Arif Ahmed vs William Lane Craig: Is Belief In God Reasonable? (5 of 8)

Cambridge Lecturer in Philosophy, Arif Ahmed, debates Christian Apologist William Lane Craig on the question: is belief in god reasonable? This debate took place in 2009, at Cambridge University.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• god
• atheist
• atheism
• william lane craig
• arif ahmed
• Cambridge
• philosophy
• cosmology
• evolution
• kalam cosmological argument
• debate religion
• christian apologist

[atheistcommonsense]

@Autumn6 but something can be non-physical and interact with the physical. The teapot is metaphysical teapot, so you fail.

[Law19157]

@vanKrapfen also I admit to things I do believe and don't believe I don't try and get around it by a "lack of" definition,

[Law19157]

@vanKrapfen lol! I'd have to agree with Autumn6

[Law19157]

@vanKrapfen Ah huh...yeah, that's great...in other words you made it up..."I believe in" & "I believe" is the same, look up the word "Believe" in the dictionary, in fact I'll do it for you. -Believe: 1. Accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of: "the superintendent believed Lancaster's story". 2. Accept the statement of (someone) as true-

[Autumn6]

Dr. Ahmed's rebuttal SUCKED! I really thought he would come out swinging after Dr. Craig's rebuttal, but he just straight up ran out of fuel.

[Autumn6]

@vanKrapfen We don't disbelieve in flying teapots or invisible pink unicorns because there's no evidence. We disbelieve in flying teapots and invisible pink unicorns because there's GOOD EVIDENCE AGAINST these things. Teapots are material objects and thus would be seen flying about. Because there aren't any flying about, we have good reason to believe they DON'T exist. Secondly, Invisible pink Unicorns couldn't possibly exist....as nothing can be both pink and invisible at the same time.

[vanKrapfen]

@vanKrapfen *...no evidence for THEM*

[vanKrapfen]

@Law19157 It's called making an argument. You know, using reason and logic to make a point. None of it requires any recourse to authority. Try it yourself, it's fun!

[vanKrapfen]

@Law19157 Well, this is very easily refuted by pointing out the old canard that there are an infinity of things we don't think are true precisely because there is no evidence for it. All those Russell's Teapots, Invisible Pink Unicorns and Flying Spaghetti Monsters make this point very succinctly. That you believe they don't exist proves that you operate under the same principle and only deny it when it's inconvenient for you. Cognitive dissonance – isn't it a wonderful thing?

[Law19157]

@vanKrapfen you gonna have to site where you pulled this out of