Th1sWasATriumph likes to lie about William Lane Craig

Th1sWasATriumph (who authors various "Craigening" videos which are full of dishonest and ignorant assessments of William Lane Craig) deals with Craig's cosmological argument and claims Craig did not consider an apparent contradiction.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Th1sWasATriumph
• Craigening
• William
• Lane
• Craig
• ThisWasATriumph
• Cosmological
• argument
• uncaused
• cause
• God
• universe

[Bodomchills]

It's refreshing to see that someone pays close attention to the videos posted by atheists on youtube. Keep it up rationalresponseguy! Your efforts are both enlightening and entertaining.

[rationalresponseguy]

@Bodomchills Thank you, sir!

[ZackTheProtestant]

Wow, does anyone take this guys videos seriously? EVERYTHING THAT BEGINS TO EXIST HAS A CAUSE." That is the most amateur mistake an atheist can make when criticizing this argument.

[rationalresponseguy]

@ZackTheProtestant It's around the internet. Atheists believe nothing actually exists. And they naively cite the firs law of thermodynamics as proof!

[Birdieupon]

Lol what a total douchebag! He actually commits the most common schoolboy error of mis-quoting the premiss as "everything that exists needs a cause" instead of "BEGINS TO exist".

This is the same clown who named his Dr Craig "rebuttals" after movies in order to try to give them some sense of reverence (trouble is, like a typical hollywood B movie, they're full of bluster and void of any intellectual content).

Thanks, rationalresponseguy, for exposing the dimness of these "Bright" bulbs!

[rationalresponseguy]

@Birdieupon It's not hard exposing these idiots. It's just sad that they think they have a slam bang argument against William Lane Craig. In my estimation, Th1sWasATriumph is nearly as dishonest and shallow as theowarner whom I just caught in making another dumb comment: watch?v=xnTpKa00N8Y and watch?v=Jo3CkLad2bc

[BlakeRudy]

Science agrees that the universe and time itself had a beginning. Anything that comes into being must have a cause. God exists beyond space-time without cause, thus never came into being. Simple logical argument.

[StopSpamming1]

@Satarack

No, you don't understand logics.

You can't say "god created time" without first proving that this particular god existed and was able to create time.

So you first say: god existed. Then you say: time exists. And then you say: because time exists, this proves god exists. Do you see your logical dilemma?

But don't worry, people have tried to come up with arguments and nobody has managed.

[Satarack]

@StopSpamming1 Lol, so you reject logic then? Apparently you get to decide what christianity is for YOUR convenience, you hypocrite.

If God is the creator, he created time.

To create time, God must have existed causally prior to time, lest we create a logical contradiction of a circular argument.

Therefore God is timeless.

But you have an apriori conviction to deny anything I say anyway. You're attacking a straw man, but you don't care I guess.

[lordrazr]

Is this a rebuttal or what? If so epic fail. If someone refutes another's arguments, you reiterate the original arguments. You dont have your own arguments? Or you cant pick out what twat said wrong? I would be careful when calling other people idiots, especially after watching this video!!!

[StopSpamming1]

@Satarack

Why are you kidding yourself?

} "timelessness of God is necessary"

Yes, because YOU need it to be that way.

You don't realise anymore how deep you have your head buried that you define reality according to what you want it to be.

[Satarack]

@StopSpamming1 I'm not defining it. God's properties follow necessarily from logic. The timelessness of God is necessary for God to be able to create time. If he depended on time, he could not be the creator of time or else that would be a circular argument.

[StopSpamming1]

@Satarack

How about a different explanation?

The "begin" to exist is a primitive cop-out to cater for the god which needs to be presented later. The historical argument, postulated by less skilled apologists, did not have this yet.

And if there is a super-natural being, why do YOU need to define it YOUR way to suit YOUR needs?

[Satarack]

@StopSpamming1 thiswasatriumph made a categorical error where he said, "if everything has to have a cause, what's the cause of God?"

But that is not the principal of sufficient reason. The Principal of sufficient reason is, "everything that happens must have a cause." In this case, the thing that happens is beginning to exist. If beginning to exist never happens, there is no need for a cause. An eternal entity can be said to never have begun to exist; they simply always did exist.

[Mathenaut]

This...You're just repeating what WLC says. Instead of a reply to the criticism, you just post more invalid stuff as if it somehow addresses it. It doesn't.

We already know what WLC says, and the arguments against him are rather thorough. You'll need more than just more WLC to stand against that.