The Case Against Atheism - Dr. William Lane Craig

This is a short video of Dr. William Lane Craig in a debate addressing faulty arguments for atheism.

Check www.leestrobel.com for hundreds of excellent FREE Christian videos.

Todd Tyszka
www.toddtyszka.com

Dr. william lane craig atheism Jesus Christ Christian evidence case proof proves evidence debate debated debates debating apologist apologetic apologetics atheist atheists agnostic agnostics skeptic skeptics Bible Scripture Scriptures Gospel Gospels strobel

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• william
• lane
• craig
• atheism
• Christ
• evidence
• apologetics
• atheist
• agnostic
• skeptic
• Bible
• Scripture
• Gospels
• strobel

[9906197439]

This guy's argument are just awesome.

[cq7us]

@DandAinTac I am not arguing "religious doctrines and dogma". I am arguing from science that accepts without question that the universe is contingent and causal, therefore it is out of logical necessity that there has to be a first cause. If, as you propose, the singularity just popped into existence from nothing, then you are arguing from absurdity. Out of nothing, nothing comes. Why don’t we see “things” just popping into existence all over the place today?

[cq7us]

Aristotle, a pagan, came to the same conclusion that in a causal universe one must logically conclude there must be in the beginning an unmoved mover.

[DandAinTac]

@cq7us Scrutinize with "philosophy" all you want--what you are really saying is that you want your particular philosophy to be exempt from scientific scrutiny. The good thing about science, is that it is self-scrutinizing. If science "goes wild", it is always yanked back down to reality through the application of the scientific method and peer review. Religion exempts itself from such a process (it's called blasphemy), so it went wild long ago, and has never had to face reality.

[DandAinTac]

@cq7us Causality only applies WITHIN this universe. So you cannot apply it to the beginning of the universe itself, since causality did not exist before the universe itself existed. The truth is, we have no clue what came before (if one can even say there WAS a "before"). The universe, and existence/non-existence, are not obliged to conform to our religious doctrines and dogma.

[cq7us]

@DandAinTac Another example of science gone wild is quantum indeterminacy, I’ve often heard many physicists claim that because particles appear out of “nothing” as an argument against causality. I do not need to be a scientist to know that “nothing” has zero potentiality to create anything. Thus, scientists often let their bias of atheism shape their conclusions or they don’t fully understand the laws of logic and their implications.

[cq7us]

@DandAinTac The outcome or conclusions of any science are always subject to philosophical scrutiny. When Carl Sagan (A Physicist) used to say, “The universe came into “being” billions and billions of years ago” show’s he did not understand ontology or its philosophical implications. What Sagan was implying was that “being” came from “non-being”. This is an irrationally absurd statement. Propositional truths often include necessary and sufficient conditions that can't be physically observed.

[DandAinTac]

@cq7us That is not science. It is merely an assertion which may not hold true at the quantum level. Craig is not a scientist, and he does not appear to truly understand science.

[MrVuHNguyen]

@cq7us I don't think I assign values to things. Things, everything, including the universe, has no intrinsic or extrinsic value. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear when commenting. Value is always subjective and open to interpretation. A hungry cat sees a mouse as very valuable, and a religious cat even thanks God for its tasty meal. In physics, the value of g at earth's surface is 9.8m/s/s. Another, "mathematics is a valuable tool to physicists"

so the word "value" has different uses. Sorry!

[cq7us]

@MrVuHNguyen it's obvious from your comments you do not understand Dr. Craig's or any historical philosophical theistic apologetics, philosophies, or metaphysical arguments. When you assign values to "things" you are already leaving the world of "cold hard facts" and entering the world of "metaphysics". Show me a "value", not it's effects, but an actual "value". You'll find that "things" don't have values, including humans unless they are assigned from something greater than we are.