"Is There a God?": William Lane Craig vs. Victor Stenger. (part 2)

Debate between theologian William Lane Craig and scientist Victor Stenger at the University of Hawaii.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Is
• There
• God
• William
• Lane
• Craig
• Victor
• Stenger
• theism
• atheism
• Christianity
• Christian
• debate
• science
• theology

[Madz1987]

For something to "exist" based on the definition of the word it has to be physical and material. Everything that exists is natural and hence physical. Supernatural by its very definition cannot exist for it is non-physical and there is no such thing as non-physical. People who consistently say that something non-physical exists don't understand the criteria for something to exist.

This puts "god" in the same category as fairies, ghosts, goblins, santa clause, easter bunny, leprechaun, etc

[BartBVanBockstaele]

Craig seems to think that just because he is able to create grammatically correct sentences, he must necessarily be correct, but all he is spewing out is meaningless blather.

[mouthyweasel]

We've never seen ANYTHING "come into being" from a state of nothingness. We've never observed nothingness. Things constantly morph and change, but we haven't observed anything coming from nothing. Therefore we can't respectably and shouldn't confidently speculate about causation. Craig is like Wormtongue from Lord of the Rings. What a stumbling block to reason this man is. He should be ashamed. He's smart enough to know what he's doing to humanity. Singing Jesus for $. Shameful butthorn.

[mouthyweasel]

1: If a premise is incorrect in any sophmoric syllogism like Craig's Argument From The Beginning of the Universe syllogism, the argument necessarily fails.

2: Premise 1 in Craig's "Argument From The Beginning of the Universe"is embarrassingly poorly reasoned and entirely incorrect and worthless.

3: Therefore Craig's Argument From The Beginning of the Universe is logically invalid and the Argument fails.

[devdissent]

I'm really surprised nobody calls William Lane Craig on his "disembodied mind" bullshit. His sole argument for that is "I don't know of anything else except numbers and minds", except of course that what mind we know of, we know to certainly require a brain. To suggest we're created by a somehow "disembodied mind", is equally nonsensical to claiming that we were created by numbers.

[BartBVanBockstaele]

@Rarae192 I agree. This "astonishing" tactic seems to be quite common in members of the American Taliban. Somehow, they seem to think that when they use the wrong words to describe a situation, nobody will notice. And of course, that is in itself an application of a Biblical principle.

[XZohar123]

One thing people don't seem to understand is that once you start talking about "causes" of the universe, you can't rely on normal language/common sense. We don't even know what "exist" MEANS at that point. We can basically only use physics to try and describe it (MTheory or something). But we can never really fully comprehend it. To say you can reason out logically what the cause of the universe is is just ridiculous.

[Rarae192]

@BartBVanBockstaele I've noticed he often likes to declare how "astonished" he is by his opponent's argument, as if they've said something incredibly stupid, when his arguments are almost entirely semantical, or abuse areas of science of which we know little about, e.g. whatever happened before the Big Bang. He goes completely gay over himself whenever he speaks, but it's all God of dé gaps iced over with his personal authentication via the Holy Ghost.

[BartBVanBockstaele]

@Rarae192 The problem is that he never answers the questions. He usually starts by stating that everybody agrees with him and then finishes by declaring that the atheists are wrong and/or dishonest because they don't agree with him, or something to that effect.

[superlativewoman]

retarded fuck...dont bother watching this section

[Rarae192]

@BartBVanBockstaele Is it meaningless blather? I can never pay attention when he speaks because he's so fucking boring.

[Madz1987]

@AdversusHaereses Oh and by the way squareness and roundness do exist as properties of certain objects, in so far as an a object is square or round or rather a sphere or a cube. It's just like something being wet/dry or hard/soft.