Dawkins is a great evolutionary biologist and is superb at explaining complex scientific principles of evolution to the layman, but he is totally inept with any form of theology or philosophy. I don't understand why many of my fellow think his unquestionable expertise in his own field makes him qualified on matters far outside it.
His arguments against religion are shockingly bad, and there aren't more reasonable atheists making much better arguments. I sense this is more about celebrity
@baldurus1 Uh, yeah, Dawkins didn't make an argument against God that's why he decided to give justification for the probability that God doesn't exist in The God Delusion.
Sad when a man so full of himself, can look up at the heavens, take in all that surrounds him, look back at his own life,..and assert that there is No greater power, No greater mind, than that which he possesses...sad,,& foolish...
@mellymel51029 It's sad when a man can look in the mirror; know without a doubt that he doesn't have Cancer or that his head was not chopped of at some point in his day-to-day routine, and be so blatantly arrogant to assume that there is a higher power that loved him so much that it prevented either of those adverse occurences.
"In order to have the best explanation, you do not have to have an explanation of the explanation". This I assume means that WLC's explanation "God did it" does not require any explanation. Good game this theological philosophy, just get the rules right and you always win.
@drcraigvideos This is excellent, Dawkins forgets to mention Occam's razor and Craig goes on a rant about it and whips up all his dead horses to support it.
@drcraigvideos Stop describing nature like a human... 'blind and mindless and stupid and unintelligent and dead' are all things you can describe living things as, but 'nature' was never alive or dead to begin with, and calling nature stupid implies that nature could be smarter, which misunderstands the nature of nature.
@drcraigvideos I think it's incorrect to describe nature as alive or dead, mindful or oblivious, and intelligent or stupid. Nature is best described as a collection of forces and matter interacting; whether or not it has a mind behind it is another question. Clearly you disagree, and I'd like you to explain if you will :)
@ScientificBob No, an answer is only required to answer the question it's based on. That's how it works in everything, including in Science itself. When John Dalton proposed the atom, it raised a whole host of questions. Yet that did not disqualify it as an answer as to why all chemical reactions had whole number stoichiometric ratios.
But it is impossible for Science to explore things beyond the boundaries of space and time, so these will require philosophical answers, not scientific ones.
Um, actually no...Even in science, new theories which gain evidential support still raise further questions. Why do you think that Physics didn't just stop when Einstein formulated His theories of Relativity? Physicists who worked on the basis of Einstein's theories not only found confirmations of those theories, but they also pondered the new questions that the theories brought into the fore.
Any answer will eventually raise more questions - there is nothing wrong with that. The real questions are if "God" is a viable answer or not, if the answer is coherent, and if has explanatory power.
Physical properties themselves are evidence of a Maker because most of the most common elements are essential parts that function in life forms. One single such function alone requires a Maker and we have billions of functions all working together inside of us. So the function of hydrogen which exists everywhere in the universe requires a Maker who is the Maker of all matter and the Maker of all matter is not made of the matter that He made to have ordered functions obeying a preexisting word.
It is amazing at all the videos on YouTube that are like this one. They spend so much effort trying to discredit Dawkins or Evolution as if doing so will make their imaginary friend real somehow. It don't. Even if they could prove every comment by atheists wrong they would not have proven their claim to be right. They still have nothing to support their claim. This is one of the reasons why I reject the theist claim 100%. After thousands of years, still no verifiable evidence (zero, zip, nada)
@residentatheist It's NEVER amazing to me an atheist won't bother listening to this video at all. Craig is open to evolution and doesn't think it is incompatible with theism. Furthermore, Craig was speaking on Dawkins' "central argument" in The God Delusion. If you think the incredibly bad thinking Dawkins has a great argument in his central argument, then eat your heart out. I know of no reputable philosopher (atheist or theist) whoh thinks his argument is a good one.
@residentatheist Do you realize of course that the exact same issue works in reverse? So that even if you did refute every argument and claim made by Christians, that would not be enough for you to know that there is no God and say with certainty that is the case? Atheists have to demonstrate why their stance is accurate and more justifiable than the agnostic who merely says, I cannot know so I do not claim to, as opposed to the atheist who says, I believe that there is no God.
@Sickopath333 "if you did refute every argument and claim made by Christians, that would not be enough for you to know that there is no God and say with certainty that is the case" Yes. But 2 things are important here:
1. The burden of proof is on the side of the proposer of the positive claim. Which is the theist when it comes to claims of existance of personal gods.
2. We COULD say for sure that the christian god does not exist, since the bible would be debunked.
@residentatheist I think when he says, "when there's a best explanation, you don't need an explanation of that explanation", I almost wonder if he really thinks that's a stable philosophical point. A 'best' argument isn't rationalized by jumping to an arbitrary conclusion in the case of a lack of evidence, since it's at best equal to other propositions. When there is evidence, the evidence 'is' the best explanation for the supposed question, which means a lack of evidence at best says no god.
@residentatheist "After thousands of years, still no verifiable evidence (zero, zip, nada)" That is begging the question. You've assumed Verificationism, but that is part and parcel of what is being refuted. The title of the video is certainly harsh, but I would say that WLC himself is not trying to discredit Richard Dawkins the man, he is just refuting one of Dawkin's arguments. I'm sure you can find the answers you're looking for, but the vitriol won't help.
Life is fleeting ever so fast. Your time on Earth is so very short. If you believe it is only about yourself so be it, I hold no domain over your life. I cannot tell you what to do, or what to say. If you spend your days defiling his name, or praising it...you should know I'm no better than you. We are all equal in the eyes of God. Please know this, banish ur pride, repent you sins, accept what Jesus did for you...and you will be as pure as freshly fallen snow. Copy and paste this msg Christians
@tenaciouscraig : "I don't seem to realize that Craig is open to the theory of evolution and thinks it's compatible with Christianity. Maybe I should stop stereotyping and underestimating Christians. Furthermore, if I wasn't so blind by Dawkins' rhetoric maybe I should start commenting on what this video says instead of making off-topic remarks."
Okay, it's really simple. The best argument for the non-existence of God is the non-existence of scientifically verifiable evidence of God's existence. I don't understand what the confusion here is.
Big Bang is Hard to Understand ≠ Magical Sky-Wizard Created Everything
@dpaanlka You can't prove God scientifically since you can't put God in a science tube, genius. You can't prove everything with science: watch?v=vxJQe_FefxY
@drcraigvideos Actually, you can, so long as it physically exists (observable, i.e. the sun, bacteria) or makes reliable, repeatable predictions (theoretical, i.e. big bang, evolution). God doesn't fulfill either of these criteria.
@dpaanlka Of course God doesn't physically exist. So do a lot of other things. The laws of logic are immaterial, invariant, absolute, and necessary, yet it exists immaterially. You speak of something existing physically and scientifically yet you don't even know what a science tube is?
@drcraigvideos The problem is that god is mentioned as existing in the physical sphere... again and again and again he is said to be the creater of the universe - but how can he create anything physical if he's not physical himself? How can he be almighty and omnipotent if he can only be found "inside"? You can't claim god exists before you've even defined what the hell "god" is...
@daneimp *SIGH* This is why God is immaterial yet can work with the material world: watch?v=YqzqEFw5_1c. Honestly, why is this so hard for people to figure out?
@drcraigvideos William Lane Craig talks about the beginning of the universe from a "logical resonating philosophical" view - not from a mathematic / physics / cosmological view with emperical evidens. There's no emperical basis for claiming that something "not material" / "not physical" can interact with the physical / material sphere. The "not physical" is no more than our brains ability to abstract thought (fantasy) - here I'm not talking about emotions but about thoughts.
@daneimp *VERY BIG LONG SIGH* You don't know what you're talking about, do you? Craig uses philosophical and scientific arguments for the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Why do you think he brings up Hilbert's Hotel and the BVG Theorem up, genius. And you haven't even begun to repond to the video link.
@drcraigvideos Thanks for the great work, drcraigvideos! I'm getting really sick of all the snooty atheists who seem to think that they are bringing the enlightenment to us barbarians.
We are trying, but your attachments to outdated bronze-age mythologies are making it extremely difficult.
A logical tangent with an illogical basis is still irrational. Accepting that god exists as the base of the claim is irrational, as it would be to accept the existence of unicorns before rationalising how they may exist in some intangible, unprovable way.
@karozans Sorry, your God is not analogous to mathematics. For example, the number "5" is label for something we often observe in physical reality. We can count five eggs and five trees and five fingers. The same cannot be said about God in any way. Nobody claims "mathematics" to be a supernatural being that oversees and personally intervenes in the day-to-day tabulation of our affairs.
@drcraigvideos Interdisciplinary work does have its risks, but I don't think he failed that badly. If he made some adjustments it would be a sound argument.
@Surroundx I wouldn't call The God Delusion a piece of "interdisciplinary work." The book would fail at any philosophy class. His central argument is laughably and painfully bad. If you think it's a good argument then knock yourself out. In the mean time, I'll be living in reality.
I'll only say this.. When discussing philosophy, one shouldnt ignore Occam's razor, and expect to be taking seriously.. Atleast not by thinking people..
#3 is a summary of the argument from which Dawkins concludes thusly. If Craig doesn't address said argument, he is a disingenuous coward (or just dumb).
@BachScholar Hm... who's Dr. Craig again? I've heard of Dawkins and Hitchens... but never this great debater that you're talking about. Also, it's amazing how obvious it is to me yet still escapes the religious people, He is claiming that none of the arguments Dawkins has stated deductively leads one to the conclusion of there being no god... yet he doesn't explain how these arguments don't lead to that conclusion, he only repeats over and over again that they don't. Good job though, he tried
Lol! That is the stupidest "rebuttal" of God in the WORLD! So all of a sudden just because Dawkins believes evolution his arguments are valid? Classic indicator of presuppositions! A watch is man made and PROVES the law that things don't just pop into existence, i.e. as Joe Gibbs says in his book, you don't just throw a bunch of parts in a shoe box and shake it around and a watch comes out! His argument is just plain ignorance! So what made the atom we originally evolved from? Itself? ROFL!
And so, because a watch is man made the universe isn't designed? And, what if I say the best tool for the universe has been ID? Does that mean I'm right? No! So why's it make him right? I'm also not arrogant enough to claim I'm right by saying that, although there's an abundances of evidence which corresponds with the Biblical worldview, but he'd ignore that, you aren't right becuase you say you're right, you're right becuase you affirm you're right by SCIENCE, not logical fallacies like him.
Too much goes unseen by the human eye, or even the mass consciousness to believe that any scientist has a complete picture of all creation. Likewise, there are as many poisonous theologies" infiltrating the Truth as to make both sides seem inept in their understanding of G-d. Just an opinion, though, and I try not to take myself seriously enough to believe I have the right to label anyone a disbeliever, an infidel, or scientifically (im)perfect.
Not needing to explain the designer? Sounds like an excuse to be close minded. Christians have had 10,000 years to figure this out...why not give Rationalists a go? Scientists have only had a couple of hundred years, and look what has been achieved :)
@kumaranb "Not needing to explain the designer?" He's saying that if you know that something was intelligently made that shouldn't lead you to have to know who made the maker since you already know that something was made intellligently. Don't be dishonest about Craig's view. And listen to him closely next time. If 2 is the best explanation (if not the only explanation) for 1+1 does that mean I have to explain 1+1 when it really equals 2? Duh.
@drcraigvideos You still haven't explained how your god came to be. Dawkins has never denied the possibility that we were created, he merely stated that, if we were, it was by something that evolved, or something created by something that evolved, and so on. Even if you do prove that we were created, you have no way of explaining where that creator came from, and so you still haven't explained anything. You've simply added an extra, unnecessary step in the process of how the universe cam to be.
Continuing on my previous point, even if we were created by a god, that god demands an explanation also. The core idea of religion, god creating everything, is clearly nonsensical. Dawkins has said there is a possibility that god-like beings exist, but if they do then they or their creators (or their creators, or theirs, and so on) had to have come into being through evolution, and so discussing the notion is a pointless distraction. Ultimately a godless genesis is still the only logical answer.
@tjobv Your basic logic is even worse. A timeless being cannot exist, there is no evidence for its existence, it's completely impossible and thus more unlikely than whatever it explains and it doesn't even make sense. It's simply handwaving away the issue with nonsense words you made up. But even if we do say that something can exist out of time, and thus just exist for no reason at all, why can't we say that the universe is timeless and just exists, thus removing god from the equation entirely?
@drcraigvideos Yes you do need to explain a God. If your ETERNAL afterlife depends on your committed FAITH to ONE God out of the majority of other gods that came BEFORE the Judeo Christian God was even conceived, then you need to have a solid basis for argument outside of ancient religious scripture based on totalitarianism conformity. This conformity of FAITH demands close mindedness, discourages free thinking, invokes selfishness, and ultimately destroys the idea of morality. No proof needed?
@Rainbowsixoperator1 Can you please read the context of my comment. I wasn't talking about God as an explanation as far as WHAT his attributes are. I'm talking about the principle of explanation. If you think that 2 still needs an explanation for 1+1 then eat your heart out. You won't find an answer though.
@drcraigvideos What are you talking about? In order for there to be an explanation for 1 + 1 = 2, you have to explain 1 + 1 = 2. And there is evidence that 1 + 1 = 2. Take 1 rock, now place another rock next to it, now add up the sum of both rocks. You have 2 rocks. You can't compare mathematical language, and phenomenon in this way.
@MacabreManifesto *BIG LONG SIGH* We're talking abou the best explanation for 1+1=2. If 2 is the BEST explanation it wouldn't be good to say that that DOESN'T explain anything when it does. Unless you still think you need an explanation for it. Please, drop the A. D. D. and read what has been written so far.
@kumaranb Did you really just say, "Christian's have had 10,000 years to figure this out..."? Christianity isn't anywhere near 10,000 years old. And Christianity is barely mentioned in this discussion, nor should it be. Get your facts straight.
DAWKINS: Here is a horribly bad argument against the "probability" of an designing agent responsible for the apparent design seen everwhere we look -- therefore God "probably" umm "almost certainly" does not exist.
SHORT VERSION: God "probably" doesn't exist; therefore God "almost certainly" doesn't exist. Brilliant!
Why isn't there are word like "theophobic" with which we can just trash everything Dawkins says? Because we believers play NICE. Because its nice to be nice. Isn't that nice?
Atheism is the most absurd of philosophical beliefs.
To believe that all the universe is total chaos, is equal to believe in the flying spaghetti monster. The universe is anything but chaos, it is tuned, it is designed, as are cells, and DNA information codes.
To say that all of this came out of nothing, with no cause, with no reason, that everything came into being by time, matter and chance, IS THE HEIGHT OF ABSOLUTE ABSURDITY!
Go visit a doctor immediately if you believe this....
It is an impossibility for a Christian to accept evolution. In evolution things evolved, simply saying, the galaxies, the sun, the animals, the planets were not before what they are now, whereas in Christianity, things were created after its own kind: 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness (Gen 1:26 KJV). God was not a homosapien nor is. First was Adam and all things after its kind and not from water to land or from land to water.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Rom 1:20
Both can not possibly be true! To try to reconcile: And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul gen 2:7 with guideless mindless chance and necessity without hope over long periods of time.
@daniloorbolato If you take out the parts of evolution that are purely naturalistic (that it is unguided, mindless, and pure chance), then it is perfectly compatable with the belief that God formed man (he did so from the stuff of the earth, allowing for a process of millions/billions of years rather than 24 hours). I believe Augustine was one of the first to doubt that the days of Genesis were 24 hour periods (5th century AD). Taken together, God could have used evolution to make humans.
@drcraigvideos Hi, He never refuted the ideas thrown at him about evolutionary origins of all things and men. This cautious approach he has is yes genius in a sense of avoiding career issues and headlines from the evolutionary orthodoxy of science, nonetheless, ingenius regarding the wisdom of the Scripture and the dear role Creation plays in the eyes of God.
@tjobv "Christianity and evo are incompatible. Period." Tell that to Francisco Ayala, Kenneth Miller, Denis Lamoureux, Alister McGrath, Denis Alexander, etc. You have to dump the pop science, dude, and get with the program.
@drcraigvideos For the record, I agree that Christianity and evolution are NOT completely incompatible. That said, though, I have to wonder why people are so strident on this topic. I mean, humanity's walking the earth now any way you look at it, so what's the point in arguing?
@drcraigvideos See my argument, tell the whole "pop science" thing to Ken Ham and friends. Just because it's popular doesn't mean it's right, the Bible asserts Creation, to say Genesis isn't true it's to throw away the infallibility of the Bible, making God a liar. Evolution was invented by man to explain life without God, it's 100% incompatible with the Bible.
@tjobv I think you are already overburdened with unfulfilled prophesies. You're really living in a bubble if you think that people are going to abandon science in favour of your beliefs. Is all your knowledge of science from creationist websites, or have you ever actually read some real science ?
@tjobv I agree that the too are not compatible, but I do think many Christian accept evolution who are honest Christians. Many have already been taught all their lives that it is a proven fact (which rarely exist in historical science) and do not realize that it is a result of man's fallible ideas which are easily influenced by satan. My self, for example, never questioned Creation or evolution because I never thought of the two at the same time, when I did I began getting involved in Creation
@tjobv science. Several Christians without realizing try to mold the fallible ideas of man with the infallible Word of God. Like Craig says about Dawkins not being a philosipher, Craig is not a biologist. That's nothing against Craig, he does great work in his field of philosphy and may be better of concentrating his arguments in the field he is comfortable and talented in. Still, he should look into creation science, not for argument but just so he'll understand he doesn't have to fix the Bible
@drcraigvideos ...WEll, how does he explain the simple clause in the Bible crushing evolution? According to it's kind. God tells us exactly how He made things, do you not trust God to tell you He did it by evolution if he so clearly tells you He didn't? To not trust one book but trust the others in the Bible is illogical, thusly God is untrustworthy and the nit throws the whole validity and reputation of the Bible off the cliff, thusly, you have problems like God can lie, etc.
@drcraigvideos Also, the BIble is of God, evolution is of man, it's an idea made up simply to explain existence without God, this is why organizations like AIG exist contrary to popular belief, it's not for atheists! it's for people like you, who pollute m the world and compromise people's legitimate faith in God and the Bible. I'm real sorry to hear you believe evolution, but I wholeheartedly agree on how dumb his arguments are, he just knows his followers are blind and will accept it.
@daniloorbolato I would have to say that it doesn't really matter. Christianity is true regardless of whether or not evolution is true. Though I don't think macro evolution is proven, I also think that if it were to be proven, it would not disprove God's role as the creator of the universe, life, and specifically us. I mean no offense in saying this and I respect your opinion if you think evolution can't co-exist with creation.
@daniloorbolato I see that God created everything we know and in what order. I Do NOT see how long it took or what Adam was before he was fully created...
@FruKaos Right, I think you are right! We do not know how long it took. It could have taken 13.7 billion years as science tells us or less or even more I don't dispute that, however, if Adam was something before He became Adam then he was not created. The Hebrew grammar show things being created out of nothing. if all things were created and did not evolved to what they are now why does Adam have to evolve and not be created just like everything else? I don't see how that is logical.
@daniloorbolato So if Adam did not evolve he must have emerged out of nothing i no time. (Even if it would have taken just a sec from nothing to man he evolved.) I have no problem if God created man over a period of time but I don't know how long it took and tbh it is not really interesting. The salvation through Jesus is interesting though :)
@Davey20071 Right, he was... by word at least. After the losses he had he came to seriously doubt the insufficient remaining faith he had. To say I, he or she is a Christians is not enough my friend. Many says Jesus was God but no one do things He said to do, therefore, they are not His disciples ,or, in other words Christians that is Christ disciples.
@daniloorbolato "It is an impossibility for a Christian to accept evolution." If this were true then no Christians would accept evolution (since that would be impossible for them to do." But many do. Ergo, you are mistaken.
The fighting can just stop since there is contradiction then. But God is personal has a purpose and provides hope and justice while evolution denies all those things among many others that only a God could provide not evolution.
@berettaNZ@berettaNZ There could be a entire nation accepting something and still not making it true it doesn't depend on them to make it so. Otherwise all would be true. Look around you. Neither does "many Christians" accepting evolution makes it (evolution) true but worse does damage and contradicts the teaching and the person he/she profess to serve in the first place.
@daniloorbolato There are many interpretations of Genesis. For example
Augustine imagined a long drawn out creation based on what he read in Genesis. Special creation (which is what you are talking about) didn't become popular until after Darwin actually.
So evolution assuming it's true isn't really an issue for theism or Christianity for that matter.
(4) You presented, in your argument, nothing that is Scriptural nor your own thoughts but their! "They" is too many. I have been through "they" also, but what does the Scripture says? Fancy names in Theology and all those theories that you presented is of private interpretation and can be disproven to same extent whereas the Bible is not.
(3) And the dominion, authority and all its properties included free will that men after is (likeness) over all the rest of Creation has, as He declared for we are after His likeness. God is not (IT) nor formeless! English can not convey this idea but Hebrew does! I am acquainted with mico-macro evo and I do not dismiss changes when breading, for we all know that, however, that is not where or how you come from for all things were created after its own kind included you!
@daniloorbolato No one said God is an it. However he is a disembodied mind. That's one of the fundamentals of Christianity.
Again none of what you're typing has to do with the truthfulness of Christian Theism. I could go any where from Creationism to Theistic Evolution and still be within my rational rights as a Christian. First you need to figure out if God exists and if Jesus is a revelation of him, then you can have in house debate about doctrine. lol
(2) In fact that is what the Torah and Tanakh and the whole Scripture is all about, a serious error!
The Hebrew is clear and precise: In our image after our likeness clearly consisted both in the form of His body, and the erect stature of it, different from all other creatures At His (image), in agreement with the idea of that body (Jesus') prepared in covenant for the Son of God by which He came and remain as a man!
@daniloorbolato No. It has never been believed within Christian or Jewish scholarship that God has a physical body. Having the “image” or “likeness” of God means, in the simplest terms, that we were made to resemble God. Adam did not resemble God in the sense of God’s having flesh and blood. Scripture says that “God is spirit” (John 4:24) and therefore exists without a body.
@KBrimstone I am convinced by the Scripture God exists and Jesus is His only son and the only way to Him. You as a Christian had to be sure of that too! I will look at Hominem Fallacy and hope you will look at the Bible not as "needing secular explanations" but inerrant, fot it interprets itself, so when you respond to someone you don't "go anywhere from this to that and that to this" but precise.
@daniloorbolato Now your arguing semantics.. God is most certainly not an it. It implies non-person. The very nature of God is a person. Now in the English (and most languages) third-person, singular personal pronouns are either feminine or masculine same goes for ancient Hebrew. Now the authors of the Bible use the masculine in regards to God, becuase God is authoritative and such we attribute masculine form when referring to about him.
@daniloorbolato I don't think the bible needs secular explanations. I hope you don't think that's what I'm doing here. I think when reading the Bible you need proper hermeneutics.
To me the best interpretation of the creation account in Genesis isn't 24 hour days.
Also I believe the bible is Inerrant however I don't think it's a necessity to accept Christian belief.
@KBrimstone The Greek says "noun genitive masculine singular for Jesus and the Hebrew noun common masculine plural absolute for Elohim, plus what I said previously. Pretty sure you can make anything out of that "within your rational rights as a Christian". The exchange of Scriptual certainty for more confortable and acceptable when possible.
@KBrimstone Right, I think you are correct in saying that God has no physical body, Christianity and Judaism certainly don't and neither did I. The Scripture declares so and I aware of it. You answered: No He is not (it) and I say: yes but He is not formless nor without gender either. Adam just resembling God, in the aspects you showed, is indeed the simplest term, I think it goes far deeper than that.
@KB(1) The "many interpretations of Genesis" can not all be true, neither is up to Augustine to decide nor you. What you call "special creation" the Bible calls the creation of God. Half an issue still an issue, your "really" is elementary. The mindless guideless without purpose, hope and destiny is a huge issue for the work done since the beginning of creation. It is on these principals that the faith in one God one Creator of all things (He alone) is founded, thousands of years before Darwin.
@daniloorbolato 1) The point is this... Young Earth or Old, Creationist or Evolutionist neither comment on the truth of Christian theism. Everything else is a red herring.
@daniloorbolato Also if you are arguing against some thing it is a good idea to know about them. Man being created in the image of God does not mean looks like man looks like God.
In classical theology God doesn't have hands, legs, or genitals much less a humanoid body. He is a non physical mind where as we are physical beings. So it can't mean God is giant human or some such nonsense. No, it means we like God have mind and therefor freewill.
@daniloorbolato also it is good to not attack a straw man. Even young earth special creationists believe that in some form of descent with modification. They don't think lions, sheep, or dogs for example were there in the garden of Eden but some prior predecessor. They take issue with the age of the earth (which I do not agree) and issue with Tigers, bats and octopuses having a common ancestor.
Christian theists can hold to either Intelligent design of theistic evolution as an alternative.
@daniloorbolato MICRO-evolution is what we currently know of. (Birds evolving to change color, etc.) Darwin made a theory known as MACRO-evolution. This is the strange, and very unlikely, theory that entire species evolved into others. It's a scientist job to be wrong, but atheists cling to this theory dispute it's improbability.
One example of how biased Craig's thinking is his comment that the nonexistence of soul implies in nonexistence of God. It is a common Christian flaw to think that, proving the existence of a God immediately or obviously implies that everything Christianity commonly believes is true. That alone is already enough for me not to consider him seriously.
@gugamilare [[proving the existence of a God immediately or obviously implies that everything Christianity commonly believes is true. ]] This is flat out inaccurate. Dr.Craig points this out within the first minutes of video "William Lane Craig Responds to Atheist Lawrence Krauss". So the argument is cumulative and voluminous. And he has said it simply is the most plausible of the arguments when contended together. it is the entire body of investigation that makes it so convincing.
@MayonR I'm sorry, but it is not convincing, I have watched the entire video and there are several flaws. His argument is only convincing for theists, people who want to believe him. He argues with philosophy against evolution as the origin of species, that is just stupid. There are lots of concrete evidence of evolution and philosophy can go wherever you want when it is not bound with the real world.
That is why Dawkins don't even debate with creationists, it is a waste of time.
@gugamilare If Craig argued against evolution then why does he defend its compatibility with theism? You don't know what you're talking about, do you? And I truly doubt you watched the video.
@gugamilare [[evolution and philosophy can go wherever you want when it is not bound with the real world.]]In the video I listed he doesn't argue philosophy over evolution which is metaphysics in itself. And Craig does adhere to foundationalism so you are wrong that he doesn't bind them to the real world. And do you know what form of Creation Craig takes, because it sounds like your generalizing?
@gugamilare Yea, because debating Pastors, Cardinals, and Bishops is so much better use of his time. Maybe Dawkins is afraid of debating someone who has some knowledge of the current physics model and biology.
@gugamilare [[proving the existence of a God immediately or obviously implies that everything Christianity commonly believes is true. ]] This is flat out inaccurate. Dr.Craig points this out within the first minutes of video "William Lane Craig Responds to Atheist Lawrence Krauss". So the argument is cumulative and voluminous. And he has said it simply is the most plausible of the arguments.
@gugamilare Actually, I'm a Zen Buddhist who doesn't believe in a personal God and I also believe that this video clearly shows Dr. Lane Craig OWNING Richard Dawkins and his pathetic half arguments, especially 7:00 in. There is no scientific evidence for God, fine...but where is the existential evidence for the greatness of science? What if I am not a scientific Rationalist & have some other philosophical school of thought that is not based on scientific evidence? Dawkins is OWNDED
Nobody can even hold a candle to Dr. Craig's arguments. He tears apart Dawkins and Hitchens and all other atheist debaters. His thinking and use of language are razor sharp, almost computer-like.
@BachScholar yes i agree almost computer-like, but at the same time he conveys thoughts and ideas in a way which is easy for the lay person to understand.
OMG did u just falcon punch yourself? why'd u do that? Considering this as being of high intellectual value, makes it seems like your not only uneducated but infact stupid
Think what you may about Dr.Craig, the man is a philosophical BEAST! lol He would smash Dawkins, just like he did to Hitchens in a debate. I like Hitchens, he's a cool guy, as a Christian we have to be sensitive to the fact that everyone doesn't think like we do, we have to love them anyway, just like Jesus loved us before the foundations of the world. God Bless!
Open a tap and fill your cup with water. What are the odds of your glass being filled with those exact drops of water. Think about how many drops of water there are on this planet yet you happened to get those drops in your cup.
Trillions of trillions to one.
But those drops of water DO make it to your cup.
It must be a miracle. A god must have directed those drops to be together at that time and that place......or not.
@HowToBeAGentleman Not quite. This argument only works for a God that exists within a timeline with a fixed future. But you're then leaving out omipresence. I'll explain it this way: If I have already written a book, I exist outside of it's timeline, knowing what will happen. But because I exist outside of it, I can alter it. God is the same way. Nice try, though. Better than Dawkins.
@AnonymousProgramer Your'e confused of the concept. The classical theistic God (the God you happen to believe in by accident and upbringing) cannot be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibeneovlent (the triarchic model of Gods qualities) as they are incomaptible when suffering occurs. Either suffering exists because God is not all powerful, he doesn't know about it, or he doesn't care. Might be why he was such a nasty malicious God in Genesis (made up scripture, equally as invalid as others).
i disagree .. this is the second dumbest argument dawkins ever made ...the dumbest is "we're all athiest" .. sami does a good job of debunking this watch?v=iJ_rKGdYdO4
@Upermonotheismos Why on earth would Darwin scare you? Come to that why would any atheist scare you, we simply do not believe in God because of the observable evidence science has provided. I'm not quite sure what route you're going off on your own accord with regards to better explanations, science doesn't attempt to find better explanations of what is already known! Refuting where human evolution is refuting science, for what possible reason would you do that, faith or no faith?
People of good faith, please quit discussing with atheists and spare your life time. They will never find the "evidence" they claim to be searching, no matter what you offer them, don't you realize that? It is not a matter of logic and intelligence (Craig is the most reasonable believer in the world); it is a matter of bad will. They hate God. Dawkins hate God, for He just reveals how selfish Dawkins is.
Dawkins is a great evolutionary biologist and is superb at explaining complex scientific principles of evolution to the layman, but he is totally inept with any form of theology or philosophy. I don't understand why many of my fellow think his unquestionable expertise in his own field makes him qualified on matters far outside it.
His arguments against religion are shockingly bad, and there aren't more reasonable atheists making much better arguments. I sense this is more about celebrity
Gorzakk 4 weeks ago 3
Dawkins has never made any argument against a god.
So this "refutation" is pointless and dishonest.
9th commandment: thou shalt not lie!
baldurus1 2 months ago
@baldurus1 Uh, yeah, Dawkins didn't make an argument against God that's why he decided to give justification for the probability that God doesn't exist in The God Delusion.
You are a very smart person.
drcraigvideos 1 month ago 2
Whether your athiest or religous you have to admit that argument sucks!
robyniscool99 4 months ago
@robyniscool99
unless it's reasoned argument as part of constructive dialectic or measured discussion ;)
Appletree34 4 months ago
Sad when a man so full of himself, can look up at the heavens, take in all that surrounds him, look back at his own life,..and assert that there is No greater power, No greater mind, than that which he possesses...sad,,& foolish...
mellymel51029 4 months ago
@mellymel51029 It's sad when a man can look in the mirror; know without a doubt that he doesn't have Cancer or that his head was not chopped of at some point in his day-to-day routine, and be so blatantly arrogant to assume that there is a higher power that loved him so much that it prevented either of those adverse occurences.
Sad...and foolish. And even a tad narcissistic.
SeedsOfHatred 4 months ago
Love it!
lukehase 4 months ago
Dawkins has become a blundering dodo
I liked his earlier books, even though I didn't fully agree with them - but this book was an insult to his intellect and literary history
vicachcoup 4 months ago
"In order to have the best explanation, you do not have to have an explanation of the explanation". This I assume means that WLC's explanation "God did it" does not require any explanation. Good game this theological philosophy, just get the rules right and you always win.
Douglaslid 5 months ago 4
@Douglaslid What would you accept is a viable option then? That blind and mindless and unintelligent and dead nature did it?
drcraigvideos 5 months ago
@drcraigvideos An explanation is supposed to give you an answer. Not raise more questions.
ScientificBob 5 months ago
@ScientificBob Then it would make sense to have God as the answer, not blind and mindless and stupid and unintelligent and dead nature.
drcraigvideos 5 months ago
@drcraigvideos This is excellent, Dawkins forgets to mention Occam's razor and Craig goes on a rant about it and whips up all his dead horses to support it.
TheDcac 2 months ago
@drcraigvideos Stop describing nature like a human... 'blind and mindless and stupid and unintelligent and dead' are all things you can describe living things as, but 'nature' was never alive or dead to begin with, and calling nature stupid implies that nature could be smarter, which misunderstands the nature of nature.
therorysnake 1 month ago
@therorysnake Oh, I'm sorry, uh, yeah, nature is alive and mindful and intelligent. You're too fast for me!
drcraigvideos 1 month ago
@drcraigvideos I think it's incorrect to describe nature as alive or dead, mindful or oblivious, and intelligent or stupid. Nature is best described as a collection of forces and matter interacting; whether or not it has a mind behind it is another question. Clearly you disagree, and I'd like you to explain if you will :)
therorysnake 1 month ago
@therorysnake Uh, yeah, nature is neither alive or dead. That's a very smart assessment.
drcraigvideos 1 month ago
@drcraigvideos Why would you say it's dead?
therorysnake 1 month ago
@therorysnake Why would you say it's not dead or alive? Either something is alive or not. I mean duh.
drcraigvideos 1 month ago
@ScientificBob No, an answer is only required to answer the question it's based on. That's how it works in everything, including in Science itself. When John Dalton proposed the atom, it raised a whole host of questions. Yet that did not disqualify it as an answer as to why all chemical reactions had whole number stoichiometric ratios.
But it is impossible for Science to explore things beyond the boundaries of space and time, so these will require philosophical answers, not scientific ones.
Satarack 4 months ago
@ScientificBob
Um, actually no...Even in science, new theories which gain evidential support still raise further questions. Why do you think that Physics didn't just stop when Einstein formulated His theories of Relativity? Physicists who worked on the basis of Einstein's theories not only found confirmations of those theories, but they also pondered the new questions that the theories brought into the fore.
calomie 3 months ago
@ScientificBob
Any answer will eventually raise more questions - there is nothing wrong with that. The real questions are if "God" is a viable answer or not, if the answer is coherent, and if has explanatory power.
MindTheHeart 3 months ago
Love the Transformers reference:)
dogooda12 5 months ago
"the time has come to relieve Hawking from his crown". I don't know. he ahd dawkins might have to share that crown, given Hawking's latest book.
lilrat489 5 months ago
Physical properties themselves are evidence of a Maker because most of the most common elements are essential parts that function in life forms. One single such function alone requires a Maker and we have billions of functions all working together inside of us. So the function of hydrogen which exists everywhere in the universe requires a Maker who is the Maker of all matter and the Maker of all matter is not made of the matter that He made to have ordered functions obeying a preexisting word.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
It is amazing at all the videos on YouTube that are like this one. They spend so much effort trying to discredit Dawkins or Evolution as if doing so will make their imaginary friend real somehow. It don't. Even if they could prove every comment by atheists wrong they would not have proven their claim to be right. They still have nothing to support their claim. This is one of the reasons why I reject the theist claim 100%. After thousands of years, still no verifiable evidence (zero, zip, nada)
residentatheist 6 months ago
@residentatheist It's NEVER amazing to me an atheist won't bother listening to this video at all. Craig is open to evolution and doesn't think it is incompatible with theism. Furthermore, Craig was speaking on Dawkins' "central argument" in The God Delusion. If you think the incredibly bad thinking Dawkins has a great argument in his central argument, then eat your heart out. I know of no reputable philosopher (atheist or theist) whoh thinks his argument is a good one.
drcraigvideos 6 months ago 18
@drcraigvideos EXCELLENT rebuttal, my friend! ;-)
advantage73 5 months ago
@drcraigvideos that bothers me that he believes evolution is compatible with scripture.
prn72271 5 months ago
@drcraigvideos lol, that shut him up for good it seems. Nice one=)
myowngenesis 5 months ago
@residentatheist Do you realize of course that the exact same issue works in reverse? So that even if you did refute every argument and claim made by Christians, that would not be enough for you to know that there is no God and say with certainty that is the case? Atheists have to demonstrate why their stance is accurate and more justifiable than the agnostic who merely says, I cannot know so I do not claim to, as opposed to the atheist who says, I believe that there is no God.
Sickopath333 6 months ago
@Sickopath333 "if you did refute every argument and claim made by Christians, that would not be enough for you to know that there is no God and say with certainty that is the case" Yes. But 2 things are important here:
1. The burden of proof is on the side of the proposer of the positive claim. Which is the theist when it comes to claims of existance of personal gods.
2. We COULD say for sure that the christian god does not exist, since the bible would be debunked.
ScientificBob 5 months ago
@residentatheist I think when he says, "when there's a best explanation, you don't need an explanation of that explanation", I almost wonder if he really thinks that's a stable philosophical point. A 'best' argument isn't rationalized by jumping to an arbitrary conclusion in the case of a lack of evidence, since it's at best equal to other propositions. When there is evidence, the evidence 'is' the best explanation for the supposed question, which means a lack of evidence at best says no god.
Camsauce87 4 months ago
@residentatheist "After thousands of years, still no verifiable evidence (zero, zip, nada)" That is begging the question. You've assumed Verificationism, but that is part and parcel of what is being refuted. The title of the video is certainly harsh, but I would say that WLC himself is not trying to discredit Richard Dawkins the man, he is just refuting one of Dawkin's arguments. I'm sure you can find the answers you're looking for, but the vitriol won't help.
KrashOmnis 3 months ago
no wonder Dawkins is avoiding Craig at all costs.
ikawpipa 6 months ago
Life is fleeting ever so fast. Your time on Earth is so very short. If you believe it is only about yourself so be it, I hold no domain over your life. I cannot tell you what to do, or what to say. If you spend your days defiling his name, or praising it...you should know I'm no better than you. We are all equal in the eyes of God. Please know this, banish ur pride, repent you sins, accept what Jesus did for you...and you will be as pure as freshly fallen snow. Copy and paste this msg Christians
supersonicfaceplant 6 months ago
Do you think Dawkins will chicken out again?
LiberalsUtopian 6 months ago
@LiberalsUtopian Yes. But I hope he proves me wrong.
drcraigvideos 6 months ago 2
GOD: "Evolution isn't real - unless the weight of proof is overwhelming, then it's in my plan."
tenaciouscraig 6 months ago 2
@tenaciouscraig : "I don't seem to realize that Craig is open to the theory of evolution and thinks it's compatible with Christianity. Maybe I should stop stereotyping and underestimating Christians. Furthermore, if I wasn't so blind by Dawkins' rhetoric maybe I should start commenting on what this video says instead of making off-topic remarks."
drcraigvideos 6 months ago 7
wow this is extreme sick pawnage.
LiberalsUtopian 6 months ago
Keep up the great work Dr. Craig!
TheTlkloes 6 months ago
Okay, it's really simple. The best argument for the non-existence of God is the non-existence of scientifically verifiable evidence of God's existence. I don't understand what the confusion here is.
Big Bang is Hard to Understand ≠ Magical Sky-Wizard Created Everything
dpaanlka 7 months ago
@dpaanlka You can't prove God scientifically since you can't put God in a science tube, genius. You can't prove everything with science: watch?v=vxJQe_FefxY
drcraigvideos 7 months ago
@drcraigvideos Actually, you can, so long as it physically exists (observable, i.e. the sun, bacteria) or makes reliable, repeatable predictions (theoretical, i.e. big bang, evolution). God doesn't fulfill either of these criteria.
Also, please define "science tube".
dpaanlka 7 months ago
@dpaanlka Of course God doesn't physically exist. So do a lot of other things. The laws of logic are immaterial, invariant, absolute, and necessary, yet it exists immaterially. You speak of something existing physically and scientifically yet you don't even know what a science tube is?
drcraigvideos 7 months ago 8
@drcraigvideos I definitely do not know what a science tube is.
dpaanlka 7 months ago
@dpaanlka LOL!
drcraigvideos 7 months ago
@drcraigvideos The problem is that god is mentioned as existing in the physical sphere... again and again and again he is said to be the creater of the universe - but how can he create anything physical if he's not physical himself? How can he be almighty and omnipotent if he can only be found "inside"? You can't claim god exists before you've even defined what the hell "god" is...
daneimp 6 months ago
@daneimp *SIGH* This is why God is immaterial yet can work with the material world: watch?v=YqzqEFw5_1c. Honestly, why is this so hard for people to figure out?
drcraigvideos 6 months ago
@drcraigvideos William Lane Craig talks about the beginning of the universe from a "logical resonating philosophical" view - not from a mathematic / physics / cosmological view with emperical evidens. There's no emperical basis for claiming that something "not material" / "not physical" can interact with the physical / material sphere. The "not physical" is no more than our brains ability to abstract thought (fantasy) - here I'm not talking about emotions but about thoughts.
daneimp 6 months ago
@daneimp *VERY BIG LONG SIGH* You don't know what you're talking about, do you? Craig uses philosophical and scientific arguments for the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Why do you think he brings up Hilbert's Hotel and the BVG Theorem up, genius. And you haven't even begun to repond to the video link.
drcraigvideos 6 months ago
@drcraigvideos Thanks for the great work, drcraigvideos! I'm getting really sick of all the snooty atheists who seem to think that they are bringing the enlightenment to us barbarians.
synal 6 months ago
@synal
We are trying, but your attachments to outdated bronze-age mythologies are making it extremely difficult.
A logical tangent with an illogical basis is still irrational. Accepting that god exists as the base of the claim is irrational, as it would be to accept the existence of unicorns before rationalising how they may exist in some intangible, unprovable way.
leftovers0 6 months ago
@dpaanlka
There are things that exist that are nonphysical.
Numbers are an abstract idea that do not exist physically. However we know that they exist in some fashion by using logic and reasoning.
The same logic and reasoning can be used for the existence of God.
Basically you are saying, if we cannot observe something with our 5 senses then it doesn't exist.
This is known as verificationism.
However verificationism fails verificationism.
karozans 6 months ago
@karozans Sorry, your God is not analogous to mathematics. For example, the number "5" is label for something we often observe in physical reality. We can count five eggs and five trees and five fingers. The same cannot be said about God in any way. Nobody claims "mathematics" to be a supernatural being that oversees and personally intervenes in the day-to-day tabulation of our affairs.
dpaanlka 6 months ago
Worst argument against the existence of god in Western thought? A bit of hyperbole don't you think!?
Surroundx 7 months ago
@Surroundx Nope. Dawkins is a failure when it comes to proper philosophical thinking.
drcraigvideos 7 months ago
@drcraigvideos Interdisciplinary work does have its risks, but I don't think he failed that badly. If he made some adjustments it would be a sound argument.
Surroundx 7 months ago
@Surroundx I wouldn't call The God Delusion a piece of "interdisciplinary work." The book would fail at any philosophy class. His central argument is laughably and painfully bad. If you think it's a good argument then knock yourself out. In the mean time, I'll be living in reality.
drcraigvideos 7 months ago
I'll only say this.. When discussing philosophy, one shouldnt ignore Occam's razor, and expect to be taking seriously.. Atleast not by thinking people..
deviantsounds 7 months ago
#3 is a summary of the argument from which Dawkins concludes thusly. If Craig doesn't address said argument, he is a disingenuous coward (or just dumb).
quaternio 7 months ago
I loled at the 'bear with wheels'
blackoutninja 7 months ago
@BachScholar Hm... who's Dr. Craig again? I've heard of Dawkins and Hitchens... but never this great debater that you're talking about. Also, it's amazing how obvious it is to me yet still escapes the religious people, He is claiming that none of the arguments Dawkins has stated deductively leads one to the conclusion of there being no god... yet he doesn't explain how these arguments don't lead to that conclusion, he only repeats over and over again that they don't. Good job though, he tried
FenixofWow 7 months ago
Lol! That is the stupidest "rebuttal" of God in the WORLD! So all of a sudden just because Dawkins believes evolution his arguments are valid? Classic indicator of presuppositions! A watch is man made and PROVES the law that things don't just pop into existence, i.e. as Joe Gibbs says in his book, you don't just throw a bunch of parts in a shoe box and shake it around and a watch comes out! His argument is just plain ignorance! So what made the atom we originally evolved from? Itself? ROFL!
Songwriter4God 7 months ago
And so, because a watch is man made the universe isn't designed? And, what if I say the best tool for the universe has been ID? Does that mean I'm right? No! So why's it make him right? I'm also not arrogant enough to claim I'm right by saying that, although there's an abundances of evidence which corresponds with the Biblical worldview, but he'd ignore that, you aren't right becuase you say you're right, you're right becuase you affirm you're right by SCIENCE, not logical fallacies like him.
Songwriter4God 7 months ago
Too much goes unseen by the human eye, or even the mass consciousness to believe that any scientist has a complete picture of all creation. Likewise, there are as many poisonous theologies" infiltrating the Truth as to make both sides seem inept in their understanding of G-d. Just an opinion, though, and I try not to take myself seriously enough to believe I have the right to label anyone a disbeliever, an infidel, or scientifically (im)perfect.
jdavz322 8 months ago
Not needing to explain the designer? Sounds like an excuse to be close minded. Christians have had 10,000 years to figure this out...why not give Rationalists a go? Scientists have only had a couple of hundred years, and look what has been achieved :)
kumaranb 8 months ago
@kumaranb "Not needing to explain the designer?" He's saying that if you know that something was intelligently made that shouldn't lead you to have to know who made the maker since you already know that something was made intellligently. Don't be dishonest about Craig's view. And listen to him closely next time. If 2 is the best explanation (if not the only explanation) for 1+1 does that mean I have to explain 1+1 when it really equals 2? Duh.
drcraigvideos 8 months ago 17
@drcraigvideos You still haven't explained how your god came to be. Dawkins has never denied the possibility that we were created, he merely stated that, if we were, it was by something that evolved, or something created by something that evolved, and so on. Even if you do prove that we were created, you have no way of explaining where that creator came from, and so you still haven't explained anything. You've simply added an extra, unnecessary step in the process of how the universe cam to be.
fishindisguise 8 months ago
Continuing on my previous point, even if we were created by a god, that god demands an explanation also. The core idea of religion, god creating everything, is clearly nonsensical. Dawkins has said there is a possibility that god-like beings exist, but if they do then they or their creators (or their creators, or theirs, and so on) had to have come into being through evolution, and so discussing the notion is a pointless distraction. Ultimately a godless genesis is still the only logical answer.
fishindisguise 8 months ago
@fishindisguise
Nobody here believes in a created God, Einstein.
A created God is by definition a delusion.
God is eternal, who has created time itself, which our minds are limited by. God is outside of time and the Universe.
Your knowledge of basic Theology is terrible.....
tjobv 8 months ago
@tjobv Your basic logic is even worse. A timeless being cannot exist, there is no evidence for its existence, it's completely impossible and thus more unlikely than whatever it explains and it doesn't even make sense. It's simply handwaving away the issue with nonsense words you made up. But even if we do say that something can exist out of time, and thus just exist for no reason at all, why can't we say that the universe is timeless and just exists, thus removing god from the equation entirely?
fishindisguise 8 months ago
@drcraigvideos Yes you do need to explain a God. If your ETERNAL afterlife depends on your committed FAITH to ONE God out of the majority of other gods that came BEFORE the Judeo Christian God was even conceived, then you need to have a solid basis for argument outside of ancient religious scripture based on totalitarianism conformity. This conformity of FAITH demands close mindedness, discourages free thinking, invokes selfishness, and ultimately destroys the idea of morality. No proof needed?
Rainbowsixoperator1 7 months ago
@Rainbowsixoperator1 Can you please read the context of my comment. I wasn't talking about God as an explanation as far as WHAT his attributes are. I'm talking about the principle of explanation. If you think that 2 still needs an explanation for 1+1 then eat your heart out. You won't find an answer though.
drcraigvideos 7 months ago
@drcraigvideos What are you talking about? In order for there to be an explanation for 1 + 1 = 2, you have to explain 1 + 1 = 2. And there is evidence that 1 + 1 = 2. Take 1 rock, now place another rock next to it, now add up the sum of both rocks. You have 2 rocks. You can't compare mathematical language, and phenomenon in this way.
MacabreManifesto 7 months ago
@MacabreManifesto *BIG LONG SIGH* We're talking abou the best explanation for 1+1=2. If 2 is the BEST explanation it wouldn't be good to say that that DOESN'T explain anything when it does. Unless you still think you need an explanation for it. Please, drop the A. D. D. and read what has been written so far.
drcraigvideos 7 months ago
@MacabreManifesto LOL!!
TarriCJx19 1 month ago
@kumaranb Did you really just say, "Christian's have had 10,000 years to figure this out..."? Christianity isn't anywhere near 10,000 years old. And Christianity is barely mentioned in this discussion, nor should it be. Get your facts straight.
Okijuben 7 months ago
DAWKINS: Here is a horribly bad argument against the "probability" of an designing agent responsible for the apparent design seen everwhere we look -- therefore God "probably" umm "almost certainly" does not exist.
SHORT VERSION: God "probably" doesn't exist; therefore God "almost certainly" doesn't exist. Brilliant!
GospelHouseKat 8 months ago
Why isn't there are word like "theophobic" with which we can just trash everything Dawkins says? Because we believers play NICE. Because its nice to be nice. Isn't that nice?
GospelHouseKat 8 months ago
Atheism is the most absurd of philosophical beliefs.
To believe that all the universe is total chaos, is equal to believe in the flying spaghetti monster. The universe is anything but chaos, it is tuned, it is designed, as are cells, and DNA information codes.
To say that all of this came out of nothing, with no cause, with no reason, that everything came into being by time, matter and chance, IS THE HEIGHT OF ABSOLUTE ABSURDITY!
Go visit a doctor immediately if you believe this....
tjobv 8 months ago
@tjobv I'm sorry about the other comment. I thought you were an atheist.
TheTrojantroy 8 months ago
It is an impossibility for a Christian to accept evolution. In evolution things evolved, simply saying, the galaxies, the sun, the animals, the planets were not before what they are now, whereas in Christianity, things were created after its own kind: 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness (Gen 1:26 KJV). God was not a homosapien nor is. First was Adam and all things after its kind and not from water to land or from land to water.
daniloorbolato 8 months ago
@daniloorbolato Craig believes evolution is compatible with Christianity, genius.
drcraigvideos 8 months ago 15
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Rom 1:20
Both can not possibly be true! To try to reconcile: And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul gen 2:7 with guideless mindless chance and necessity without hope over long periods of time.
daniloorbolato 8 months ago
@daniloorbolato If you take out the parts of evolution that are purely naturalistic (that it is unguided, mindless, and pure chance), then it is perfectly compatable with the belief that God formed man (he did so from the stuff of the earth, allowing for a process of millions/billions of years rather than 24 hours). I believe Augustine was one of the first to doubt that the days of Genesis were 24 hour periods (5th century AD). Taken together, God could have used evolution to make humans.
AMWOODco 8 months ago
@AMWOODco Right, thanks for the explanation man! Not like some that say: it is just the way it is!
daniloorbolato 8 months ago
@drcraigvideos Hi, He never refuted the ideas thrown at him about evolutionary origins of all things and men. This cautious approach he has is yes genius in a sense of avoiding career issues and headlines from the evolutionary orthodoxy of science, nonetheless, ingenius regarding the wisdom of the Scripture and the dear role Creation plays in the eyes of God.
daniloorbolato 8 months ago
@drcraigvideos
I never heard him saying that, but if is true it is pretty weird.
Christianity and evo are incompatible. Period.
That said, evo is not going to survive the coming decades, and finds itself in a mayor paradigm shift, with all the negative evidence against it...
tjobv 8 months ago
@tjobv "Christianity and evo are incompatible. Period"
Richard Dawkins? Is that you? I recognize the way you deny God without cause.
TheTrojantroy 8 months ago
@tjobv "Christianity and evo are incompatible. Period." Tell that to Francisco Ayala, Kenneth Miller, Denis Lamoureux, Alister McGrath, Denis Alexander, etc. You have to dump the pop science, dude, and get with the program.
drcraigvideos 8 months ago
@drcraigvideos For the record, I agree that Christianity and evolution are NOT completely incompatible. That said, though, I have to wonder why people are so strident on this topic. I mean, humanity's walking the earth now any way you look at it, so what's the point in arguing?
Stardweller1 8 months ago
@drcraigvideos See my argument, tell the whole "pop science" thing to Ken Ham and friends. Just because it's popular doesn't mean it's right, the Bible asserts Creation, to say Genesis isn't true it's to throw away the infallibility of the Bible, making God a liar. Evolution was invented by man to explain life without God, it's 100% incompatible with the Bible.
Songwriter4God 7 months ago
@tjobv I think you are already overburdened with unfulfilled prophesies. You're really living in a bubble if you think that people are going to abandon science in favour of your beliefs. Is all your knowledge of science from creationist websites, or have you ever actually read some real science ?
TheMortalhuman 8 months ago
@tjobv I agree that the too are not compatible, but I do think many Christian accept evolution who are honest Christians. Many have already been taught all their lives that it is a proven fact (which rarely exist in historical science) and do not realize that it is a result of man's fallible ideas which are easily influenced by satan. My self, for example, never questioned Creation or evolution because I never thought of the two at the same time, when I did I began getting involved in Creation
BeyondtheChaos1 8 months ago
@tjobv science. Several Christians without realizing try to mold the fallible ideas of man with the infallible Word of God. Like Craig says about Dawkins not being a philosipher, Craig is not a biologist. That's nothing against Craig, he does great work in his field of philosphy and may be better of concentrating his arguments in the field he is comfortable and talented in. Still, he should look into creation science, not for argument but just so he'll understand he doesn't have to fix the Bible
BeyondtheChaos1 8 months ago
@drcraigvideos Micro evolution maybe.
GospelHouseKat 8 months ago
@drcraigvideos ...WEll, how does he explain the simple clause in the Bible crushing evolution? According to it's kind. God tells us exactly how He made things, do you not trust God to tell you He did it by evolution if he so clearly tells you He didn't? To not trust one book but trust the others in the Bible is illogical, thusly God is untrustworthy and the nit throws the whole validity and reputation of the Bible off the cliff, thusly, you have problems like God can lie, etc.
Songwriter4God 7 months ago
@drcraigvideos Also, the BIble is of God, evolution is of man, it's an idea made up simply to explain existence without God, this is why organizations like AIG exist contrary to popular belief, it's not for atheists! it's for people like you, who pollute m the world and compromise people's legitimate faith in God and the Bible. I'm real sorry to hear you believe evolution, but I wholeheartedly agree on how dumb his arguments are, he just knows his followers are blind and will accept it.
Songwriter4God 7 months ago
@daniloorbolato lol Wow...way to make an informed comment!
Donnievil 8 months ago
@daniloorbolato C.S. Lewis explains the compatability of evolution and Christianity in his book Mere Christianity. Go read it.
GrizzlyMonkey15 8 months ago
@GrizzlyMonkey15 Heard of it before! That's what C.S. Lewis says. What do you say?
daniloorbolato 8 months ago
@daniloorbolato I would have to say that it doesn't really matter. Christianity is true regardless of whether or not evolution is true. Though I don't think macro evolution is proven, I also think that if it were to be proven, it would not disprove God's role as the creator of the universe, life, and specifically us. I mean no offense in saying this and I respect your opinion if you think evolution can't co-exist with creation.
GrizzlyMonkey15 8 months ago
@GrizzlyMonkey15 I think you are right, who knows. Maybe I am wrong in thinking like that i don't know.
daniloorbolato 8 months ago
@daniloorbolato Does it say how long it took to create? Or how it happened in detail?
FruKaos 8 months ago
@FruKaos What do you see in reading the very words of Genesis ch. 1?
daniloorbolato 8 months ago
@daniloorbolato I see that God created everything we know and in what order. I Do NOT see how long it took or what Adam was before he was fully created...
FruKaos 8 months ago
@FruKaos Right, I think you are right! We do not know how long it took. It could have taken 13.7 billion years as science tells us or less or even more I don't dispute that, however, if Adam was something before He became Adam then he was not created. The Hebrew grammar show things being created out of nothing. if all things were created and did not evolved to what they are now why does Adam have to evolve and not be created just like everything else? I don't see how that is logical.
daniloorbolato 8 months ago
@daniloorbolato So if Adam did not evolve he must have emerged out of nothing i no time. (Even if it would have taken just a sec from nothing to man he evolved.) I have no problem if God created man over a period of time but I don't know how long it took and tbh it is not really interesting. The salvation through Jesus is interesting though :)
FruKaos 8 months ago
@FruKaos You bet it is
way way more interesting!
daniloorbolato 8 months ago
@daniloorbolato
Yeah, no. Charles Darwin, the man who proposed evolution, was Christian, just so you know.
Davey20071 8 months ago
@Davey20071 Right, he was... by word at least. After the losses he had he came to seriously doubt the insufficient remaining faith he had. To say I, he or she is a Christians is not enough my friend. Many says Jesus was God but no one do things He said to do, therefore, they are not His disciples ,or, in other words Christians that is Christ disciples.
daniloorbolato 8 months ago
testing
Davey20071 8 months ago
@daniloorbolato "It is an impossibility for a Christian to accept evolution." If this were true then no Christians would accept evolution (since that would be impossible for them to do." But many do. Ergo, you are mistaken.
berettaNZ 8 months ago
The fighting can just stop since there is contradiction then. But God is personal has a purpose and provides hope and justice while evolution denies all those things among many others that only a God could provide not evolution.
daniloorbolato 8 months ago
@berettaNZ @berettaNZ There could be a entire nation accepting something and still not making it true it doesn't depend on them to make it so. Otherwise all would be true. Look around you. Neither does "many Christians" accepting evolution makes it (evolution) true but worse does damage and contradicts the teaching and the person he/she profess to serve in the first place.
daniloorbolato 8 months ago
@daniloorbolato There are many interpretations of Genesis. For example
Augustine imagined a long drawn out creation based on what he read in Genesis. Special creation (which is what you are talking about) didn't become popular until after Darwin actually.
So evolution assuming it's true isn't really an issue for theism or Christianity for that matter.
KBrimstone 8 months ago
@KBrimstone "Special creation (which is what you are talking about) didn't become popular until after Darwin actually."
I think it is becoming more popular as science confirms many of the predictions of young earth creationists.
ozredneck22 8 months ago
(4) You presented, in your argument, nothing that is Scriptural nor your own thoughts but their! "They" is too many. I have been through "they" also, but what does the Scripture says? Fancy names in Theology and all those theories that you presented is of private interpretation and can be disproven to same extent whereas the Bible is not.
daniloorbolato 8 months ago
@daniloorbolato Look up Ad Hominem fallacy becuase that's what the 4th post is. There is nothing for me to respond to.
While you at it look up Genetic Fallacy. That's in there too.
KBrimstone 8 months ago
(3) And the dominion, authority and all its properties included free will that men after is (likeness) over all the rest of Creation has, as He declared for we are after His likeness. God is not (IT) nor formeless! English can not convey this idea but Hebrew does! I am acquainted with mico-macro evo and I do not dismiss changes when breading, for we all know that, however, that is not where or how you come from for all things were created after its own kind included you!
daniloorbolato 8 months ago
@daniloorbolato No one said God is an it. However he is a disembodied mind. That's one of the fundamentals of Christianity.
Again none of what you're typing has to do with the truthfulness of Christian Theism. I could go any where from Creationism to Theistic Evolution and still be within my rational rights as a Christian. First you need to figure out if God exists and if Jesus is a revelation of him, then you can have in house debate about doctrine. lol
KBrimstone 8 months ago
(2) In fact that is what the Torah and Tanakh and the whole Scripture is all about, a serious error!
The Hebrew is clear and precise: In our image after our likeness clearly consisted both in the form of His body, and the erect stature of it, different from all other creatures At His (image), in agreement with the idea of that body (Jesus') prepared in covenant for the Son of God by which He came and remain as a man!
daniloorbolato 8 months ago
@daniloorbolato No. It has never been believed within Christian or Jewish scholarship that God has a physical body. Having the “image” or “likeness” of God means, in the simplest terms, that we were made to resemble God. Adam did not resemble God in the sense of God’s having flesh and blood. Scripture says that “God is spirit” (John 4:24) and therefore exists without a body.
KBrimstone 8 months ago
@KBrimstone I am convinced by the Scripture God exists and Jesus is His only son and the only way to Him. You as a Christian had to be sure of that too! I will look at Hominem Fallacy and hope you will look at the Bible not as "needing secular explanations" but inerrant, fot it interprets itself, so when you respond to someone you don't "go anywhere from this to that and that to this" but precise.
daniloorbolato 8 months ago
@daniloorbolato Now your arguing semantics.. God is most certainly not an it. It implies non-person. The very nature of God is a person. Now in the English (and most languages) third-person, singular personal pronouns are either feminine or masculine same goes for ancient Hebrew. Now the authors of the Bible use the masculine in regards to God, becuase God is authoritative and such we attribute masculine form when referring to about him.
KBrimstone 8 months ago
@daniloorbolato I don't think the bible needs secular explanations. I hope you don't think that's what I'm doing here. I think when reading the Bible you need proper hermeneutics.
To me the best interpretation of the creation account in Genesis isn't 24 hour days.
Also I believe the bible is Inerrant however I don't think it's a necessity to accept Christian belief.
KBrimstone 8 months ago
@KBrimstone The Greek says "noun genitive masculine singular for Jesus and the Hebrew noun common masculine plural absolute for Elohim, plus what I said previously. Pretty sure you can make anything out of that "within your rational rights as a Christian". The exchange of Scriptual certainty for more confortable and acceptable when possible.
daniloorbolato 8 months ago
@KBrimstone Right, I think you are correct in saying that God has no physical body, Christianity and Judaism certainly don't and neither did I. The Scripture declares so and I aware of it. You answered: No He is not (it) and I say: yes but He is not formless nor without gender either. Adam just resembling God, in the aspects you showed, is indeed the simplest term, I think it goes far deeper than that.
daniloorbolato 8 months ago
@KB(1) The "many interpretations of Genesis" can not all be true, neither is up to Augustine to decide nor you. What you call "special creation" the Bible calls the creation of God. Half an issue still an issue, your "really" is elementary. The mindless guideless without purpose, hope and destiny is a huge issue for the work done since the beginning of creation. It is on these principals that the faith in one God one Creator of all things (He alone) is founded, thousands of years before Darwin.
daniloorbolato 8 months ago
@daniloorbolato 1) The point is this... Young Earth or Old, Creationist or Evolutionist neither comment on the truth of Christian theism. Everything else is a red herring.
KBrimstone 8 months ago
@daniloorbolato Also if you are arguing against some thing it is a good idea to know about them. Man being created in the image of God does not mean looks like man looks like God.
In classical theology God doesn't have hands, legs, or genitals much less a humanoid body. He is a non physical mind where as we are physical beings. So it can't mean God is giant human or some such nonsense. No, it means we like God have mind and therefor freewill.
KBrimstone 8 months ago
@daniloorbolato also it is good to not attack a straw man. Even young earth special creationists believe that in some form of descent with modification. They don't think lions, sheep, or dogs for example were there in the garden of Eden but some prior predecessor. They take issue with the age of the earth (which I do not agree) and issue with Tigers, bats and octopuses having a common ancestor.
Christian theists can hold to either Intelligent design of theistic evolution as an alternative.
KBrimstone 8 months ago
@daniloorbolato MICRO-evolution is what we currently know of. (Birds evolving to change color, etc.) Darwin made a theory known as MACRO-evolution. This is the strange, and very unlikely, theory that entire species evolved into others. It's a scientist job to be wrong, but atheists cling to this theory dispute it's improbability.
TheTrojantroy 8 months ago
By WLC definition God is "material-less, space-less, time-less, and (1)PERSONAL."
If it were not for (1) then God would be nothing.
WLC supports (1) by (2)ATTRIBUTES: designer, creator, moral law giver, etc...
If (2) is shown to be false (in this case designer), doesn't that make God nothing? Atleast a God that is not a designer?
Does anyone agree or disagree?
where have I erred?
idky1349 8 months ago
One example of how biased Craig's thinking is his comment that the nonexistence of soul implies in nonexistence of God. It is a common Christian flaw to think that, proving the existence of a God immediately or obviously implies that everything Christianity commonly believes is true. That alone is already enough for me not to consider him seriously.
gugamilare 8 months ago
@gugamilare [[proving the existence of a God immediately or obviously implies that everything Christianity commonly believes is true. ]] This is flat out inaccurate. Dr.Craig points this out within the first minutes of video "William Lane Craig Responds to Atheist Lawrence Krauss". So the argument is cumulative and voluminous. And he has said it simply is the most plausible of the arguments when contended together. it is the entire body of investigation that makes it so convincing.
MayonR 8 months ago
@MayonR I'm sorry, but it is not convincing, I have watched the entire video and there are several flaws. His argument is only convincing for theists, people who want to believe him. He argues with philosophy against evolution as the origin of species, that is just stupid. There are lots of concrete evidence of evolution and philosophy can go wherever you want when it is not bound with the real world.
That is why Dawkins don't even debate with creationists, it is a waste of time.
gugamilare 8 months ago
@gugamilare If Craig argued against evolution then why does he defend its compatibility with theism? You don't know what you're talking about, do you? And I truly doubt you watched the video.
drcraigvideos 8 months ago
@gugamilare [[evolution and philosophy can go wherever you want when it is not bound with the real world.]]In the video I listed he doesn't argue philosophy over evolution which is metaphysics in itself. And Craig does adhere to foundationalism so you are wrong that he doesn't bind them to the real world. And do you know what form of Creation Craig takes, because it sounds like your generalizing?
MayonR 8 months ago
@gugamilare Yea, because debating Pastors, Cardinals, and Bishops is so much better use of his time. Maybe Dawkins is afraid of debating someone who has some knowledge of the current physics model and biology.
karozans 8 months ago
@gugamilare [[proving the existence of a God immediately or obviously implies that everything Christianity commonly believes is true. ]] This is flat out inaccurate. Dr.Craig points this out within the first minutes of video "William Lane Craig Responds to Atheist Lawrence Krauss". So the argument is cumulative and voluminous. And he has said it simply is the most plausible of the arguments.
MayonR 8 months ago
"Dr. William Lane Craig raises a hammer and smashes the so-called 'unrebuttable refutation' into a thousand pieces"
Yeah... only in Christians' minds!
Come on, he talks about how the universe is fine-tunned for life. The universe is not nearly fine-tunned for life.
gugamilare 8 months ago
@gugamilare Actually, I'm a Zen Buddhist who doesn't believe in a personal God and I also believe that this video clearly shows Dr. Lane Craig OWNING Richard Dawkins and his pathetic half arguments, especially 7:00 in. There is no scientific evidence for God, fine...but where is the existential evidence for the greatness of science? What if I am not a scientific Rationalist & have some other philosophical school of thought that is not based on scientific evidence? Dawkins is OWNDED
mysticresistence 8 months ago
Nobody can even hold a candle to Dr. Craig's arguments. He tears apart Dawkins and Hitchens and all other atheist debaters. His thinking and use of language are razor sharp, almost computer-like.
BachScholar 8 months ago 9
@BachScholar yes i agree almost computer-like, but at the same time he conveys thoughts and ideas in a way which is easy for the lay person to understand.
dtadeo2006 8 months ago
@BachScholar "his thinking is razor sharp"
OMG did u just falcon punch yourself? why'd u do that? Considering this as being of high intellectual value, makes it seems like your not only uneducated but infact stupid
deviantsounds 7 months ago
Comment removed
TheStrangeControl 8 months ago
@TheStrangeControl *SIGH* Dr. Craig is not a creationist: watch?v=_IQoLg7w-_4.
drcraigvideos 8 months ago
Dr Craig needs to break his points in more lay man terms.
Nazam44 8 months ago
Think what you may about Dr.Craig, the man is a philosophical BEAST! lol He would smash Dawkins, just like he did to Hitchens in a debate. I like Hitchens, he's a cool guy, as a Christian we have to be sensitive to the fact that everyone doesn't think like we do, we have to love them anyway, just like Jesus loved us before the foundations of the world. God Bless!
TheMethadoneParty 8 months ago
Open a tap and fill your cup with water. What are the odds of your glass being filled with those exact drops of water. Think about how many drops of water there are on this planet yet you happened to get those drops in your cup.
Trillions of trillions to one.
But those drops of water DO make it to your cup.
It must be a miracle. A god must have directed those drops to be together at that time and that place......or not.
holdontoyourwig 9 months ago
There's really only one necessary argument against god.
Omniscience and omnipotence are mutually exclusive, if the future is perfectly known, nothing can have the power to alter it in any way.
God debunked.
HowToBeAGentleman 9 months ago
@HowToBeAGentleman Not quite. This argument only works for a God that exists within a timeline with a fixed future. But you're then leaving out omipresence. I'll explain it this way: If I have already written a book, I exist outside of it's timeline, knowing what will happen. But because I exist outside of it, I can alter it. God is the same way. Nice try, though. Better than Dawkins.
AnonymousProgramer 9 months ago
@AnonymousProgramer Your'e confused of the concept. The classical theistic God (the God you happen to believe in by accident and upbringing) cannot be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibeneovlent (the triarchic model of Gods qualities) as they are incomaptible when suffering occurs. Either suffering exists because God is not all powerful, he doesn't know about it, or he doesn't care. Might be why he was such a nasty malicious God in Genesis (made up scripture, equally as invalid as others).
DannyDojo 9 months ago
@DannyDojo Have you ever read The Problem of Pain by C.S Lewis? It sheds a lot of light on the issue of suffering.
AnonymousProgramer 9 months ago
i disagree .. this is the second dumbest argument dawkins ever made ...the dumbest is "we're all athiest" .. sami does a good job of debunking this watch?v=iJ_rKGdYdO4
0ptimusbibIe 9 months ago
What I would like to know is, what is the worst argument in eastern thought?
SPR4GOD 9 months ago
@Upermonotheismos Why on earth would Darwin scare you? Come to that why would any atheist scare you, we simply do not believe in God because of the observable evidence science has provided. I'm not quite sure what route you're going off on your own accord with regards to better explanations, science doesn't attempt to find better explanations of what is already known! Refuting where human evolution is refuting science, for what possible reason would you do that, faith or no faith?
DannyDojo 9 months ago
People of good faith, please quit discussing with atheists and spare your life time. They will never find the "evidence" they claim to be searching, no matter what you offer them, don't you realize that? It is not a matter of logic and intelligence (Craig is the most reasonable believer in the world); it is a matter of bad will. They hate God. Dawkins hate God, for He just reveals how selfish Dawkins is.
feanando 9 months ago 12