i do apologize for that, but what you said in the comment that i replied to first was " Dr. Craig is saying nothing can come from nothing but then how did God come, he just popped in, it negates itself" what i should of just said was, God was always there

[JusJuiceIt]

@cromwell99

adding in time and space i guess didnt sound right from my point.. i fully understand the way you explained it to me, you say i contradict myself, except what i dont understand is how i contradicted myself, if you could please explain that, im sorry, i should no this to have a conversation about it but im still learning

[CutieBabe25]

I don't think this was a fairly balanced debate as Flew is an old guy and even had trouble speaking a lot during the debate and that is okay considering his age. A lot of people just can't keep up with arguments in real time at that age.

[JusJuiceIt]

@CutieBabe25

thats understandable, and i agree with you.. but go watch the rest of Dr. Craigs debates, such as this one - type in "atheism vs christianity" its the first link, iv watched all of Dr. Craigs debates, and what im about to say has nothing to do with the fact that im a creationist, its because i weighed the evidence that both sides gave and Dr. Craig overwhelms all his opponents

[Parture]

God said Craig is not born-again because Craig said he has a faith that he could lose tomorrow (non-OSAS).

[lzekl]

Craig is a logical and rational Christian. What he meant by that comment is that if someone rationally showed him that his Christian beliefs are irrational (not that he thinks that such a thing is possible) he would have no problem admitting that he is been wrong all this time (not that would ever happen, simply cause Christianity is true). I am on the same position than crag and so are many rational christians

[Parture]

The Bible says those who are born-again "they shall never perish" (John 10.28). Craig says they can. That's how I know Craig is not born-again because he is unwilling to give his life to the God who keeps, humbly accepting we can't keep ourselves saved. Very sad.

[Parture]

What makes this doubly worse is he is starting his global propogation of this false teaching of non-OSAS through his Reasonable Faith products and classes throughout the world. I wonder if Craig might be the Antichrist teaching non-OSAS like under the Roman Church tries to do. Too early to tell, but I will be watching.

[Setar]

I don't see how you can call assuming a conclusion and then attempting to find evidence to support it "logical and rational" in any meaning of the phrase.

[lzekl]

I suppose if you accept a belief based on pure faith that does not necessarily makes you the most logical person. But if after that you look to see if any evidence supports your belief and you find it. I see nothing irrational about that. The same goes for the atheist..You have to agree with me on the fact that Atheism requires faith. Believing that the universe came from nothing out of nothing requires a lot of faith

[Setar]

"But if after that you look to see if any evidence supports your belief and you find it. I see nothing irrational about that. "

Aside from the fact that your preconception may lead you to (intentionally or unintentionally) ignore evidence contrary to your assumption?

"Believing that the universe came from nothing out of nothing requires a lot of faith "

Since when did atheists believe that?

[lzekl]

we are all influenced by the environment (present or pass experiences), whether we are aware of it or not...So theres no such thing as an unbiased comment. I guess my point is that what you are trying to say applies to atheist as well.. and to most beliefs. if you dont believe that the universe come from nothing out of nothing, then you believe that matter has always existed... so i suppose we both believe in eternal things...if thats what you believe i would appreciate a book that supports tha

[Setar]

What if there was simply no point in time where energy (E = mc^2) did not exist? Wouldn't that also mean that energy has always existed, yet allow for there to be a universe with a set starting point - a time pole marking where one cannot go further back in time much like one cannot go north of the north pole?

[lzekl]

that would mean that energy is eternal..which would also mean that it cannot be depleted. right? everlasting energy?

[Setar]

The energy existing does not necessarily mean that the energy can do work. That's what entropy is - a measure of the availability (or rather lack thereof) of energy to do work.

[lzekl]

I suppose you could go with that... There is still an issue though. It has to do with the fine tunning of the universe. I just cant imagine a universe so finely tuned to be simply an accident. The probability is just way too low. I have never heard anything worth my time against the fine tunning argument, except the multiple universe theory, for which there is absolutely o evidence...

[musekiteer]

// Believing that the universe came from nothing out of nothing requires a lot of faith //

You misrepresent the position of astrophysicists.

On the other hand, there should be evidence for the purported creator, yet none exists.

If there were any evidence, apologetic inventions would be redundant, and WLC would need to find a new career.

As it stands, it is deists and theists who really believe that everything came from nothing. I have a different word for that than "faith".

[lzekl]

@musekiteer lol and 5 months later i check my inbox again. Lots of evidence for the creator exist. Did you watch the debate at all? what kinda evidence are you looking for? and before you answer that... think of all your "rational beliefs" such as I exist, or such as when I cross the street I will make it to the other side, and so forth and ask yourself if you have the same evidence that you demand from the existence of God in those other beliefs.

[musekiteer]

@lzekl

Come back in another 5 months when you have worked out why your argument is pathetic.

[Dhalsim06]

Its clear that Flew was in the process of doubting his own atheism when this debate took place

By the way, has anyone ever seen Dr Craig completely stumped?

I've watched many debates of him against the who's who of atheists, and I've never seen him "defeated"

[masterplano]

Antony Flew believes in God now...

[slartibartfats]

and that proves what?

[struer22]

craig won the debate hands down.

[MiracleOfRealism]

As usual

[struer22]

I can't believe how poorly flew did in this debate.

[Victoruto]

Did you even watch the debate?

[TheAmazingCristian]

I agree with Victuruto, William Lane Craig uses reduction to get to the conclusion God exists in all of his arguments, including what caused the Big Bang. Plus, his experience was no appeal to comfort.

[Freelance86]

And I could also say to you that the reasons you deny the existence of God is to comfort yourself with the coming judgment and so that you wouldn't have to change your life. You probably think that this argument is absurd but that's pretty much what you're doing to the Christian side.

[Keatrocity]

@Freelance86 Yep. Arguments of this kind commit the Genetic Falacy and are substantively void of opinion reinforcing validity.

[RebelRay]

okkima, comfort? Thousands of Christians have been burned at the stake, shot, beheaded, and tortured for their faiths.