Hitchens @ Christian Book Expo 2009 (1/12)

A panel (William Lane Craig, Christopher Hitchens, Douglas Wilson, Lee Strobel) discusses if the God of Christianity exists and if it matters. The discourse took place in March, 2009 at the Christian Book Expo.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• William
• Lane
• Craig
• Christopher
• Hitchens
• Four
• Horsemen
• New
• Atheism
• Atheists
• Atheist
• Sam
• Harris
• Richard
• Dawkins
• Douglas
• Wilson
• Lee
• Strobel
• Creationist
• Creationism
• Book
• Expo
• 2009
• Does
• God
• Exist
• Christianity
• Christian
• Religion
• Jesus
• Christ

[CommieKid]

I just witnessed 4 idiots get crucified. I am now a believer.

[yvranx]

4:25 to skip the intro.

[BenBenz16]

to go from being an atheist to a believer i can only say: wow nice logics

[flyinbluedot]

@yvranx God bless you.

[YashinNashi]

"...the universe and time began in the big bang.... whatever begins to exist has a cause... the universe has a cause..." "...this cause must, itself, be uncaused..." WHAT! How does this make any sense at all? The only uncaused cause according to his own words is something that did not begin to exist, if something didn't begin to exist then it does not currently exist, therefore, this uncaused cause cannot exist, so there is no uncaused cause.

[ccsmiley2]

"People in this world look at things mistakenly, and think that what they do not understand must be the void. This is not the true void. It is bewilderment."

[DevilMayFry]

@tublet13 But if you can make baseless claims that God can exist without having needed to begin, then I can say that the universe began to exist without needing a cause. Yes/no?

Also I have gone in depth, I showed you the argument. Go to: reddit(dot)com/r/atheism/comme­nts/leahr/what_­is_your_rebutt­al_to_the_cosmol­ogical/c2rzog­v

[tublet13]

@DevilMayFry Please go in depth in rebuttal, considering ALL atheists who try violate this premise against such people as WLC have failed horribly and made themselves look like fools, maybe you can help them out?

[tublet13]

@DevilMayFry Well if you stick to the initial premise adopted *Whatever begins to exist has a cause* and you do find yourself at god, the problem with your universe example is the universe is the actual beginning of time and space (read that carefully) so we can deduct the universe BEGAN to exist..it is logically coherent with the argument (and science)

[DevilMayFry]

@tublet13 I would also refer you to this r/atheism/comments/leahr/what_­is_your_rebuttal_to_the_cosmol­ogical/c2rzogv

Put that in the address bar after reddit(dot)com

[DevilMayFry]

@tublet13 but I would rather just say: "What's changed here is in the initial premise, which is intended to circumvent the infinite regress problem through special pleading. Essentially, what it now says is "Everything needs a cause... Except for god". There are still several problems with this argument. First of all, if god can be uncaused, then why cannot the universe be too?"

And then refer you to my other comments further explaining.

[DevilMayFry]

@tublet13 That's weird that you should reply to that comment when I go over that in my later comments, written in response to the same person. What you're saying is the Kalam variant of the cosmological argument.

The Kalam variant

Everything which began to exist has a cause.

If you follow the chain of events backwards through time you will eventually arrive at the first cause.

This cause must, itself, be uncaused.

This First Cause is God.

I can go really in depth for the rebuttal...