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

Click to add a description...

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Click
• to
• add
• keywords...

[daronstayo]

you people don't listen to words, you just look and observe and care about hand movements and way of speaking, LISTEN TO THE WORDS.

[Christianjr4]

Great point!! I understand your feelings here and I agree with them. All too often, people get caught up on the rhetoric of the speaker, but not the arguments. But it's the arguments that really matter at the end of the day. Unfortunately, this is a problem for both Atheists and Theists, indeed everyone.

[luisdstripper]

I've watched many videos of WLC's debates with Athiests and he always uses the same five points, you'll think that athiests would gotten smart by now and found a way to refute them. For every objection to his points he always has ,what seems to be, a logical answer. He is by far one of the best debaters I've seen.

[ErikDRamirezJr]

I'm surprised that this was all Antony Flew had to say in defense of his position. It is safe to say that all of Antony's major arguments were refuted, without the fear of someone accusing me of being biased. It seemed that Dr. William Lane Craig was on another level as an apologist and debater. Overall, I had fun watching this debate in particular. Though, I must say, that it was certainly one-sided.

-Erik D. Ramirez Jr.

[urcorrect]

This is a poor question to debate because we haven't a good definition or evidence for 'god' (so the affirmative fails by default), and to disprove something that is undefined or that transcends our reality is impossible (so the opposition fails by default). Arguments to support either position must be fallacious. I'm glad Flew basically understood and declared as much, however I wish he had more thoroughly refuted Craig's kalamist, moral, and fine tune premises (idk why he gets away with them).

[gymcrackery]

I dont a crap about "presentation" I DID listen to what Flew said and it was absolutely lacking. I cant even count how many times he claims something is "impossible" and then gives no real reason why. "Its IMPOSSIBLE" to know this or assume that or anything! He's not trying to PROVE God exists, he's trying to prove its the most logically founded assumption.

[Stairc]

@quranresponse Right. Just keep posting parts of your book. I'm sure that mindless repetition and chanting of the same desert scribblings by people who didn't know what the stars were is the true path to learning about the universe. It's also the path to gaining self respect and the respect of others.

Sad thing is, in your community you probably think it is.

[quranresponse]

@rlybusy Quran:

(Surah-4-the women-vs-17)

Repentance with Allah is only for those who do evil in ignorance, then turn (to Allah) soon, so these it is to whom Allah turns (mercifully), and Allah is ever knowing, wise.

18-and repentance is not for those who go on doing evil deeds, until when death comes to one of them, he says: surely now I repent; nor (for) those who die while they are unbelievers. These are they for whom we have prepared a painful chastisement.

[quranresponse]

@Stairc Quran:

(Surah-2-the cow-vs-186)

And when my servants ask you concerning me, then surely I am very near; I answer the prayer of suppliant when he calls on me, so they should answer my call and believe in me that they may walk in the right way.

[Stairc]

@HMSRedbeard If you like, I can explain the enormous fallacies in each and every one of Craig's points in this debate. Frankly, I'm amazed at how weak Flew was here. Craig is a convincing speaker but his arguments are almost laughably flawed on several levels. Any chain of reasoning falls apart when a single link of that chain is demonstrably flawed, but Craig's arguments sometimes have every SINGLE link in that chain flawed - like Kalaam cosmology. All three points are flawed.

[Stairc]

@luisdstripper If you like, I can forward you to several videos where atheists DO refute these points in totality, or I can do it myself if you like. All of Craig's arguments hinge on vast fallacies that sound convincing but when picked apart are easy to dismantle.

[rlybusy]

@allan3141 In the broadest use of the term devoid of all specific consideration deism is a type of theism that's correct. But theism as properly defined requires a very strict ideological framework - one that functional deism typically rejects entirely. Merely saying "Well a deist believes in a God so they are theists," is a play on use of broad definitions, while ignoring details that help distinguish the two. Theists need miracles whereas deists reject a God who intervenes in human affairs.

[TruthSeekingOne]

You can't deny Antony Flew as a very smart man, but I take the opinion that William Lane Craig won this debate hands down.