William Lane Craig vs Peter Atkins (HQ) 8/11

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

[katpiering123]

This is why Richard Dawkins dont wanna debate scientists or anyone that seems to know what his talking about. For he will look like a fool in minutes. He rather debates old priests in churches. WHAT A JOKE!!!!

[ShawDAMAN]

Atkins whole machine analogy failed as well. Occasionally anthropomorphic *terminology* is used in referring to machines, but you cannot "train" a computer the way living beings are "trained." Machines are programmed, not "trained" which means to teach a particular skill or type of behavior through practice and instruction over time, these are all terms of reference exclusive to sentient (able to perceive or feel) beings.

[davveist]

The audience and moderator are obviously biased, ignorant and S T U P I D

[bFuddlez]

@obrienpl lrn2williamfbuckley

[daleshankins]

Read Bart Ehrman's book - "Misquoting Jesus", he gives a good explanation of the evidence for supernatural events.

Craig continually claims that a personal God's existence is the most plausible explanation for an event unless: A.Science has an alternative explanation OR B. Atheism can disprove God's existence. He allows no room for option C. No one knows at this time. Why?

[obrienpl]

The mediator is an ass

[mollkatless]

Your statement is complete at "he simply wasn't prepared at all". You don't need to say that Craigs arguments were so far afield that poor atkins was shocked into incoherence. He wasn't only responding to Craig, he was supposed to have something to say independent of Craig, & he didn't.

His point, the brilliant thesis that he prepared was - you are lazy if you believe in God, and science is omnipotent - he probably wrote that on a cue card moments before the debate started, his full prep

[clembashing]

@mollkatless he simply wasn't prepared at all. he must have thought it would've been easy, but all the arguments clearly stunned him. like the argument about a biologist claiming that the probability of evolution is so small that God must have triggered it. there are eminent biologists out there that don't believe that. there are scientists out there that believe the universe is teeming with life. craig uses this argument in several of the videos, and it should've been rebutted.

[mollkatless]

Why can't atkins just sit and quietly be confused instead of giving voice to his confusion over and over? Instead of reminding us all with each word he is hopelessly out of his league, he could sit there and chew bubble gum or play with soap bubbles or something

[mollkatless]

@clembashing = can you explain to me why when atkins is blathering on incoherently someone doesn't stun-gun him? so Craig can get in a word edgewise, and logic and reason can again be heard in this "debate" - please I need to know

[mollkatless]

@clembashing = dont take offense, but you make atkins sound intelligent, composed and top of his game, nice work! That is no small accomplishment

[tenbear5]

This assertion on the absolute truth of 'modern science' is quite shocking. Only this week 'particles' have exceeded the speed of light. The Standard Model is in crisis. Science is as far from accounting for everything as it ever was.