Born a skeptic, I was an agnostic until my mid-20's. I asked the Lord Jesus into my heart and began searching writings, books, ESPECIALLY the Bible. I ended up figuring out I was indoctrinated not to believe in God despite the inner truth . Jesus Christ over time revealed Himself to me because I asked Him to.. I read a good book called Genesis and the BIg Bang by a Jewish professor at MIT named Dr. Shroeder (that book with Dr. Craig's use of reason. No atheist could argue against them!)
@irishbear76 Dr. Gerald Shroeder, Really has a great insight about Genesis and Science. But I think he has been one up'd so to say. By the Christian Astronomer Dr. Hugh Ross, He has a Model of the universe called the RTB Model in which is correlates, Genesis days with different times. Its really interesting.
I agree with Dr. Craig's response to the problem of evil in a sort of cold and detached philosophical sense, but I think, from the Christian perspective, it cries out for a much more human and theological answer. For anyone interested in that sort of explanation of the problem of evil, I recommend David Bentley Hart's book "The Doors of the Sea: Where Was God in the Tsunami." Hart uses the tragic tsunami in southeast Asia as a springboard into the topic of theodicy.
@TheOrthodoxSteven Why not let the Scriptures TELL us about the Nature of G-d? 1. He is HOLY. 2. He is JEALOUS. 3. He will REVENGE. 4. He will show MERCY when one repents. The problem is that Modern Christianity has pictured Him as a Big old Sky Daddy that has patience FOREVER. 5. He is LONG SUFFERING, but He WILL cut you loose at some point if you persist in your evil. 6. He is the author of the Law WHAT YOU SOW YOU SHALL REAP.
Payton could have done a better job with the moral question "why shouldn't I steal your wallet?". There is a good answer for this and he should have been prepared, as it goes to the supposed origin of morals, which is often a key point in the existence debate. It's about what happens in this life, as opposed to qualifying for a specific afterlife.
Too bad this wasn't actually set up in the typical debate format. Craig was too polite and could have said alot more as one sees him do in responding to smarter atheists in other debates.
I love how in the beginning Craig a hero of mine says, he doesn't believe Atheism is irrational. Then I hear dumb Atheist's always seem to say that us as believers are so irrational and dumb and can't think for ourselves. We just have to be humble...
I've never seen an atheist get as roasted as hard as this guy. Man, everywhere he turned he just got embarassed. Like challenging a professional philosopher on the works of someone, but failing to even pronounce the name correctly.
To William Lane Craig --- You're one of my heroes. God is the obvious explanation.. so, honestly I'm surprised there aren't many more people who can argue the case as well as you - but... there really aren't - and we need people like you, people who are out there standing toe to toe with the new atheists. We need people like you more than I can possibly express - and I just want you to know how much you are appreciated. Thank you for being you.
LOL I don't think that the other guy (whoever he was) managed to establish a single fact supporting anything he said. He just basically said "I couldn't disagree more" to everything craig said. rofl
god is good ... devil is evil lucifer was satans first name before he was kicked out lucifer wanted to take gods throne and position so lucifer tricked some angels to go against god and god throw them out and they became fallen angels and they are now called demons they have some power and talents but it will never be bigger than gods later the( devil satan) tricked adam and eve
Debate = argument, so argue. How hard is that? "Does God Exist?" No? Ok, go. Argue.... Shuck and jive. "We have educated ourselves into imbecility." Malcolm Muggeridge
I'm happy to see a reasonable and polite atheist...but I can also see that it's two vs one in this arena. But then again I don't see the two Christians "ganging up" or otherwise being rude.
The host is incredibly naive about black Africans. Rape is so common in some sub-Saharan countries that governments have put up billboards urging men not to rape women. Virtually every country is a hotbed of AIDS, hyper-promiscuity, rape, robbery, and murder.
For all the times that guy said, "Right?" I say, "No, you are not right." He would make a good salesman though, confuse people and get them to agree with you. Not that he confused me, but I did get tired of hearing, "Right?" when he was wrong.
The young fellow unconsciously believes a god does exist 24:10 Quote "Forgive me..." end quote. If one believes there is no spiritual good or spiritual evil in the world, only good and bad people, why say those two words? Unless of course you believe what you've implied is morally wrong. And what is morally 'wrong' comes from what one, or what a community of individuals believe in. However I think that 28:14 explained the 'Does God Exist' argument to a 'T'. The argument itself is flawed.
Nope, I don't have a phd, yet. But I dont understand why you would ask me to provide some evidence only if I had a phd, any old person can claim something and back it up accordingly. Im using what I've learned in classes as well as dictionaries and etymology sites, not a philosophical encyclopedia.
J.J.C. Smart does not provide any evidence for his claim, nor does he have a phd in a relevant field, I dont know why you only care about asking evidence when I say something.
I love it! When you see that almost sympathetic smile come across WLC's face you know that his opponent has blundered into some illogical quagmire of no return. Michael Payton is out-gunned, out-brained, and out of his depth.
That Atheist got toasted! especially at the end how he couldn't justify why Michael Coren shouldn't steal his wallet if there were no moral consequences!
@drcraigvideos You mean Payton wasn't allowing the burden to be shifted. The positive claim is that god exists, so that's the position which requires accounting for.
@SaltonSeaMovie Negative claims also share the burden. Otherwise somebody who claims that death doesn't exist holds no burden. Throw away the pop philosophy please. Furthermore, if you think X (X being "atheism" in Payton's case) is true then you're obligated to give a justification for it lest you have blind faith. If you think atheism is a lack of belief in God think again: watch?v=XcuSMQVq5dM
@SaltonSeaMovie Uhm, yeah, genius, atheism isn't a negative claim and all it says is that it's re-defined as a NON-belief in God. No negative claim there! No, siree! I mean forget the fact that "non-belief" is negative but you know better, right? Next time, don't skip my rebuttal. You haven't even touched on anything I said.
Actually, this definition is false. Atheism is a negative claim by definition, which means it's fallaciously defined from the git-go. Agnosticism is not atheism. Both are absences of a belief in God. However, because of this negative definition, it becomes fallaciously inextricable from agnosticism, which it clearly is not. This is a contradiction resulting from the definition called reductio ad absurdem, which means: the official definition, resulting in contradiction, must be logically false.
@SaltonSeaMovie I don't agree that atheism is skepticalm towards god but a faith that god absolutely does not exist. If you are open to the existance of god then agnostism is what you mean.
Christianity is on the only rational theism for the belief in God that has solid historical evidence for the existance of God. It trumps any modern day theories on origins.
@SaltonSeaMovie "Positive claim" That's an atheist scape goat. Traditionally it has been the burden of proof is for anyone positing something. The atheist is positing a belief namely "There is no god."
@almightykenshin Mmm, I think Coren was appropriate. Problem with Payton seemed to be a lack of commitment to a defined explanation or counter-argument for the existence of God. As WLC rightly pointed out, a question isn't an argument.
@mjfraser04 Are you serious? A good public speaker and having a somewhat extensive vocabulary? That's ALL you can attribute to Dr William Lane Craig? In case you've forgotten, he has two doctorate degrees and authored several books. I think you just don't understand what he is saying or the arguments he is making. You think Dawkins or Harris are smart? You should hear the arguments they present in their debates and books.
Why would you get your definition from someone with a phd in philosophy rather than from someone with a phd in linguistics? He obviously doesn't know what the term negation means as the negation of belief in the existence of a god would be no belief in the existence of god. Negation in the logical and mathematical sense would also mean the same thing, as if you take JJC Smart's definition of theism and make it false, his definition of atheism wouldnt be true.
I am begging for your objections. Show me what is logically fallacious about my arguments for a being that is everlasting and eternal, self-existent, omnipresent, united, good, just, omniscient, unchanging, omnipotent, creative, intelligent, personal, and Supreme, as I present in the video “GOD IS: Evidence for the Existence of God.”
watch?v=HLD_Qi4kPg0
Is this considered shifting the burden for you atheists? I apologize, in advance!
@joehardysr Yes, asserting that god exists without demonstrating it in any way, then asking atheists to disprove your unevidenced claim is burden shifting.
@fidesquaerensintel89 I don't know about you but I was actually open minded to potential evidence or reasoned logic from your side, don't get pithy just because you couldn't present either.
@fidesquaerensintel89 You began the personal attacks in the middle of a civil, albeit, dead end discussion. You're just going to keep asserting that god exists while having no actual characteristics of existing and I'll just keep pointing out the bare assertion.
@fidesquaerensintel89 Given the level of argumentation on your behalf and what you consider valid logic, I'm not surprised that you think my employing actual reason constitutes sophism.
@fidesquaerensintel89 Only in the sense that there's no incoherency in being unable to prove gravity isn't the result of invisible intangible pixies with invisible intangible strings.
@joehardysr You've presented nothing to object to in the way of evidence for gods existence. You've only continually shifted the burden of proof and asserted that god exists without having any characteristics of actually existing.
God is an everlasting and eternal, self-existent, omnipresent, united, good, just, omniscient, unchanging, omnipotent, creative, intelligent, personal, and Supreme being.
I gave evidence for such a being in my video “GOD IS: Evidence for the Existence of God” which you have not refuted.
Could you list 5 religions whose “God” fits those criteria?
I have provided evidence for God. Why do you care which God? Which God has the characteristics I mentioned? Can those characteristics refer to any existence in nature?
@joehardysr What evidence? And what do those characteristics matter? You're just arbitrarily listing the presupposition of your god as if it's relevant to anyone not assuming that a first cause has to share them.
I have shown how the characteristics apply to a being that exists. I did not merely assert them. If you watched the video, you would see my arguments for the characteristics of such a being. Which of my arguments do you object to?
By indistinguishable, do you mean unobservable? As not seeing an invisible God, and the like? Congratulations, your theology is really beginning to take root!
@fidesquaerensintel89 It may do nothing to your belief, it completely refutes the idea that god exists outside of the universe. Even if it did imply a first cause there's nothing that indicates that cause has to be a god, much less your god. It's just special pleading of a ridiculous degree.
why can’t God create the material universe? If the material universe is a time-space-matter-energy universe, why can’t God be it's ultimate creator? Do you know of anything else or anyone else considered to be timeless, spaceless, or immaterial?
Now who is the one that is pleading?
God is an everlasting and eternal, self-existent, omnipresent, united, good, just, omniscient, unchanging, omnipotent, creative, intelligent, personal, and Supreme being.
@joehardysr Now you're just reasserting the claim that there had to have been a timeless spaceless immaterial creator of the universe. Where are you getting that?
Still you.
God is certainly claimed as having those characteristics, but that's pointless presupposition.
This cause is timeless, spaceless, and immaterial because time space and matter did not exist, and personal because only a personal creator could, of its own volition, choose to bring the universe into being at a specific point in time.
@joehardysr And I tried explaining to you that if space/time ever didn't exist, this means physics fails so trying to apply causality at that point is taxicabbing.
Conservation of energy means simply that, conservation of energy. This deals with the observed transformation of energy, not the origination of energy.
fidesquaerensintel89, God exists, according to AffairWithGravity. Is God real or postulated? If He is either real or postulated, then God does exist! Congratulations, AffairWithGravity!
But you define the universe as “All of existence both real and postulated” and believe that the universe exists. Therefore, according to your reasoning, God exists! I’d like to take your dictionary to the bank.
But you define the universe as “All of existence both real and postulated” and believe that the universe exists. Therefore, according to your reasoning, God exists! What a theist you turned out to be!
@fidesquaerensintel89 I'm applying a more detailed definition of the same archaic concepts used, it's just that the more practical definition doesn't suit the theists arguments.
@fidesquaerensintel89 The argument is sound because equivocation is the misuse of a word with multiple definitions, so if I'm using the appropriate definition, I'm not equivocating.
Is there scientific evidence to support the statement energy cannot be created?
The constant energy you refer to is being converted to unusable heat. If the material universe had been around forever all the energy would have been converted into unusable heat.
Entropy applies to the energy in a system, not the system itself. The system (in this case universe) is subject to a collapse once the energy fueling the current expansion has exhausted.
The first law of thermodynamics refers to the conservation of energy, indeed. The first law of thermodynamics is induced from empirically observed evidence.
If there is energy fueling the current expansion, then that energy is being converted into unusable heat. Why is there still energy in the universal system?
@fidesquaerensintel89 Not that I've really noticed, I debate pretty regularly and everyone I've had similar discussions with still refer to it as universe. Even if you were correct, the first entry of cosmos is 'universe' and universe is still defined as 'all of existence both real and postulated.
@fidesquaerensintel89 Yes, it is. I didn't say it was so because I was an authority, that is the primary definition in both Websters and Cambridge ALD. I don't think you know what equivocating means, using the proper definition of a term is not equivocating.
Coren was incredibly nice to the kid... gave him all sorts of openings but he never delivered. Dr. Craig ripped him to shreds- I hope he was rethinking his beliefs on the flight back.
Payton didn't answer any point Craig presented, even though he must have herd them from past debates, and his arguments weren't actual arguments but simple reflexions of what he thinks, wich led to an embarrasing end for him. You could see Lane's face through out all the "debate" that he was pretty much astonished at the poor arguments and didn't even consider Payton as an opponent. Hilarious part was when he started listing people that are dead...I felt sad for Michael lol
From TSB (The Skeptic’s Bible), wikipedia (Big Bang):
“The Big Bang is not an explosion of matter moving outward to fill an empty universe. Instead, space itself expands with time everywhere and increases the physical distance between two comoving points.”
The earliest and most direct kinds of observational evidence are the Hubble-type expansion seen in the redshifts of galaxies, the detailed measurements of the cosmic microwave background, the abundance of light elements (see Big Bang nucleosynthesis), and today also the large scale distribution and apparent evolution of galaxies which are predicted to occur due to gravitational growth of structure in the standard theory.
@joehardysr He's using a different definition of 'universe' than the Kalam does (ie. the material universe). AffairWithGravity's definition includes God within it as it is all emcompassing. His universe never begins since it includes the eternal. Therefore, the Kalam does not apply to his definition of the universe. Don't bother arguing furthur until you make him realise that 'universe' is meant as 'material universe', since the common opponents are naturalists, not supernaturalists.
@AffairWithGravity It's definition is not self serving, it is consistant with the naturalistic definition of 'the universe', namely all that exists within space-time. This includes all matter, energy, the space they occupy and the temporal plane. Using someone else's definition simply allows one to attack their position.
If you don't believe in the naturalistic definition of the universe, good. We can, at the least, agree that more than the natural world exists.
This cause is timeless, spaceless, and immaterial because time space and matter did not exist, and personal because only a personal creator could, of its own volition, choose to bring the universe into being at a specific point in time.
@joehardysr The KCA fails at premise 2, the big bang was not an ex nihilo event. As far as we can determine there was no ex nihilo event. Even if there ever were to be shown there was one, this would render the KCA as special pleading/taxicabbing because if the universe ever didn't exist, physics would have failed in the regression, this would include causality.
Michael Payton can't argue for atheism if his life depended on it.LOL
ooJUKEBOXHEROoo 1 month ago 4
Born a skeptic, I was an agnostic until my mid-20's. I asked the Lord Jesus into my heart and began searching writings, books, ESPECIALLY the Bible. I ended up figuring out I was indoctrinated not to believe in God despite the inner truth . Jesus Christ over time revealed Himself to me because I asked Him to.. I read a good book called Genesis and the BIg Bang by a Jewish professor at MIT named Dr. Shroeder (that book with Dr. Craig's use of reason. No atheist could argue against them!)
irishbear76 1 month ago
@irishbear76 Dr. Gerald Shroeder, Really has a great insight about Genesis and Science. But I think he has been one up'd so to say. By the Christian Astronomer Dr. Hugh Ross, He has a Model of the universe called the RTB Model in which is correlates, Genesis days with different times. Its really interesting.
TheFaithfulApologist 1 month ago
drcraigvideos =douchebag
EisEisBaby 1 month ago
@EisEisBaby *ROLLSEYES* Oh, stop it. You're hurting my feelings.
drcraigvideos 1 month ago 8
I agree with Dr. Craig's response to the problem of evil in a sort of cold and detached philosophical sense, but I think, from the Christian perspective, it cries out for a much more human and theological answer. For anyone interested in that sort of explanation of the problem of evil, I recommend David Bentley Hart's book "The Doors of the Sea: Where Was God in the Tsunami." Hart uses the tragic tsunami in southeast Asia as a springboard into the topic of theodicy.
TheOrthodoxSteven 1 month ago
@TheOrthodoxSteven Why not let the Scriptures TELL us about the Nature of G-d? 1. He is HOLY. 2. He is JEALOUS. 3. He will REVENGE. 4. He will show MERCY when one repents. The problem is that Modern Christianity has pictured Him as a Big old Sky Daddy that has patience FOREVER. 5. He is LONG SUFFERING, but He WILL cut you loose at some point if you persist in your evil. 6. He is the author of the Law WHAT YOU SOW YOU SHALL REAP.
GodHasNOMother 1 week ago
Payton could have done a better job with the moral question "why shouldn't I steal your wallet?". There is a good answer for this and he should have been prepared, as it goes to the supposed origin of morals, which is often a key point in the existence debate. It's about what happens in this life, as opposed to qualifying for a specific afterlife.
tfleming92 2 months ago
Too bad this wasn't actually set up in the typical debate format. Craig was too polite and could have said alot more as one sees him do in responding to smarter atheists in other debates.
thinkingsincerely 2 months ago
bahaha! Look at WLC's face at 16:06
TheCrouchingtiger911 2 months ago
This is why Dawkins will not bite!
diemurfster 2 months ago
@diemurfster Agreed. All Dawkins can do is be his usual vitriolic self.
PureAirSolutions 2 months ago
I love how in the beginning Craig a hero of mine says, he doesn't believe Atheism is irrational. Then I hear dumb Atheist's always seem to say that us as believers are so irrational and dumb and can't think for ourselves. We just have to be humble...
samuellis 2 months ago
I've never seen an atheist get as roasted as hard as this guy. Man, everywhere he turned he just got embarassed. Like challenging a professional philosopher on the works of someone, but failing to even pronounce the name correctly.
HrMerrlol 2 months ago
To William Lane Craig --- You're one of my heroes. God is the obvious explanation.. so, honestly I'm surprised there aren't many more people who can argue the case as well as you - but... there really aren't - and we need people like you, people who are out there standing toe to toe with the new atheists. We need people like you more than I can possibly express - and I just want you to know how much you are appreciated. Thank you for being you.
xnothingbutthetruth 2 months ago
Yep! Craig really took the young man out to the wood shed.
lexidart 2 months ago
LOL I don't think that the other guy (whoever he was) managed to establish a single fact supporting anything he said. He just basically said "I couldn't disagree more" to everything craig said. rofl
ITTutorCanada 3 months ago
it irritates me how the moderator denies craig any time to talk . and continues to conversate with the opposition about silly irrelevant topics .
yhwhizlife1 3 months ago
love WLC's expression at 40:15. Just waiting to hear something nonsensical lol
jt7887 3 months ago
21:19 Craig is trying not to lol.
DeeJayJive 3 months ago 3
Craig could have torn that atheist's arguments to shreds had he brought up any
finxoner 3 months ago
god is good ... devil is evil lucifer was satans first name before he was kicked out lucifer wanted to take gods throne and position so lucifer tricked some angels to go against god and god throw them out and they became fallen angels and they are now called demons they have some power and talents but it will never be bigger than gods later the( devil satan) tricked adam and eve
Killuminatiuk 3 months ago
Debate = argument, so argue. How hard is that? "Does God Exist?" No? Ok, go. Argue.... Shuck and jive. "We have educated ourselves into imbecility." Malcolm Muggeridge
m1chae15 4 months ago in playlist debate atheist craig
Craig was way too easy on this punk.
empreme 4 months ago
I looked up pwnage on dictionarydotcom and it brought me here.
reformedman 5 months ago in playlist More videos from drcraigvideos 7
If you look at 16:05 you can see Dr. Craig smelling the b.s.
TheMateus01 5 months ago 7
They should have got Sam Harris on the show with Willam Craig.
fdsnz 6 months ago
I'm happy to see a reasonable and polite atheist...but I can also see that it's two vs one in this arena. But then again I don't see the two Christians "ganging up" or otherwise being rude.
wjb67 8 months ago 3
22:00
The host is incredibly naive about black Africans. Rape is so common in some sub-Saharan countries that governments have put up billboards urging men not to rape women. Virtually every country is a hotbed of AIDS, hyper-promiscuity, rape, robbery, and murder.
scottvska 8 months ago
Comment removed
benaberry 8 months ago
@benaberry Yup, that's a good argument. Since the laws of logic don't physically exist it is therefore non-existent. Don't go assuming logic now!
drcraigvideos 8 months ago
For all the times that guy said, "Right?" I say, "No, you are not right." He would make a good salesman though, confuse people and get them to agree with you. Not that he confused me, but I did get tired of hearing, "Right?" when he was wrong.
1980PintoMan 8 months ago
The young fellow unconsciously believes a god does exist 24:10 Quote "Forgive me..." end quote. If one believes there is no spiritual good or spiritual evil in the world, only good and bad people, why say those two words? Unless of course you believe what you've implied is morally wrong. And what is morally 'wrong' comes from what one, or what a community of individuals believe in. However I think that 28:14 explained the 'Does God Exist' argument to a 'T'. The argument itself is flawed.
lank05 8 months ago
Payton is horrible and arguing his point.
deathtoallpoets 8 months ago
Unfortunately, I think this turned out to be a Michael Coren vs. Michael Payton debate, rather than a WLC vs. Michael Payton debate.
chryco63 8 months ago
@chryco63
Urm, maybe its because Payton dont know even how to talk?
ForceOfLight 8 months ago
I have to say that Michael Payton has to be the nicest atheist I've seen on a debate yet. Fair play to him!
lateralaus 8 months ago
@fidesquaerensintel89
Nope, I don't have a phd, yet. But I dont understand why you would ask me to provide some evidence only if I had a phd, any old person can claim something and back it up accordingly. Im using what I've learned in classes as well as dictionaries and etymology sites, not a philosophical encyclopedia.
J.J.C. Smart does not provide any evidence for his claim, nor does he have a phd in a relevant field, I dont know why you only care about asking evidence when I say something.
zexion297 8 months ago
I love it! When you see that almost sympathetic smile come across WLC's face you know that his opponent has blundered into some illogical quagmire of no return. Michael Payton is out-gunned, out-brained, and out of his depth.
Great video! Cheers!
ZealfortheCross 8 months ago 3
That Atheist got toasted! especially at the end how he couldn't justify why Michael Coren shouldn't steal his wallet if there were no moral consequences!
jordan6030 8 months ago
I think Coren was too hard on the other guy. I wish he would have pressed WLC a little harder.
almightykenshin 8 months ago
@almightykenshin Payton was dodging. I think that's why Coren was hard on him. Payton refused to give an account for atheism.
drcraigvideos 8 months ago
@drcraigvideos You mean Payton wasn't allowing the burden to be shifted. The positive claim is that god exists, so that's the position which requires accounting for.
SaltonSeaMovie 8 months ago
@SaltonSeaMovie Negative claims also share the burden. Otherwise somebody who claims that death doesn't exist holds no burden. Throw away the pop philosophy please. Furthermore, if you think X (X being "atheism" in Payton's case) is true then you're obligated to give a justification for it lest you have blind faith. If you think atheism is a lack of belief in God think again: watch?v=XcuSMQVq5dM
drcraigvideos 8 months ago
@drcraigvideos Except that atheism isn't a negative claim, atheism is skepticism towards the positive claim that god exists
Theists are claiming positively that god does exist, atheists are saying I do not accept your claim until evidence is presented.
SaltonSeaMovie 8 months ago
@SaltonSeaMovie Uhm, yeah, genius, atheism isn't a negative claim and all it says is that it's re-defined as a NON-belief in God. No negative claim there! No, siree! I mean forget the fact that "non-belief" is negative but you know better, right? Next time, don't skip my rebuttal. You haven't even touched on anything I said.
drcraigvideos 8 months ago 25
@drcraigvideos
SaltonSeaMovie just got intellectually OWNED!
HELLawaitsall59 8 months ago
@drcraigvideos Most atheists are dishonest people.
butchbutch66 2 months ago
Actually, this definition is false. Atheism is a negative claim by definition, which means it's fallaciously defined from the git-go. Agnosticism is not atheism. Both are absences of a belief in God. However, because of this negative definition, it becomes fallaciously inextricable from agnosticism, which it clearly is not. This is a contradiction resulting from the definition called reductio ad absurdem, which means: the official definition, resulting in contradiction, must be logically false.
Imperativism 3 weeks ago
@SaltonSeaMovie I don't agree that atheism is skepticalm towards god but a faith that god absolutely does not exist. If you are open to the existance of god then agnostism is what you mean.
Christianity is on the only rational theism for the belief in God that has solid historical evidence for the existance of God. It trumps any modern day theories on origins.
Surfxeo 8 months ago 5
@Surfxeo well said
SLICKRICKDESIGNS 8 months ago
@SaltonSeaMovie "Positive claim" That's an atheist scape goat. Traditionally it has been the burden of proof is for anyone positing something. The atheist is positing a belief namely "There is no god."
KBrimstone 8 months ago
@almightykenshin Mmm, I think Coren was appropriate. Problem with Payton seemed to be a lack of commitment to a defined explanation or counter-argument for the existence of God. As WLC rightly pointed out, a question isn't an argument.
NilDesperandum777 8 months ago
Wow Craig definitively won by a land slide.
Creationist96754 8 months ago
I'd be afraid to debate WLC if I were an atheist. He just looks so confident and is just ready to spank any and all who challenge him
mbelma6329 8 months ago
WLC is too smart to talk to 95% of the people he encounters
mbelma6329 8 months ago 43
@mbelma6329
Nobody can go against God's spokesmen if they even try they'll only be fighting against God a fight NOBODY will ever win.
POC777 8 months ago 2
@mbelma6329 being a good public speaker and having a somewhat extensive vocabulary...doesn't make you "smart".
mjfraser04 1 month ago
@mjfraser04 Just because you don't understand what he's saying doesn't make you smarter.
drcraigvideos 1 month ago 4
@mjfraser04 Are you serious? A good public speaker and having a somewhat extensive vocabulary? That's ALL you can attribute to Dr William Lane Craig? In case you've forgotten, he has two doctorate degrees and authored several books. I think you just don't understand what he is saying or the arguments he is making. You think Dawkins or Harris are smart? You should hear the arguments they present in their debates and books.
anosh88 1 week ago
@fidesquaerensintel89
Why would you get your definition from someone with a phd in philosophy rather than from someone with a phd in linguistics? He obviously doesn't know what the term negation means as the negation of belief in the existence of a god would be no belief in the existence of god. Negation in the logical and mathematical sense would also mean the same thing, as if you take JJC Smart's definition of theism and make it false, his definition of atheism wouldnt be true.
zexion297 8 months ago
William Lane Craig spanked him.
I love Coren too, the 2 of them together comprehensively destroy Payton and show how baseless atheism really is.
R0FLLWAFFL3 8 months ago
Epic face @ 16:05
empreme 8 months ago
Dr Craig should make more TV appereances to expose the madness of atheism :)
IloveYOUviruses 8 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses The problem with that being TV exposes his ignorance and projection to everyone, not just those who are looking for it.
AffairWithGravity 8 months ago
Michael Coren just Shut the Fuck up and let Craig do his job!
Onetruthrgv 8 months ago
@Onetruthrgv Misinform fundamentalists with pseudo-intellectualism?
AffairWithGravity 8 months ago
I gotta say I'm kind of proud of drcraigvideos usually by now he would've resorted to censorship at least half a dozen times.
AffairWithGravity 8 months ago
@AffairWithGravity
spoke too soon, lol
zexion297 8 months ago
I'm sorry, but the atheist is complete idiot. He's the fullness of an idiot.
EndOfNumbers 8 months ago
Every time Payton says "right" take a drink.
NilDesperandum777 8 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 HOW DARE YOU TRY TO KILL ME
MasterWok7 8 months ago
I am begging for your objections. Show me what is logically fallacious about my arguments for a being that is everlasting and eternal, self-existent, omnipresent, united, good, just, omniscient, unchanging, omnipotent, creative, intelligent, personal, and Supreme, as I present in the video “GOD IS: Evidence for the Existence of God.”
watch?v=HLD_Qi4kPg0
Is this considered shifting the burden for you atheists? I apologize, in advance!
joehardysr 8 months ago
@joehardysr Yes, asserting that god exists without demonstrating it in any way, then asking atheists to disprove your unevidenced claim is burden shifting.
AffairWithGravity 8 months ago
@fidesquaerensintel89 I don't know about you but I was actually open minded to potential evidence or reasoned logic from your side, don't get pithy just because you couldn't present either.
AffairWithGravity 8 months ago
@AffairWithGravity
I am open to your objections to my evidence for a being termed God. You have not provided any substantial counterarguments!
joehardysr 8 months ago
@joehardysr You haven't provided any argument to counter, only fallacy to correct.
AffairWithGravity 8 months ago
@fidesquaerensintel89 No you haven't you reasserted that he exists.
AffairWithGravity 8 months ago
@fidesquaerensintel89 You began the personal attacks in the middle of a civil, albeit, dead end discussion. You're just going to keep asserting that god exists while having no actual characteristics of existing and I'll just keep pointing out the bare assertion.
AffairWithGravity 8 months ago
@fidesquaerensintel89 Also, you've dodged my question.
What's the demonstrable difference between a timeless spaceless immaterial god and no god?
AffairWithGravity 8 months ago
@fidesquaerensintel89 Your postulate is that a being exists with no characteristics of actually existing. It's completely meaningless.
AffairWithGravity 8 months ago
@fidesquaerensintel89 Given the level of argumentation on your behalf and what you consider valid logic, I'm not surprised that you think my employing actual reason constitutes sophism.
AffairWithGravity 8 months ago
@fidesquaerensintel89 Only in the sense that there's no incoherency in being unable to prove gravity isn't the result of invisible intangible pixies with invisible intangible strings.
AffairWithGravity 8 months ago
@fidesquaerensintel89 No that's asserted, you assert that god is being. I asked for demonstrable.
AffairWithGravity 8 months ago
@AffairWithGravity
I gave evidence for God that you have not refuted.
joehardysr 8 months ago
@joehardysr What evidence?
AffairWithGravity 8 months ago
@fidesquaerensintel89 So you're saying god is neither real nor postulated?
AffairWithGravity 8 months ago
@fidesquaerensintel89 Based on what?
What is the demonstrable difference between something that exists apart from space and time and something that doesn't exist?
AffairWithGravity 8 months ago
@AffairWithGravity
All you are saying is that you cannot observe God in a lab. A theist may agree with you. So what is your basis for asserting that God does not exist?
joehardysr 8 months ago
@joehardysr Again you shift the burden of proof.
AffairWithGravity 8 months ago
@AffairWithGravity
You raise no substantial objections.
joehardysr 8 months ago
@joehardysr You've presented nothing to object to in the way of evidence for gods existence. You've only continually shifted the burden of proof and asserted that god exists without having any characteristics of actually existing.
AffairWithGravity 8 months ago
@AffairWithGravity
God is an everlasting and eternal, self-existent, omnipresent, united, good, just, omniscient, unchanging, omnipotent, creative, intelligent, personal, and Supreme being.
I gave evidence for such a being in my video “GOD IS: Evidence for the Existence of God” which you have not refuted.
Could you list 5 religions whose “God” fits those criteria?
Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Zoroastrianism, Santeria, voodoo, Shinto, Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Sufism?
joehardysr 8 months ago
@joehardysr God is *claimed* to have those characteristics. And why do the claimed characteristics of your god take precedent?
AffairWithGravity 8 months ago
@AffairWithGravity
I have provided evidence for God. Why do you care which God? Which God has the characteristics I mentioned? Can those characteristics refer to any existence in nature?
joehardysr 8 months ago
@joehardysr What evidence? And what do those characteristics matter? You're just arbitrarily listing the presupposition of your god as if it's relevant to anyone not assuming that a first cause has to share them.
AffairWithGravity 8 months ago
@AffairWithGravity
I have shown how the characteristics apply to a being that exists. I did not merely assert them. If you watched the video, you would see my arguments for the characteristics of such a being. Which of my arguments do you object to?
joehardysr 8 months ago
@joehardysr Yes, all you've done is merely assert them and continually bare assert that such a being exists.
AffairWithGravity 8 months ago
@AffairWithGravity
So, if I did, which arguments do you object to?
joehardysr 8 months ago
@joehardysr I've pointed out twice in as many posts that you have no argument, just the bare assertion of a being with those characteristics.
AffairWithGravity 8 months ago
@fidesquaerensintel89
Universe : All that exists both real and postulated
God, either real or postulated.
Seems like a clear cut case of apples to apples to me.
AffairWithGravity 8 months ago
@fidesquaerensintel89 A being existing independent of time space and matter is indistinguishable from a being that doesn't exist.
AffairWithGravity 8 months ago
@AffairWithGravity
By indistinguishable, do you mean unobservable? As not seeing an invisible God, and the like? Congratulations, your theology is really beginning to take root!
joehardysr 8 months ago
@joehardysr No I mean indistinguishable. You've set the concept of god up to be unfalsifiable.
AffairWithGravity 8 months ago
@fidesquaerensintel89 You mean the way I choose to use the actual definition of universe.
AffairWithGravity 8 months ago
@AffairWithGravity
It does not matter. Your universe does not exclude God.
joehardysr 8 months ago
@joehardysr Of course it doesn't god is part of the universe by definition.
AffairWithGravity 8 months ago
@fidesquaerensintel89 It may do nothing to your belief, it completely refutes the idea that god exists outside of the universe. Even if it did imply a first cause there's nothing that indicates that cause has to be a god, much less your god. It's just special pleading of a ridiculous degree.
AffairWithGravity 8 months ago
@AffairWithGravity
why can’t God create the material universe? If the material universe is a time-space-matter-energy universe, why can’t God be it's ultimate creator? Do you know of anything else or anyone else considered to be timeless, spaceless, or immaterial?
Now who is the one that is pleading?
God is an everlasting and eternal, self-existent, omnipresent, united, good, just, omniscient, unchanging, omnipotent, creative, intelligent, personal, and Supreme being.
joehardysr 8 months ago
@joehardysr Now you're just reasserting the claim that there had to have been a timeless spaceless immaterial creator of the universe. Where are you getting that?
Still you.
God is certainly claimed as having those characteristics, but that's pointless presupposition.
AffairWithGravity 8 months ago
@fidesquaerensintel89
I tried revising KCA for him:
The ‘Material’ Kalam Cosmological Argument
1. Everything that had a beginning had a cause.
2. The material universe had a beginning.
3. Therefore, the marterial universe had a cause.
This cause is timeless, spaceless, and immaterial because time space and matter did not exist, and personal because only a personal creator could, of its own volition, choose to bring the universe into being at a specific point in time.
joehardysr 8 months ago
@joehardysr And I tried explaining to you that if space/time ever didn't exist, this means physics fails so trying to apply causality at that point is taxicabbing.
AffairWithGravity 8 months ago
@AffairWithGravity
I gave a brief argument for causality. How does space time affect causality?
Premiss 1 of The Kalam Cosmological Argument
1) Everything that began to exist had a cause.
A) A thing has properties and may effect change.
B) As a consequence, whatever lacks properties does not exist.
C) Therefore, nothing cannot produce something.
D) Anything that exists either began to exist or always existed.
E) So, whatever began to exist had a cause.
What do you say now?
joehardysr 8 months ago
@joehardysr Physical laws are descriptive, if there is no space/time there are no laws.
I say you're still using the same confirmation bias/special pleading
If the conservation of energy applies, the KCA is invalidated through energy having existed indefinitely
If the conservation of energy doesn't apply, this means the KCA is invalidated through the failure of empirical physics.
AffairWithGravity 8 months ago
@AffairWithGravity
Conservation of energy means simply that, conservation of energy. This deals with the observed transformation of energy, not the origination of energy.
joehardysr 8 months ago
@joehardysr
>the origination of energy
>A consequence of this law is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed
AffairWithGravity 8 months ago
Premiss 1 of The Kalam Cosmological Argument
1) Everything that began to exist had a cause.
A) A thing has properties and may effect change.
B) As a consequence, whatever lacks properties does not exist.
C) Therefore, nothing cannot produce something.
D) Anything that exists either began to exist or always existed.
E) So, whatever began to exist had a cause.
What do you say now?
joehardysr 8 months ago
@fidesquaerensintel89
fidesquaerensintel89, God exists, according to AffairWithGravity. Is God real or postulated? If He is either real or postulated, then God does exist! Congratulations, AffairWithGravity!
joehardysr 8 months ago
@joehardysr No, postulated means claimed. Anyone can postulate anything they want.
AffairWithGravity 8 months ago
@AffairWithGravity
But you define the universe as “All of existence both real and postulated” and believe that the universe exists. Therefore, according to your reasoning, God exists! I’d like to take your dictionary to the bank.
joehardysr 8 months ago
@fidesquaerensintel89 If you're only going to use archaic definitions and concepts then you'll never progress past their conclusions.
AffairWithGravity 8 months ago
@fidesquaerensintel89 There are no other definitions that are more adequate in this instance.
AffairWithGravity 8 months ago
@AffairWithGravity
So, is God real or postulated? Does God exist?
joehardysr 8 months ago
@joehardysr It's not been shown that god exists, but it's certainly claimed, and that's covered under postulate.
AffairWithGravity 8 months ago
@AffairWithGravity
But you define the universe as “All of existence both real and postulated” and believe that the universe exists. Therefore, according to your reasoning, God exists! What a theist you turned out to be!
joehardysr 8 months ago
@fidesquaerensintel89 I'm applying a more detailed definition of the same archaic concepts used, it's just that the more practical definition doesn't suit the theists arguments.
AffairWithGravity 8 months ago
@fidesquaerensintel89 The argument is sound because equivocation is the misuse of a word with multiple definitions, so if I'm using the appropriate definition, I'm not equivocating.
AffairWithGravity 8 months ago
@fidesquaerensintel89 How is my (the actual most common dictionary) definition of universe inapplicable? Other than it refutes your concepts.
AffairWithGravity 8 months ago
@AffairWithGravity
Then, according to your definition, God exists. Congratulations!
joehardysr 8 months ago
@fidesquaerensintel89 I never said only if
and you seem to be misunderstanding the idea behind a premise. In a syllogism as a whole premises are axiomatic
AffairWithGravity 8 months ago
The Kalam Cosmological Argument
1) Everything that began to exist had a cause.
A) A thing has properties and may effect change.
B) As a consequence, whatever lacks properties does not exist.
C) Therefore, nothing cannot produce something.
D) Anything that exists either began to exist or always existed.
E) So, whatever began to exist had a cause.
joehardysr 8 months ago
@joehardysr Since you're adhering to empirical physics, the quantity of energy in a system remains constant as it cannot be created or destroyed.
Energy exists
Energy cannot be created
Energy has existed indefinitely
To ignore this to try to salvage the KCA is special pleading.
AffairWithGravity 8 months ago
@AffairWithGravity
Is there scientific evidence to support the statement energy cannot be created?
The constant energy you refer to is being converted to unusable heat. If the material universe had been around forever all the energy would have been converted into unusable heat.
joehardysr 8 months ago
@joehardysr Yes, the conservation of energy.
Entropy applies to the energy in a system, not the system itself. The system (in this case universe) is subject to a collapse once the energy fueling the current expansion has exhausted.
AffairWithGravity 8 months ago
@AffairWithGravity
The first law of thermodynamics refers to the conservation of energy, indeed. The first law of thermodynamics is induced from empirically observed evidence.
If there is energy fueling the current expansion, then that energy is being converted into unusable heat. Why is there still energy in the universal system?
joehardysr 8 months ago
@fidesquaerensintel89 You're projecting your ignorance if you think definitions made up on the spot are actually valid in a debate.
AffairWithGravity 8 months ago
@fidesquaerensintel89 Not that I've really noticed, I debate pretty regularly and everyone I've had similar discussions with still refer to it as universe. Even if you were correct, the first entry of cosmos is 'universe' and universe is still defined as 'all of existence both real and postulated.
AffairWithGravity 8 months ago
@AffairWithGravity
Congratulations, you believe God exists!
joehardysr 8 months ago
@fidesquaerensintel89 What you presented is not begging the question or affirming the consequent
Affirming the consequent would've been
If I am using the dictionary definition I am not equivocating
I am not equivocating
I am using the dictionary definition
While
If I am using the dictionary definition, then I am not equivocating
I am using the dictionary definition
I am not equivocating
Is perfectly valid logic.
AffairWithGravity 8 months ago
@fidesquaerensintel89 That's the dictionary definition
AffairWithGravity 8 months ago
@fidesquaerensintel89 Nothing can exist apart from the universe, the universe is by definition all that exists.
AffairWithGravity 8 months ago
@AffairWithGravity
Isn’t this your way of saying that the natural world is all there is?
joehardysr 8 months ago
@joehardysr That's my way of pointing out the definition of universe.
AffairWithGravity 8 months ago
@fidesquaerensintel89 If you were using 'all of existence both real and postulated' then yes you were using the appropriate definition.
AffairWithGravity 8 months ago
@fidesquaerensintel89 The point of the argument was to determine if the laws of logic exist if the physical universe doesn't.
AffairWithGravity 8 months ago
@fidesquaerensintel89 How so?
AffairWithGravity 8 months ago
@fidesquaerensintel89 The law of identity isn't A will be A when A exists, it's A equals A
If A doesn't exist to be A then there is no identity
AffairWithGravity 8 months ago
@fidesquaerensintel89 Yes, it is. I didn't say it was so because I was an authority, that is the primary definition in both Websters and Cambridge ALD. I don't think you know what equivocating means, using the proper definition of a term is not equivocating.
AffairWithGravity 8 months ago
The great atheist philosopher A. J. Ire - very Bright
bushfingers 8 months ago
Coren was incredibly nice to the kid... gave him all sorts of openings but he never delivered. Dr. Craig ripped him to shreds- I hope he was rethinking his beliefs on the flight back.
RobinApprentice 8 months ago
36:36 is the funniest look I have ever seen WLC have. He is like "Child please!" Look at his hands on the desk. Those are fighting words for him.
AustinD88 8 months ago
Payton didn't answer any point Craig presented, even though he must have herd them from past debates, and his arguments weren't actual arguments but simple reflexions of what he thinks, wich led to an embarrasing end for him. You could see Lane's face through out all the "debate" that he was pretty much astonished at the poor arguments and didn't even consider Payton as an opponent. Hilarious part was when he started listing people that are dead...I felt sad for Michael lol
signofthehammer 8 months ago
@signofthehammer
Much time was *wasted* begging him to present arguments against God. I think his mention of A. J. Ayer was funny!
joehardysr 8 months ago
From TSB (The Skeptic’s Bible), wikipedia (Big Bang):
“The Big Bang is not an explosion of matter moving outward to fill an empty universe. Instead, space itself expands with time everywhere and increases the physical distance between two comoving points.”
joehardysr 8 months ago
"...um...we seem to be going around in circles here."- 14:14
FadedChroma 8 months ago
2. The universe began to exist.
From wikipedia:
Observational evidence
The earliest and most direct kinds of observational evidence are the Hubble-type expansion seen in the redshifts of galaxies, the detailed measurements of the cosmic microwave background, the abundance of light elements (see Big Bang nucleosynthesis), and today also the large scale distribution and apparent evolution of galaxies which are predicted to occur due to gravitational growth of structure in the standard theory.
joehardysr 8 months ago
@joehardysr Nothing in there about the universe beginning to exist.
AffairWithGravity 8 months ago
@AffairWithGravity
AffairWithGravity, are you referring to the time-space-matter-energy universe or some other one?
joehardysr 8 months ago
@joehardysr I'm referring to all of existence.
AffairWithGravity 8 months ago
@AffairWithGravity
So, are you referring to the time-space-matter-energy universe?
joehardysr 8 months ago
@joehardysr He's using a different definition of 'universe' than the Kalam does (ie. the material universe). AffairWithGravity's definition includes God within it as it is all emcompassing. His universe never begins since it includes the eternal. Therefore, the Kalam does not apply to his definition of the universe. Don't bother arguing furthur until you make him realise that 'universe' is meant as 'material universe', since the common opponents are naturalists, not supernaturalists.
AMWOODco 8 months ago
@AMWOODco
AMWOODco, that’s why I asked him the question twice. If you noticed, he did not answer the question I posed.
joehardysr 8 months ago
@AMWOODco Of course I am, the KCA uses a self serving definition, where as the real definition would render the KCA moot.
AffairWithGravity 8 months ago
@AffairWithGravity It's definition is not self serving, it is consistant with the naturalistic definition of 'the universe', namely all that exists within space-time. This includes all matter, energy, the space they occupy and the temporal plane. Using someone else's definition simply allows one to attack their position.
If you don't believe in the naturalistic definition of the universe, good. We can, at the least, agree that more than the natural world exists.
AMWOODco 8 months ago
@AMWOODco No it's not. The actual factual definition of the universe is 'All of existence both real and postulated'
AffairWithGravity 8 months ago
@AffairWithGravity
The ‘Material’ Kalam Cosmological Argument
1. Everything that had a beginning had a cause.
2. The material universe had a beginning.
3. Therefore, the marterial universe had a cause.
This cause is timeless, spaceless, and immaterial because time space and matter did not exist, and personal because only a personal creator could, of its own volition, choose to bring the universe into being at a specific point in time.
See Attributes:
watch?v=HLD_Qi4kPg0
joehardysr 8 months ago
@joehardysr The KCA fails at premise 2, the big bang was not an ex nihilo event. As far as we can determine there was no ex nihilo event. Even if there ever were to be shown there was one, this would render the KCA as special pleading/taxicabbing because if the universe ever didn't exist, physics would have failed in the regression, this would include causality.