Christians basically describe God as a being who makes the rules for the rest of us, and does what he pleases and breaks the rules when it pleases him. If God ignores the rules--even rape, genocide, mass slaughter of innocent women and children--even on a global scale, then there is no real standard for morality, and therefore these rules are arbitrary, not objective at all, but subjective and even capricious, and furthermore, we would call a human that fits this description a "PSYCHOPATH".
Craig is pretty much a joke. The only person that's convinced of his intelligence is him, and thus he wins arguments (in his own mind) based entirely on his arrogance.
@BankHeistVideos Look, clearly we disagree on a lot of things and I'm not going to try and argue against you on all of them. I'm just trying to say that this video is incorrect in some aspects when it evaluates what Dr. Craig believes on this topic. You can hold that he is wrong, and that is fine, but it is intellectually dishonest to hold that he is wrong under false ideas of what he actually believes.
@BankHeistVideos Actually I did listen to what Dr. Craig actually said. I say he said one thing and think you didn't get what he said, you say he said something else and think I didn't get what he said. The difference? My worldview aligns with his so I understand what he's REALLY saying, and more importantly I have a better context of his values in which to place his words. I have personally met and talked with Dr. Craig and he would agree with me with what I've said.
@ST3V342 "The difference? My worldview aligns with his so I understand what he's REALLY saying" Another difference.....we can hear him speak and understand the definitions of the words he is using. We can string those definitions together to form a coherent indea of what he is attempting to convey. You may understand what he's REALLY saying but we understand what he is ACTUALLY saying.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
2 missed points:
1) WLC didn't just jump from obejctive morals to God, there was an extra step: showing objective morals could only come from God. Not a non-sequitor. You killed a strawman...
2) WLC has never said God is exempt from his own objective moral standard. His stance is that God's nature is good and that therefore his actions are good. In this case, WLC would say God acted in his justice and the command was not Good because God said so but rather the command was Good as so God said it.
@ST3V342 Congratulations. You can stand next to WLC defending the murder of innocent women and children while excusing the “brutalising effect it must have had on the poor Israeli soldiers”. To the remainder of us you are immoral, evil, and dangerous.
@askegg And you can continue to pretend to have moral outrage when your atheism has no basis for moral values and duties. Your moral cries make as much sense as "Murder is!"
@breenhill Since I don’t believe there is an afterlife, or course I consider it immoral to prematurely end the life of another. See how I did that without invoking a single magical being? How easy was that?
@askegg But that doesn't follow at all. Because life is short, it's wrong to end it? Does the same apply to germs? After all we're just more complex chunks of matter. Does the same apply to rocks, since if we smash one out of being a rock into tiny pebbles, we've ended it's time as a more complex chunk of matter--and the same with us.
@askegg What do you mean of course you consider it immoral? There is an assumption morals have a common basis more than your subjective consideration. But you can't go there since you don't have a foundation for objective moral values. You may find it personally distasteful or unfair but the next atheist can find his gratification more important than the sanctity of the nihilist life of another. Basic logical points. It amazes me WLC is not understood by you. Take Symbolic Logic in uni.
@corioa "But you can't go there since you don't have a foundation for objective moral values.”
Neither do you. Your “foundation” is whatever the god character wishes at the time. In the past he has murdered millions, and if you are to remain intellectually honest you must somehow admit these horrors are perfectly moral. What’s more god could easily change his mind in the future, making your morality subjective by definition. It is no better than based absolute morality on MY morality.
@ST3V342 Even if WLC doesn't make the jump straight from objective moral values to god, he does do it with regard to the cosmological argument. Stating that anything that begins to exist must have a cause and that cause is god. His personal, timeless, space-less, immaterial , of immense power and mind, god. Hows that for a non sequitur.
@ST3V342 1) he never showed that. he showed that he can't concieve another way they could be grounded, he made an argument from ignorance. a humanist philosophers like wes morriston and shelly kagan provided a sound foundation to him, but he goes "lalalalalalala can't hear you" and keep using the same argument. same thing with his cosmological argument despite being ripped apart by krauss.
2) which means god is subjected to an external moral foundation, so this is a contradiction to #1), no?
@omgopet 1) Nevertheless, that's still better than the weaker way he is presented here. But fyi he has in fact given formal responses to these humanist philosopher claims.
2) WLC would say God is by his nature good without being subject to external moral foundation.
@ST3V342 1) yes, on his own talk show without anyone there to challenge it. regardless, the fact that humanists have a good ground for secular morality is merely a matter of practical usefulness. even if kagan didn't school him, it would have been an argument from ignorance. he has to show that it is logically impossible, not that simply nobody knows another way so god did it.
2) this is a cop out and it doesn't work. is god capable of changing his nature? you still have the same problem.
@omgopet no actually. In the sam harris debate he argued against it and he writes papers too you know... Maybe he is arguing from ignorance, maybe you're right - whatever the case this video should have said that and picked him apart that way. All i'm saying is there's more to his arguments than is presented here.
2) Again, maybe you're right, all i'm saying is this video should be saying what you're saying because that actually addresses what WLC would uphold - if it did that would be great.
@ST3V342 true, but i don't think their intention was to adress the philosophical implications, they are not profesional philosphers. they are adressing the practical implications of people defending genocide and rape just to keep a wold view with a shaky foundation alive. their audience isn't made of professional philosophers either, so i don't see the point of going into nuances too much.
but in principle, you are right, their point should have been elaborated on more.
@corioa honestly, there is nothing much to understand. wlc is not a philosopher, he's a professional debater. he makes a lot of money twisting words around and dumbing down actual philosophy to please brain-washed masses.
he only debated a phd philosopher once and he got raped so hard he gave up on it.
matt and co. never bothered playing his game, they are simply pointing out all the ridiculous things you have to justify and approve of in order to maintain this world view.
@ST3V342 Well at least you got to say yours, in many christian videos the comments are either waiting for approval or completely blocked. A clear sign of their rejection of any sensible argumentation.
@doorkeeper1224 Wow, the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the one making the claim. Otherwise you must believe everything that anybody would ever tell you.
@doorkeeper1224 If person experience is a justification for believing in something, then surely should we believe the schizo that has had actual experiences of the CIA chasing after him. Right ?
@RetSquid Yeah, I am not confused. You have not even attempted to defend WLC assertion the poor soldiers were the worse off in the situation due to the trauma of murdering women and children. All you have done is tried to assassinate character. If you have no argument, just say so and move on.
You SAID they were 'being police', so I thought you wanted him arrested. Now, if they were being polite, they would have called him out on it, or just not shown up to the debate.
They didn't call him out on it because he never lied. Very simple.
I'll ask him in person. I go to his class every Sunday. Or at lease I try. I go to college a mile away so I might not be able to. But I'll try get him to call soon. When is TAE live again?
@taylord109 TAE is on almost every Sunday from 4:30 to 5:40 in Austin. There is no show on the 2nd October 2011 due to a studio cancellation. Check the web site for contact details.
@askegg I know you think TAE can beat WLC but it would not even be close. WLC is one of the best debaters in the world. He has not lost a single debate on religion EVER. I am not a believer but the guy would destroy TAE.
@TheGeneralCritic Then why hasn't the great Richard Dawkins debated him? Is it because Richard Dawkins asks the schoolboy's question, "who created God?" Atheism has had more than two thousand years to make a sound and logical argument to positively disprove God, and there is none. Why don't you give an argument against WLC's points and not a base accusation without foundation or merit? You must cry yourself to sleep when you think about life without you.
@corioa Atheism has nothing to prove because it is not an assertion but rather a rejection of a position.
I can only speculate as to why Richard Dawkins hasn't debated WLC.
'Who created God' is a valid question.
Fine. His Moral Argument presupposes that objective moral values exist without establishing that they do, thus rendering its conclusion that God exists to be faulty.
@corioa "Atheism has had more than two thousand years to make a sound and logical argument to positively disprove God”
Shifting the burden of proof is a fallacy. It is not up to someone else to DISprove your assertion, or we must all believe in every fantastic notion until evidence to contrary was presented. Elvis is still alive, purple unicorns live on Pluto, and leprechauns make flowers bloom. All absurd.
You made the assertion a god exist, now justify it.
@askegg Not to mention that the Greek gods, Norse gods, Aztec gods, old Slavic gods, Hindu gods (wait, people still believe in them?), and all the other gods that people have ever believed, has never been proven that they do not exist. People are either simply ceased to believe or have been imposed on other religions, mainly Christianity and Islam.
You guys sound like boxing fans complaining that Mike Tyson was ducking Buster Douglass. This is what Christianity has become?
Just watch MMA cage matches and leave the real ongoing debate between religion and secularism to those of us who don't have resonating space where our cerebrum should have been.
@corioa If you think nobody created God, PROVE IT! Proving a negative isn't so easy, when the burden's place on you, is it? Christianity has had 2000 years to prove the existence of God, and still nothing? What kind of ineffectual wimp do you think your god is, that he can't show himself to unbelievers?
@ChristianMission I think Matt stated on one of these videos that he was more than willing to debate any apologist, including Craig. Which vid it is I do not remember; I would have to search for it.
But you want to really know what's good for a laugh?
The fact that you would actually suggest that Dillahunty is afraid to face the man. #LOL
@nosajj12345 , I never said Matt is afraid to debate him. Dawkins is the one who is scared of Craig. Craig probably has no idea Dillahunty even exists; outside of Austin and youtube, Dillahunty probably is not well known. His credentials also are unknown.
I am stunned that anyone thinks WLC has any credibility at all, admittedly he is a charismatic speaker but his arguments when followed to their natural conclusion is generally cobbled together from bits and pieces reliant on special pleading and circular reasonning.
I loved it at 9:20: 'this isnt some buffoon, that goes in the internet to make himself popular arguing with atheists', ring any bells? maybe some kid? from canada? as arrogant as he is ignorant?
@doorkeeper1224 Proving a tree if made of "wood" should be easy and any sane person should immediately see the evidence presented for this fact. I am quite within my right to disbelieve in claims "gods" exist until evidence for support them has been demonstrated.
However, you are in the unenviable position of having to believe all unsupported claims (even contradictory ones) until evidence to disprove them is forthcoming. Best of luck with that philosophy.
It is difficult not to note that the god character in the bible is utterly amoral, compulsive, and capricious but demands morality from believers. Very like my father.
While applicable to the ignorant hoardes, this is in fact pointless. Acording to archaeological evidence the israelites where infact caananites, albeit those who did not like the traditions of the caananites and came out of them. The caananite kingdom was in its decline so it was easy to claim they where not caananites. Their pottery and other surviving evidence however suggests the same styles and methods belonged both cultures.
Have you notice like, from time to time, he’s trying this well known actor’s trick of not to burst into open laughing, upon the stupidity of the arguments from his opponents?
Only his good manners are preventing him from laughing out loud upon the stupid arguments from Hitchens, or Barker, or Harris. 'Those new atheists are sooooo poor in their thinking!'
Science proves that God exists due to the very nature of god (?). If everything has the beginning, then God exists (?)
His theory about the time in space in God’s terms – is the best! It should pass to the archives of theology, as the most dumbest, deceiving piece of rhetoric ever produced by the human being.
But then, the theology archives are packed full with tis kind of stuff, up to the ceiling - aren't they?
In the world seeing is believing, with God you believe before you see. The fool says in his heart there is no God. we have all seen what the intelligence of man can do, technology and other stuff, what about the creation of more intelligent stuff like how a baby is formed in the womb. the wonders of the planet and the best thing the conscience. i don't want to prove God to you but i wish your understanding might be opened. come to Africa you will know there is God
The wise one knows that nothing can be said in his heart, which is why he proclaims it out loud. Since you like quoting verse, here's a quote for you:
"It is not a God, just and good, but a devil, under the name of God, that the Bible describes."- Thomas Paine
In the world seeing is believing, with God you believe before you see. The fool says in his heart there is no God. we have all seen what the intelligence of man can do, technology and other stuff, what about the creation of more intelligent stuff like how a baby is formed in the womb. the wonders of the planet and the best thing the conscience. i want toprove God to you but i wish your understanding might be opened. come to Africa you will know there is God
@CymroGoch It's NOT an argument for the existence of God just as slating his charatcer is NOT an argument against the existence of God. I was just stating a fact that truth has nothing to do with what we like or dont like
If god is absolutely good and benevolent, he has moral duties in order to remain that way. unless, you say his absolute goodness keeps him from the possibility of doing wrong. if so, everything he does is moral, but if he does things morally contradictory then those things are not absolute moral values. once again, apologists bring about only logical fallacies to make up the inconsistencies of their god.
@Diamondbug You are perfectly entitled to have your faith and believe whatever ridiculous primitive superstitions make you feel better. Just don't expect others to accept your outrageous claims as true unless you actually have evidence to back them up. Nor would I suggest you expect privilege and respect because of you accept things "on faith".
@askegg i never expected anyone to believe it i already knew it was hopeless. I just did it for the sake of others who might read it and be weakened in their faith because of some false point of view of it, i didnt do it cuz of u or any atheist.
@Diamondbug It is not a weakness of your faith when they are quoting the exact words from your "holy book" and the best defence you have to offer is the worst argument for belief to ever exist. People reading this now have a fair and balanced view, so can make up their own minds.
@askegg you're ignoring me when i said ''false point of view''. And your claim that my best defense is the worst argument is just like any other typical comment an atheist puts forward to make us look foolish. And don't give me any crap about me believing in a God is already foolish either, you have not seen or heard what i have seen therefore u cannot judge that. Believe there is no god, fine, but to state that believing in one is foolish is based on your own experiences, not everyone's
@askegg Pascal's wager isn't the worst argument, it's simply one of the most selfish arguments. A selection of the worst arguments, or at least among the worst, can be viewed easily, in one place, on youtube. I can't type a link here, as you know, so simply search anything in which William Lane Craig opens his mouth and you'll find a goldmine.
@inswoon Nah, the worst argument is, "I know god exists because I feel him in my heart." Lol, at least I think that's worse - since it doesn't even attempt reason.
@Diamondbug Do you believe that god would be such an asshole that he punishes people based on ignorance which is actually his own fault because he has shown no evidence for himself, planted so much false evidence such as fossils and dna in order to trick us into not believing the bible? Cmon how can you believe in a inteligent god that is all good who would do that. If there is a god i doubt hed care that i was an athiest. Use your brain. Your own beliefs contradict each other fool
@Diamondbug Thats assuming your religion is the right one. You might be going to some other religions' hell. You're already risking your afterlife anyway so you better start accepting a lot of other religions to make sure you dont go to their hell either.
@Diamondbug Wow, dude you are an intellectual midget if you think pascals wager is any kind of an argument.
Think about this, you dont know that this so called god requires you to believe in him, you also dont know that this god cares, or has any kind of punishment or reward in store.
But given the sheer number of religions out there claiming that they have the one true faith and god, you ought to expect to go to hell purely as a matter of probability. You only have faith in one...
It's funny that you pick the one video which has a topic where it easy to a make any believer look like a fool. Over all the debates I've seen between Craig and renowned atheists, it is Craig that comes out triumphant.
@askegg Two arguments coupled together are the Kalam cosmological argument and the fine tuning argument. Both these arguments put together are hard to refute however, I am aware that you can invoke the anthropic principle with the Multiverse theory as an alternative to God.
@IsaacP150 Kalam is built on unproven premises, especially the claim that the universe began to exist. The fine tuning argument has cause confused with effect; life arose adapted to the universe, not the other way around.
@Antifides But the universe is expanding, the big bang theory points to a beginning point. At this point the elements helium and hydrogen came into existence. The universe has to be finely tuned for any life to even adapt.
@Antifides The big bang theory postulates that the entire universe originated in a cosmic explosion about 15 billion years ago. At this time there weren't even stars so how could elements like carbon and oxygen exist. Nuclear reactions caused these heavier elements to exist. Are you seriously trying to argue that the universe has always existed?
@Antifides According to calculations by Stephen Hawking, Roger Penrose and George Ellis time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy. So according to experts space didn't exist prior to the big bang it's hard to imagine.
@Antifides Calculations by Brandon Carter show that if gravity had been stronger or weaker by 1 part in 10 to the 40th power, then life-sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would most likely make life impossible. The odds against any biological life forms developing are extremely high. Why did such an unlikely event happen, it cries out for an explanation.
@Antifides We all know that without the molecule of protein there would be no life at all. For protein to develop it is comprised of Nitrogen, Carbon, Hydrogen, oxygen, sulphur and some phosphorus. All of these heavy elements are created when the two lightest elements Hydrogen and Helium are fused together through nuclear reactions in stars. Brandon Carter shows that if gravity had been stronger or weaker by 1 part in 10 to the 40th power, then life-sustaining stars like wouldn't exist.
@IsaacP150 "Brandon Carter shows that if gravity had been stronger or weaker by 1 part in 10 to the 40th power, then life-sustaining stars like wouldn't exist. " You did not show me the calculations. Have you looked at them? Frankly, I think you're quoting William Lane Craig and that he's lying.
@Antifides Seriously look the evidence up, for some reason it won't let me post links and anyway, how is William lane Craig a liar.. Oh wait because he so happens a Christian.
@IsaacP150 Again, I'm not going to do the research for your side of the argument. You linked me to articles making the same claims you are. I asked for links to the calculations performed by all those people you name-dropped.
Perhaps if you follow the citations in the articles, you can actually give me that.
@IsaacP150 So, you don't have the math, you're not going to find it, and you have no way of showing me that it's valid, true, or that any of those people you mentioned actually did these supposed calculations or what findings they got from those calculations.
Then don't use it as an argument.
According to calculations by Stephen Hawking, you're a purple bunny.
@Antifides That's Sir Robert Penrose a mathematician at the university of oxford seriously he's an expert he's done the math. And according to observable facts one, bunnies aren't purple and two, bunnies don't have the intelligence to type and think at a computer. Why don't you watch the fucking video and if you really want calculations why don't you search for them yourself. And anyway what evidence is there to suggest the the universe isn't fine tuned for our existence.
Christians basically describe God as a being who makes the rules for the rest of us, and does what he pleases and breaks the rules when it pleases him. If God ignores the rules--even rape, genocide, mass slaughter of innocent women and children--even on a global scale, then there is no real standard for morality, and therefore these rules are arbitrary, not objective at all, but subjective and even capricious, and furthermore, we would call a human that fits this description a "PSYCHOPATH".
DandAinTac 3 days ago
Think of those poor SS soldiers, having to endure the horror of killing all those Jews and homosexuals and Romanies.
"But god created us - he has the right to do what he wants." Nobody has rights over other living things. Nobody.
JMUDoc 4 days ago
seems legit
dalektaliban 2 weeks ago
Why should we kill them? Because they kill babies. What should we do? Kill all of them and their babies.
Naiant 3 weeks ago 2
Craig is pretty much a joke. The only person that's convinced of his intelligence is him, and thus he wins arguments (in his own mind) based entirely on his arrogance.
johnedwards1968 1 month ago
Hahahaha! The LOOPHOLE hahahaha!
oscaringoliling0 4 months ago
@BankHeistVideos Look, clearly we disagree on a lot of things and I'm not going to try and argue against you on all of them. I'm just trying to say that this video is incorrect in some aspects when it evaluates what Dr. Craig believes on this topic. You can hold that he is wrong, and that is fine, but it is intellectually dishonest to hold that he is wrong under false ideas of what he actually believes.
ST3V342 4 months ago
@BankHeistVideos Actually I did listen to what Dr. Craig actually said. I say he said one thing and think you didn't get what he said, you say he said something else and think I didn't get what he said. The difference? My worldview aligns with his so I understand what he's REALLY saying, and more importantly I have a better context of his values in which to place his words. I have personally met and talked with Dr. Craig and he would agree with me with what I've said.
ST3V342 4 months ago
@ST3V342 "The difference? My worldview aligns with his so I understand what he's REALLY saying" Another difference.....we can hear him speak and understand the definitions of the words he is using. We can string those definitions together to form a coherent indea of what he is attempting to convey. You may understand what he's REALLY saying but we understand what he is ACTUALLY saying.
davidsfriend01 3 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
2 missed points:
1) WLC didn't just jump from obejctive morals to God, there was an extra step: showing objective morals could only come from God. Not a non-sequitor. You killed a strawman...
2) WLC has never said God is exempt from his own objective moral standard. His stance is that God's nature is good and that therefore his actions are good. In this case, WLC would say God acted in his justice and the command was not Good because God said so but rather the command was Good as so God said it.
ST3V342 4 months ago
@ST3V342 Congratulations. You can stand next to WLC defending the murder of innocent women and children while excusing the “brutalising effect it must have had on the poor Israeli soldiers”. To the remainder of us you are immoral, evil, and dangerous.
askegg 4 months ago 22
@askegg And you can continue to pretend to have moral outrage when your atheism has no basis for moral values and duties. Your moral cries make as much sense as "Murder is!"
breenhill 1 month ago
@breenhill Since I don’t believe there is an afterlife, or course I consider it immoral to prematurely end the life of another. See how I did that without invoking a single magical being? How easy was that?
askegg 1 month ago
@askegg But that doesn't follow at all. Because life is short, it's wrong to end it? Does the same apply to germs? After all we're just more complex chunks of matter. Does the same apply to rocks, since if we smash one out of being a rock into tiny pebbles, we've ended it's time as a more complex chunk of matter--and the same with us.
breenhill 1 month ago
@askegg What do you mean of course you consider it immoral? There is an assumption morals have a common basis more than your subjective consideration. But you can't go there since you don't have a foundation for objective moral values. You may find it personally distasteful or unfair but the next atheist can find his gratification more important than the sanctity of the nihilist life of another. Basic logical points. It amazes me WLC is not understood by you. Take Symbolic Logic in uni.
corioa 1 month ago
@corioa "But you can't go there since you don't have a foundation for objective moral values.”
Neither do you. Your “foundation” is whatever the god character wishes at the time. In the past he has murdered millions, and if you are to remain intellectually honest you must somehow admit these horrors are perfectly moral. What’s more god could easily change his mind in the future, making your morality subjective by definition. It is no better than based absolute morality on MY morality.
askegg 1 month ago 5
@ST3V342 Even if WLC doesn't make the jump straight from objective moral values to god, he does do it with regard to the cosmological argument. Stating that anything that begins to exist must have a cause and that cause is god. His personal, timeless, space-less, immaterial , of immense power and mind, god. Hows that for a non sequitur.
AlecN2011 3 months ago
Comment removed
StayGold42 3 months ago
@ST3V342 1) he never showed that. he showed that he can't concieve another way they could be grounded, he made an argument from ignorance. a humanist philosophers like wes morriston and shelly kagan provided a sound foundation to him, but he goes "lalalalalalala can't hear you" and keep using the same argument. same thing with his cosmological argument despite being ripped apart by krauss.
2) which means god is subjected to an external moral foundation, so this is a contradiction to #1), no?
omgopet 3 months ago
@omgopet 1) Nevertheless, that's still better than the weaker way he is presented here. But fyi he has in fact given formal responses to these humanist philosopher claims.
2) WLC would say God is by his nature good without being subject to external moral foundation.
ST3V342 3 months ago
@ST3V342 1) yes, on his own talk show without anyone there to challenge it. regardless, the fact that humanists have a good ground for secular morality is merely a matter of practical usefulness. even if kagan didn't school him, it would have been an argument from ignorance. he has to show that it is logically impossible, not that simply nobody knows another way so god did it.
2) this is a cop out and it doesn't work. is god capable of changing his nature? you still have the same problem.
omgopet 3 months ago
@omgopet no actually. In the sam harris debate he argued against it and he writes papers too you know... Maybe he is arguing from ignorance, maybe you're right - whatever the case this video should have said that and picked him apart that way. All i'm saying is there's more to his arguments than is presented here.
2) Again, maybe you're right, all i'm saying is this video should be saying what you're saying because that actually addresses what WLC would uphold - if it did that would be great.
ST3V342 3 months ago
@ST3V342 true, but i don't think their intention was to adress the philosophical implications, they are not profesional philosphers. they are adressing the practical implications of people defending genocide and rape just to keep a wold view with a shaky foundation alive. their audience isn't made of professional philosophers either, so i don't see the point of going into nuances too much.
but in principle, you are right, their point should have been elaborated on more.
omgopet 3 months ago
@omgopet That's crappy, isn't it? The presenters can't understand the philosophy of WLC so instead a bunch of wasted time is given.
corioa 1 month ago
@corioa It's a pretty simple philosophy, to match a pretty simple philosopher. What God does is good. Wow. Craig must be a rocket scientist.
johnedwards1968 1 month ago
@corioa honestly, there is nothing much to understand. wlc is not a philosopher, he's a professional debater. he makes a lot of money twisting words around and dumbing down actual philosophy to please brain-washed masses.
he only debated a phd philosopher once and he got raped so hard he gave up on it.
matt and co. never bothered playing his game, they are simply pointing out all the ridiculous things you have to justify and approve of in order to maintain this world view.
omgopet 1 month ago
@omgopet Who raped wlc? I'd like to see that!!
1212JackJohnson 1 month ago
@ST3V342 Well at least you got to say yours, in many christian videos the comments are either waiting for approval or completely blocked. A clear sign of their rejection of any sensible argumentation.
Blasthood 3 months ago
@Blasthood Try your own Marxist indoctrination, fool.
corioa 1 month ago
@corioa Bitch please, "marxist"? Do you even know what it is? I'm not a marxist at all, but then i know, you're a troll.
Blasthood 1 month ago
Shelly Kagan demolished him.
Chwuzy 4 months ago
WLC is one sick pathetic man.
petion2010 4 months ago
It's not wrong to kill children since they get eternal heaven? Then I guess murder is okay! There's your biblical morality.
IseeRightThrough2you 6 months ago 9
I LOVE his voice when he says "I will kill myself, to myself, word".
Strictlypointless 6 months ago
Comment removed
benaberry 6 months ago
@doorkeeper1224 Wow, the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the one making the claim. Otherwise you must believe everything that anybody would ever tell you.
ryan84160 7 months ago
@doorkeeper1224 If person experience is a justification for believing in something, then surely should we believe the schizo that has had actual experiences of the CIA chasing after him. Right ?
ryan84160 7 months ago 2
@doorkeeper1224 I don't understand why you would quote a Nazi like Moses.
gamesbok 7 months ago
"God is not subject to morality? That's never been Craig's stance. Where did that come from? O_O
hayakain 7 months ago
@FujiwaraNoGo It is Rutger Hauer playing the character Roy Batty - a replicant.
askegg 8 months ago
My mother's moral code was, as she often said, "Do as I say, not as I do." And that is the essence of the Divine Command Theory or morality.
Kailoa36 8 months ago 2
@Kailoa36 Yep. Hypocrisy 101. Need we say more?
RaynorGo 6 months ago
God is coming!!!
CristyFIare 8 months ago
@CristyFIare Onto Jesus' stomach!
RaynorGo 6 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Yes, The Atheist Embarrassment, I mean Experience, is good for a laugh. Matt, why don't you debate Craig? "I don't know/"
ChristianMission 8 months ago
@ChristianMission WLC is free to ring TAE any Sunday. I wonder why he hasn't?
askegg 8 months ago 30
@askegg , Craig has probably never heard of Dillahunty.
ChristianMission 8 months ago
@askegg
Probably because he is a professional debater, unlike these clowns.
RetSquid 7 months ago
@RetSquid That's not a valid rebuttal to the argument. Try again.
askegg 7 months ago
@askegg
Sorry for your confusion. He is a pro, these guys are not.
RetSquid 7 months ago
@RetSquid Yeah, I am not confused. You have not even attempted to defend WLC assertion the poor soldiers were the worse off in the situation due to the trauma of murdering women and children. All you have done is tried to assassinate character. If you have no argument, just say so and move on.
askegg 7 months ago
@askegg
I'm answering directly to "I wonder why he hasn't [called in]?", nothing more. I am correct in my assertions.
RetSquid 7 months ago
@RetSquid He's a professional liar and an expert at using false premises and redefining words like 'love.'
RaynorGo 6 months ago
@RaynorGo
I agree this guy on the show is a liar and use false premises.
RetSquid 6 months ago
@RetSquid Who, Craig? Because he's the king of lying by omission and using false and hidden premises.
Just watch brettppalmer's series on the Problem of Good.
RaynorGo 6 months ago
@RaynorGo
Do you have a link? There are ton's of videos with his name.
RetSquid 6 months ago
@RetSquid The debates Craig has on the existence and historicity of Jesus are certainly ones where he's lied through his teeth.
RaynorGo 6 months ago
@RaynorGo
Then it is pretty amazing that NONE of his opponents called him out for lying, isn't it?
RetSquid 6 months ago
@RetSquid They're just being police. Asshat.
RaynorGo 6 months ago
@RaynorGo
So they should arrest him for lying?
RetSquid 6 months ago
@RetSquid Of course not. Lying itself isn't a crime.
What they SHOULD do is call him out on it.
RaynorGo 6 months ago
@RaynorGo
You SAID they were 'being police', so I thought you wanted him arrested. Now, if they were being polite, they would have called him out on it, or just not shown up to the debate.
They didn't call him out on it because he never lied. Very simple.
RetSquid 6 months ago
@RetSquid Wrong, dumbass. Lying is only a crime when the individual is under oath.
Get an education, you pile of human shit.
RaynorGo 6 months ago
@RaynorGo
You having a hard time understanding sarcasm, huh? They never called him out on it because he didn't lie about anything.
Now, were his opponents "being police" or being polite?
And this is YouTube, everyone has a Phd here.
RetSquid 6 months ago
@RetSquid They were calling him out on his bullshit spin control religiously motivated crap.
If you don't think he was lying when talking about what the soldiers felt, you're insane. Religion only care about its members, PERIOD.
RaynorGo 6 months ago 2
@RetSquid Also, theology is a useless subject to study. Period.
RaynorGo 6 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@RetSquid yes agree lol
r0baa 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@r0baa Dumb uneducated shit.
RaynorGo 6 months ago
@askegg because he realizes that he is on a way higher level.
r0baa 6 months ago
@r0baa Pride before the fall.
askegg 6 months ago
@askegg
I'll ask him in person. I go to his class every Sunday. Or at lease I try. I go to college a mile away so I might not be able to. But I'll try get him to call soon. When is TAE live again?
taylord109 3 months ago
@taylord109
Whoops. Sorry an hour and a half away. I wish I was a mile away.
taylord109 3 months ago
@taylord109 TAE is on almost every Sunday from 4:30 to 5:40 in Austin. There is no show on the 2nd October 2011 due to a studio cancellation. Check the web site for contact details.
askegg 3 months ago
@askegg I know you think TAE can beat WLC but it would not even be close. WLC is one of the best debaters in the world. He has not lost a single debate on religion EVER. I am not a believer but the guy would destroy TAE.
ultim4t32 2 months ago
@ultim4t32 WLC never loses a debate because he will only debate people he knows he can defeat and only on his own terms.
TheGeneralCritic 2 months ago
@TheGeneralCritic Then why hasn't the great Richard Dawkins debated him? Is it because Richard Dawkins asks the schoolboy's question, "who created God?" Atheism has had more than two thousand years to make a sound and logical argument to positively disprove God, and there is none. Why don't you give an argument against WLC's points and not a base accusation without foundation or merit? You must cry yourself to sleep when you think about life without you.
corioa 1 month ago
@corioa That last line was nasty, sorry.
corioa 1 month ago
@corioa Atheism has nothing to prove because it is not an assertion but rather a rejection of a position.
I can only speculate as to why Richard Dawkins hasn't debated WLC.
'Who created God' is a valid question.
Fine. His Moral Argument presupposes that objective moral values exist without establishing that they do, thus rendering its conclusion that God exists to be faulty.
TheGeneralCritic 1 month ago 2
@TheGeneralCritic I think Dawkins hasn't debated Craig because Dawkins is a reputable scientist, and Craig is an argumentative joke.
johnedwards1968 1 month ago
@corioa "Atheism has had more than two thousand years to make a sound and logical argument to positively disprove God”
Shifting the burden of proof is a fallacy. It is not up to someone else to DISprove your assertion, or we must all believe in every fantastic notion until evidence to contrary was presented. Elvis is still alive, purple unicorns live on Pluto, and leprechauns make flowers bloom. All absurd.
You made the assertion a god exist, now justify it.
askegg 1 month ago 3
@askegg Not to mention that the Greek gods, Norse gods, Aztec gods, old Slavic gods, Hindu gods (wait, people still believe in them?), and all the other gods that people have ever believed, has never been proven that they do not exist. People are either simply ceased to believe or have been imposed on other religions, mainly Christianity and Islam.
ExtremeMadnessX 1 month ago 2
@corioa
You guys sound like boxing fans complaining that Mike Tyson was ducking Buster Douglass. This is what Christianity has become?
Just watch MMA cage matches and leave the real ongoing debate between religion and secularism to those of us who don't have resonating space where our cerebrum should have been.
HellRehab 1 month ago
@corioa If you think nobody created God, PROVE IT! Proving a negative isn't so easy, when the burden's place on you, is it? Christianity has had 2000 years to prove the existence of God, and still nothing? What kind of ineffectual wimp do you think your god is, that he can't show himself to unbelievers?
johnedwards1968 1 month ago
@ChristianMission I think Matt stated on one of these videos that he was more than willing to debate any apologist, including Craig. Which vid it is I do not remember; I would have to search for it.
But you want to really know what's good for a laugh?
The fact that you would actually suggest that Dillahunty is afraid to face the man. #LOL
nosajj12345 8 months ago 3
@nosajj12345 , I never said Matt is afraid to debate him. Dawkins is the one who is scared of Craig. Craig probably has no idea Dillahunty even exists; outside of Austin and youtube, Dillahunty probably is not well known. His credentials also are unknown.
ChristianMission 8 months ago
@ChristianMission "His credentials also are unknown."
Why would he need credentials??
nosajj12345 8 months ago
@FujiwaraNoGo Not Paul Bettany. It's a clip from Blade Runner.
askegg 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
past way site from dating benaughtyman.info
akarshanimali 8 months ago
I am stunned that anyone thinks WLC has any credibility at all, admittedly he is a charismatic speaker but his arguments when followed to their natural conclusion is generally cobbled together from bits and pieces reliant on special pleading and circular reasonning.
ooglebydoogleby 9 months ago 3
I loved it at 9:20: 'this isnt some buffoon, that goes in the internet to make himself popular arguing with atheists', ring any bells? maybe some kid? from canada? as arrogant as he is ignorant?
sirdelrio 9 months ago
@FujiwaraNoGo
Lets tie WLC down and make him eat raw vermin
ThieleM 9 months ago
@doorkeeper1224 Proving a tree if made of "wood" should be easy and any sane person should immediately see the evidence presented for this fact. I am quite within my right to disbelieve in claims "gods" exist until evidence for support them has been demonstrated.
However, you are in the unenviable position of having to believe all unsupported claims (even contradictory ones) until evidence to disprove them is forthcoming. Best of luck with that philosophy.
askegg 9 months ago 5
It is difficult not to note that the god character in the bible is utterly amoral, compulsive, and capricious but demands morality from believers. Very like my father.
macnutz 9 months ago
While applicable to the ignorant hoardes, this is in fact pointless. Acording to archaeological evidence the israelites where infact caananites, albeit those who did not like the traditions of the caananites and came out of them. The caananite kingdom was in its decline so it was easy to claim they where not caananites. Their pottery and other surviving evidence however suggests the same styles and methods belonged both cultures.
TheCaptainLulz 9 months ago
Craig...Possibly the most repulsive human in here, on Internet.
His immaculate look. His immaculate English. His immaculate gestures, intonations, his immaculate diction, rhythm of speech, punctuation.
He made a great carrier out of lying to the unprepared human brains. He's living for lying. He’s lying for living.
And, the worst of it all. He always starts his tirades with the bunch of scientific terms applied to his religious views. Never miscommunication.
WLC. A deceiving piece of crap.
MrJurekGG 10 months ago
@MrJurekGG
so true. Andromeda's wake did a couple great vids on 'Dr' Craig as did Th1sWasATriumph
ThieleM 9 months ago
@ThieleM
Have you notice like, from time to time, he’s trying this well known actor’s trick of not to burst into open laughing, upon the stupidity of the arguments from his opponents?
Only his good manners are preventing him from laughing out loud upon the stupid arguments from Hitchens, or Barker, or Harris. 'Those new atheists are sooooo poor in their thinking!'
Science proves that God exists due to the very nature of god (?). If everything has the beginning, then God exists (?)
Oh, sure
MrJurekGG 9 months ago
@ThieleM
Another gem from him:
His theory about the time in space in God’s terms – is the best! It should pass to the archives of theology, as the most dumbest, deceiving piece of rhetoric ever produced by the human being.
But then, the theology archives are packed full with tis kind of stuff, up to the ceiling - aren't they?
MrJurekGG 9 months ago
@MrJurekGG
WLC is a snake, an absolute snake.
ThieleM 9 months ago
im already satisfied of what i have learned before...
kokzkie2011 10 months ago
Craig is a moron
Drgamedood 10 months ago
In the world seeing is believing, with God you believe before you see. The fool says in his heart there is no God. we have all seen what the intelligence of man can do, technology and other stuff, what about the creation of more intelligent stuff like how a baby is formed in the womb. the wonders of the planet and the best thing the conscience. i don't want to prove God to you but i wish your understanding might be opened. come to Africa you will know there is God
exspicy1 11 months ago
@exspicy1
"The fool says in his heart there is no God."
The wise one knows that nothing can be said in his heart, which is why he proclaims it out loud. Since you like quoting verse, here's a quote for you:
"It is not a God, just and good, but a devil, under the name of God, that the Bible describes."- Thomas Paine
Have fun.
TurboDally 10 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@exspicy1
" come to Africa you will know there is God "
What? Did they find the fossils of Yahweh somewhere in there?
MrJurekGG 9 months ago
In the world seeing is believing, with God you believe before you see. The fool says in his heart there is no God. we have all seen what the intelligence of man can do, technology and other stuff, what about the creation of more intelligent stuff like how a baby is formed in the womb. the wonders of the planet and the best thing the conscience. i want toprove God to you but i wish your understanding might be opened. come to Africa you will know there is God
exspicy1 11 months ago
I've been wondering this argument for years. This character seems like an incompetent boob. It's all his fault and we're supposed to feel guilty.
OptimisticCynic715 11 months ago
One of the guys sounds like Kermit the Frog.
CymroGoch 11 months ago
God: Do NOT kill; Do NOT rape; Do NOT steal... (God becomes distracted...)
God (talking to an angle): Are you telling me that they are worshiping another God?
God: Kill them! Take their land! Rape their virgin women!
God: Now where was i...? Ah yes, Do NOT kill...
pillsareyummy 11 months ago
anyone know what film they use at 6.25?im sure it would be amusing to watch
looknfortruth 1 year ago
@looknfortruth "The 10 Commandments".
askegg 1 year ago
@askegg hey,thanks for lettn me know.iv actually found it on TPB.
thankx
looknfortruth 1 year ago
Just because you dont like god doesnt mean he doesnt exist. It doesnt matter how you feel there are people who dont like me but im still here!
sirgazz 1 year ago
@sirgazz ROFL,you guys are freakn hilarious.
looknfortruth 1 year ago
@sirgazz Correct. None of this disproves the existence of a god. It is up the theists to provide evidence there is a god.
askegg 1 year ago 28
@sirgazz That has to be the worst argument for the existence of God I've ever heard.
CymroGoch 11 months ago
@CymroGoch It's NOT an argument for the existence of God just as slating his charatcer is NOT an argument against the existence of God. I was just stating a fact that truth has nothing to do with what we like or dont like
sirgazz 11 months ago
pwn3d is not even in the dictionary. Do youtube a favor and treat yourself to a education.
virtualguitarist 1 year ago
@virtualguitarist Perhaps you can get AN education as well
navychucktaylors 1 year ago
If god is absolutely good and benevolent, he has moral duties in order to remain that way. unless, you say his absolute goodness keeps him from the possibility of doing wrong. if so, everything he does is moral, but if he does things morally contradictory then those things are not absolute moral values. once again, apologists bring about only logical fallacies to make up the inconsistencies of their god.
sirdelrio 1 year ago
Elastic bands dont even strectch as far as the claims in this video.
aaronstately 1 year ago
WILLIAM LANE CRAIG STRAIGHT DESTROYS! STRAIGHT DESTROYS!
joe018687645 1 year ago
Craig is by FAR, the most ingenuous philosopher I've ever seen speak. Not to say he's the worst; I just don't know of one.
MultiUniv3rsal 1 year ago
@MultiUniv3rsal I'm hoping you meant "disingenuous."
Antifides 1 year ago
@Antifides Yes I did, thank you :)
MultiUniv3rsal 1 year ago
I would rather die believing in a God that never existed than to die an unbeliever, only to find out that He exists.
Diamondbug 1 year ago
@Diamondbug That's called Pascal's wager and it's the worst argument for believing in a deity every invented.
askegg 1 year ago 33
@askegg i'm not arguing with anyone, just making sure u don't hav a misinterpretation of my faith
Diamondbug 1 year ago
@Diamondbug You are perfectly entitled to have your faith and believe whatever ridiculous primitive superstitions make you feel better. Just don't expect others to accept your outrageous claims as true unless you actually have evidence to back them up. Nor would I suggest you expect privilege and respect because of you accept things "on faith".
askegg 1 year ago 4
@askegg i never expected anyone to believe it i already knew it was hopeless. I just did it for the sake of others who might read it and be weakened in their faith because of some false point of view of it, i didnt do it cuz of u or any atheist.
Diamondbug 1 year ago
@Diamondbug It is not a weakness of your faith when they are quoting the exact words from your "holy book" and the best defence you have to offer is the worst argument for belief to ever exist. People reading this now have a fair and balanced view, so can make up their own minds.
askegg 1 year ago 4
@askegg you're ignoring me when i said ''false point of view''. And your claim that my best defense is the worst argument is just like any other typical comment an atheist puts forward to make us look foolish. And don't give me any crap about me believing in a God is already foolish either, you have not seen or heard what i have seen therefore u cannot judge that. Believe there is no god, fine, but to state that believing in one is foolish is based on your own experiences, not everyone's
Diamondbug 1 year ago
@askegg Spot on.
Main reason is because beleif alone is not enough,
aaronstately 1 year ago
@askegg Pascal's wager isn't the worst argument, it's simply one of the most selfish arguments. A selection of the worst arguments, or at least among the worst, can be viewed easily, in one place, on youtube. I can't type a link here, as you know, so simply search anything in which William Lane Craig opens his mouth and you'll find a goldmine.
Stairc 10 months ago
@Stairc It is the worst argument.
inswoon 10 months ago
@inswoon Nah, the worst argument is, "I know god exists because I feel him in my heart." Lol, at least I think that's worse - since it doesn't even attempt reason.
Stairc 10 months ago
@Stairc But harder to form an oppositional rebuttal as it is a personal experience.
inswoon 10 months ago
@inswoon True, but you don't need to rebut it. Just laugh it off.
Stairc 10 months ago
@Stairc Unless it is in a debate against ignorance - which is not a friendly place to be.
inswoon 10 months ago
@Diamondbug Do you believe that god would be such an asshole that he punishes people based on ignorance which is actually his own fault because he has shown no evidence for himself, planted so much false evidence such as fossils and dna in order to trick us into not believing the bible? Cmon how can you believe in a inteligent god that is all good who would do that. If there is a god i doubt hed care that i was an athiest. Use your brain. Your own beliefs contradict each other fool
PooeyBum11 1 year ago
@Diamondbug Thats assuming your religion is the right one. You might be going to some other religions' hell. You're already risking your afterlife anyway so you better start accepting a lot of other religions to make sure you dont go to their hell either.
Owunthrizzel 1 year ago
@Diamondbug Wow, dude you are an intellectual midget if you think pascals wager is any kind of an argument.
Think about this, you dont know that this so called god requires you to believe in him, you also dont know that this god cares, or has any kind of punishment or reward in store.
But given the sheer number of religions out there claiming that they have the one true faith and god, you ought to expect to go to hell purely as a matter of probability. You only have faith in one...
spacecowboy95 1 year ago
@Diamondbug Then why don't you believe in Ganesh or Vishnu?? BTW, Pascal's wager is pretty pathetic...
statickk14 1 year ago
the poor soldiers! No one thinks about the poor soldiers! Good grief
Nocturnalux 1 year ago
@djbehemoth Fair enough. But what about that debate against Christopher Hitchens and Frank Zindler. WLC merks them silly.
IsaacP150 1 year ago
@djbehemoth I figured that by your second comment :)
askegg 1 year ago
@djbehemoth I hope we can work out how to drown the entire world, then we can be just like your god.
askegg 1 year ago
Comment removed
Antifides 1 year ago
It's funny that you pick the one video which has a topic where it easy to a make any believer look like a fool. Over all the debates I've seen between Craig and renowned atheists, it is Craig that comes out triumphant.
IsaacP150 1 year ago
@IsaacP150 Happy to oblige. What do you think is WLC best argument?
askegg 1 year ago 7
@askegg Two arguments coupled together are the Kalam cosmological argument and the fine tuning argument. Both these arguments put together are hard to refute however, I am aware that you can invoke the anthropic principle with the Multiverse theory as an alternative to God.
IsaacP150 1 year ago
@IsaacP150 Kalam is built on unproven premises, especially the claim that the universe began to exist. The fine tuning argument has cause confused with effect; life arose adapted to the universe, not the other way around.
Antifides 1 year ago
@Antifides But the universe is expanding, the big bang theory points to a beginning point. At this point the elements helium and hydrogen came into existence. The universe has to be finely tuned for any life to even adapt.
IsaacP150 1 year ago
Comment removed
Antifides 1 year ago
Comment removed
Antifides 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IsaacP150 I'll try sending this one more time:
But the universe is expanding, the big bang theory points to a beginning point."
No, it doesn't.
"The universe has to be finely tuned for any life to even adapt."
Just because you can't imagine the type of life that would arise under other conditions, doesn't mean it's impossible.
Antifides 1 year ago
@IsaacP150 "But the universe is expanding, the big bang theory points to a beginning point."
No, it doesn't. Also, they didn't come into existence, they formed from energy.
Antifides 1 year ago
@Antifides The big bang theory postulates that the entire universe originated in a cosmic explosion about 15 billion years ago. At this time there weren't even stars so how could elements like carbon and oxygen exist. Nuclear reactions caused these heavier elements to exist. Are you seriously trying to argue that the universe has always existed?
IsaacP150 1 year ago
@IsaacP150 "The big bang theory postulates that the entire universe originated in a cosmic explosion about 15 billion years ago."
No, it doesn't. Perhaps you should actually look up the Big Bang theory.
"Are you seriously trying to argue that the universe has always existed?"
So, despite there being no evidence that anything has ever popped into existence out of nothing, you're seriously arguing that it did?
All matter in the universe is simply a rearrangement of what was already there.
Antifides 1 year ago
@Antifides According to calculations by Stephen Hawking, Roger Penrose and George Ellis time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy. So according to experts space didn't exist prior to the big bang it's hard to imagine.
IsaacP150 1 year ago
@IsaacP150 Oh good, more calculations, where can I find these?
Antifides 1 year ago
@IsaacP150 "The universe has to be finely tuned for any life to even adapt."
Your ignorance of other potential lifeforms does not make those potential lifeforms impossible.
Antifides 1 year ago
@Antifides Calculations by Brandon Carter show that if gravity had been stronger or weaker by 1 part in 10 to the 40th power, then life-sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would most likely make life impossible. The odds against any biological life forms developing are extremely high. Why did such an unlikely event happen, it cries out for an explanation.
IsaacP150 1 year ago
@IsaacP150 Show me these calculations.
You keep saying "the odds against life," as though you actually know every possible form life could take and the odds of it.
Antifides 1 year ago
@Antifides We all know that without the molecule of protein there would be no life at all. For protein to develop it is comprised of Nitrogen, Carbon, Hydrogen, oxygen, sulphur and some phosphorus. All of these heavy elements are created when the two lightest elements Hydrogen and Helium are fused together through nuclear reactions in stars. Brandon Carter shows that if gravity had been stronger or weaker by 1 part in 10 to the 40th power, then life-sustaining stars like wouldn't exist.
IsaacP150 1 year ago
@IsaacP150 "Brandon Carter shows that if gravity had been stronger or weaker by 1 part in 10 to the 40th power, then life-sustaining stars like wouldn't exist. " You did not show me the calculations. Have you looked at them? Frankly, I think you're quoting William Lane Craig and that he's lying.
Again, where can I find these calculations?
Antifides 1 year ago
@IsaacP150 Oh, wait a minute, I let you slip in something there:
"We all know that without the molecule of protein there would be no life at all."
Bloody hell we know that. That's how life AS WE KNOW IT formed. We can only speculate as to other ways life can form.
Antifides 1 year ago
@Antifides Seriously look the evidence up, for some reason it won't let me post links and anyway, how is William lane Craig a liar.. Oh wait because he so happens a Christian.
IsaacP150 1 year ago
Comment removed
Antifides 1 year ago
Comment removed
Antifides 1 year ago
@IsaacP150 What strange reasoning you have. I just figured he was a liar because he lies.
As for sending me a link, do it via PM. I'm not going to research your side of the argument.
Antifides 1 year ago
@IsaacP150 Again, I'm not going to do the research for your side of the argument. You linked me to articles making the same claims you are. I asked for links to the calculations performed by all those people you name-dropped.
Perhaps if you follow the citations in the articles, you can actually give me that.
Antifides 1 year ago
@IsaacP150 So, you don't have the math, you're not going to find it, and you have no way of showing me that it's valid, true, or that any of those people you mentioned actually did these supposed calculations or what findings they got from those calculations.
Then don't use it as an argument.
According to calculations by Stephen Hawking, you're a purple bunny.
Antifides 1 year ago
@Antifides That's Sir Robert Penrose a mathematician at the university of oxford seriously he's an expert he's done the math. And according to observable facts one, bunnies aren't purple and two, bunnies don't have the intelligence to type and think at a computer. Why don't you watch the fucking video and if you really want calculations why don't you search for them yourself. And anyway what evidence is there to suggest the the universe isn't fine tuned for our existence.