William Lane Craig vs Lewis Wolpert 1/12

Is God a Delusion? Professors William Lane Craig and Lewis Wolpert debate.

Moderated by BBC's John Humphrys.

Hosted by the University and Colleges Christian Fellowship (UCCF)

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• William
• Lane
• Craig
• Lewis
• Wolpert
• Is
• God
• Delusion
• Atheism
• Theism
• Richard
• Dawkins
• John
• Humphrys

[TimEddyHughes]

"Is God a Delusion".

Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: Yeah.

[FeignofCordor]

Awesome upload thanks

[RosesTimes]

Dawkins has claimed, “As for religion … nobody wields a sharper bayonet than Sam Harris.” Harris debated Craig on 7th April. In his opening statement in that debate, Harris declared that Dr Craig is “the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists.” After that debate, the atheist website Debunking Christianity reported: “Bill (Craig) has once again showed himself as the best debater of this generation.” ROFL LMFAO

[SophiasHeir]

@pantherfanatic7 which is a really flawed argument and pure rationalization. Free will is compromised if we understand that once we were created, we had not the choice to be free or to decide if we wanted to live. God didn't care while playing his selfish little game of creation and that's why he's not benevolent...

[shizzleman8]

@StupidTheist The uploader of this video, Christianjr4, taught me several importing points about sharing my ideas with others especially those whose ideas differ. "We're all in agreement here, all sound minds agree". What he was saying is that all sound minds definitely don't agree, but by being disagreeable we accomplish nothing. People change when they get ready to not when we try and get them to. What do YOU hope to gain? I do this because piano practice is difficult. Peace

[pantherfanatic7]

@lenoka logically compatible, by using the libertarian free will argument.

[pantherfanatic7]

@lenoka How is that at all a circular argument? That's just rational. I've decided to finish typing this comment. That's why I know I'm going to finish typing this comment. That's not at all circular.

What omnipotence game? Pointing out that God cannot do the logically impossible is not a serious objection. Me and you agree that God can't do that which is logically impossible, so it's not a real objection. Just semantics.

That's not Craig's argument at all. He shows that God and evil are

[lenoka]

@pantherfanatic7 So the fact that God will do X in two weeks is the reason why God knows (right now) what he will do X in two weeks? Yet another circular argument.

Why yes, we can play the omnipotence game as long as we like, at some point arriving at the realization that God either isn't responsible for anything at all; or that He works in mysterious ways (Craig's attempt at refuting the Problem of Evil).

[pantherfanatic7]

@lenoka It's not a cop out. Expecting God to do the logically impossible, by definition, makes no sense. But if you contend that God should be able to do the logically impossible, then fine. God can create a impenetrable shield, and pierce through it with an unstoppable sword

As CS Lewis said Saying nonsense doesn't become any less nonsense by adding "God can" to the beginning of it

No, that's, like I said, a logical fallacy in modal logic. His future actions affect his knowledge not vice versa

[lenoka]

@pantherfanatic7 As predicted, the "almost omnipotent" copout. Concerning omniscience you're just reiterating my point. The existence of any thing omniscient renders absolutely everything absolutely powerless.

[pantherfanatic7]

@lenoka That commits a logical fallacy in modal logic. God's omniscience are not determinant of his choices. It's the other way around. God knows what he will choose, but that does not mean to say that God is therefore rendered useless or powerless. Now you could ask, "Could God change His mind?" But that would be a meaningless question, for God is a changless being, so He cannot change His mind.

Omnipotence does not entail the ability to do that which is logically impossible.

[lenoka]

@pantherfanatic7 Once we add omniscience it gets even more ridiculous. If God is omniscient, he knows his own decisions in advance, which means that all of his actions, thoughts etc. are absolutely predetermined, rendering him completely impotent.

A few thousand years ago, gods were responsible for everything. Natural disasters, disease, whatever... every time we come up with a natural explanation, naturalism is vindicated a bit more, and supernaturalism becomes more silly.