Part 5 Atheism VS Theism - Where does the evidence point?

Fine Debate between two able speakers on the existence of God

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• William
• Lane
• Craig
• Apologetics
• Christian
• debate
• atheist

[rokkvi1]

This theist is better than most theists at making his arguments, but the atheist still thoroughly owns him at every turn.

[Th3HondaGuy]

@carrotsan Well, there is more evidence that Jesus existed than Shakespeare. That's fairly significant I think.

[semitope]

@carrotsan Jesus is a fact. No person who works in the field disputes it. Find something else to pick on or do some actual research

[Blackout949597]

they should not be debating about god , they should debate while prayers are not answered!!!! Thats were they lose ground to science because the laws of nature are not suspended for any one. period!!!!!!

[crankenstyne]

Also, he keeps saying that atheists ONLY argument against the existence of god is the lack of evidence of that god, and that if god existed there would be MORE evidence of his existence. Excuse me, MORE evidence? He keeps talking about MORE evidence than there is- as if there was ANY. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER IN SUPPORT OF GOD'S EXISTENCE. In the entire span of mankind's existence no one has been able to find one single shred of concrete evidence of a god. None. Zero. Nada.

[crankenstyne]

The theist is a complete buffoon. "What is the evidence for atheism?" This is a moronic question. Sure, we all know what he meant by his the question, but the answer to his question as he worded it is simply "There are people who do not believe in any sort of supreme being, hence atheism is true." If you're going to debate, at least learn to word your questions correctly.

[clipsryan]

Sooooooo this theist's book isn't evidence of absense? We know Pluto exists and have the ability to study what it's made of. We can also study the source of this guy's god and conclude that it's claims actually feed the absense of evidence for his god. If he was a deist, he wouldn't have this problem though he wouldn't be able to defend his god unless he applied relevancy to him like religion.

[wownov83]

@hoopwizz I didn't claim we knew anything of such fundamental importance. What are you talking about?

[hoopwizz]

@wownov83 What caused the big bang should that theory be correct is definitely an issue. And a god as we conceptualize it is as unlikely as you claim. But what I am saying is that we profoundly do not understand the nature of existence itself. We have no clue how there is anything at all so to claim we know anything about what else exists in the universe is pompous.

[wownov83]

@hoopwizz I disagree. Both leprechauns and god are equally unlikely to me. What caused the big bang is a non-issue. The existence of god is no more likely than the existence of any other fictional being.

[hoopwizz]

@wownov83 Yes, but that is something we can be fairly sure of, we have pretty real proof of the natural conditions of our world. But we can't even begin to imagine our origins. We can't even comprehend the origins of the universe. You can tell me "it was the big bang theory" Ok, what caused the big bang? I'm not saying there is any god, especially in the religious sense, but there is something or there could be something that we don't understand. And I think all we can say is: I dont know.

[wownov83]

@hoopwizz Yeah, but you're really dealing with a side-issue here. I already said that god couldn't be proven nor disproven, so I know that absolute truth is unknowable. But ask a random person on the street if he thinks if leprechauns exist. He will tell you, with CERTAINTY, that they don't exist. If you told him that he might be wrong because there might be one hiding in a hill in Ireland, he would probably laugh at you. Yet, applied to god, we get responses like yours...