William Lane Craig vs Peter Atkins (HQ) 9/11

This is the 1998 debate between Dr. William Lane Craig and Dr. Peter W. Atkins in high quality.

.....................................THE DEBATE.....................................
WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE FOR/AGAINST THE EXISTENCE OF GOD?

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• William
• Lane
• Craig
• Peter
• Atkins
• F.
• Buckley
• Atheism
• Theism

[MrLinkinparkrules]

The causes Atkins gives are plausible, but not confirmed, this still doesn't give the answers required to the debate, rather faith in a cause, and that's what Christianity is about, faith, so it would rather damage his argument than support it. One chooses to believe without 100% proof. Faith.

[OSTube1]

Oh, and CSI 36AD is a pretty shaky foundation for any argument, no matter how much of an expert you are.

[OSTube1]

LOL @ 1:10 ! Yes, Craig, they could have been bored. You can laugh but at least it's not an explanation that requires a supernatural cause. Atkins looks for the plausible, possible and NATURAL causes first. Unless those are ruled out completely, there is no need for a SUPERNATURAL explanation, which is by its very definition far more outlandish and farfetched.

[MrGunwitch]

@211bEanS112

Just the kind of erudition one would expect from an admirer of WLC.

Add your IQ to WLC's, double it, and you are approaching me peon

[211bEanS112]

@MrGunwitch HAHA the cheek of morons like you. It's one thing to try critically analyse rationally what they are saying but to call a genius like that with twice as high an IQ as you stupid...I need not even say. And "indoctrination"? In what religious text is any of his scientific deductions? IDIOT haha

[MrGunwitch]

@211bEanS112

Revolutionary only in the extent and breadth of his utter stupidity...he is the poster boy for indoctrination

[211bEanS112]

@MrGunwitch I really think you are wasting your time arguing with this person. I have NEVER seen such a one sided debate in all my life and it is pure folly anyone who wishes to say that Atkins even had a leg to stand on throughout this debate. Craig is revolutionary I believe. I have major difficulties with a lot of aspects of the church but I believe a lot of people can learn from this man. He will never get the publicity with the way the media is inclined today.

[fasteddief]

A simple refutation of Craig is the conspiracy theory argument: If someone claims that the twin towers were bombed by CIA agents, then it is impossible to refute because whenever a claim is made in defense of the accepted dogma, it is asserted that 'that's what they want you to think'. when the Stoics claimed that nothing could be proven objectively - greek scholars crushed this argument by saying that they had to be skeptical of their own skepticism, and skeptical of the skepticism of ..etc

[MrGunwitch]

@mollkatless

Atkins clearly wins because Craig is talking complete rubbish. Rubbish spoken well is just well-spoken rubbish.

Typical hare-brained comment from a youtube weekend warrior...do you really think Atkins could hold down a professorship at Oxford, (in chemistry no doubt), just through nepotism? Do you have any conception of how incredibly demanding that role would be? Of course you'd need to be a college grad to have even a slight hope of answering that question...

[mollkatless]

@MrGunwitch - okay, lets just focus on the basics:  who won the debate? do you say the atheists I mentioned are confused about debate skills and oratory skills? each has said he is a strong debater, you see clearly and the rest of us are all confused?

I guess I can see why you are so impressed with atkins, he also manages to say nothing of signifcance, only he did it for much longer than you so far. Incidentally, I think he got into oxford because his father was an alumnist