William Lane Craig vs. Richard Dawkins

MOVED YOUTUBE ACCOUNT TO http://www.youtube.com/user/reasonparty

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Richard Dawkins
• William Lane Craig
• Christopher Hitchens
• Bill Maher

[16thunder]

@TemplarThe2nd The big bang is the theory that most scientists find way plausible than the string theory or god creating it out of nothing. Yes it is a theory but the one with the most data backing it up...

[TemplarThe2nd]

@16thunder the big bang is one model among many of how our universe came into existence...

[16thunder]

@TemplarThe2nd Which we call the big bang, the creation of time and space and the creation of the universe as we know it ...

[TemplarThe2nd]

@16thunder the universe, at least as we know it, had a beginning, as BVG theorem tells us

[16thunder]

@thetheistexperience1 Craig uses science but, he doesn't mention many things which if he did would automatically explain why something is like it is. "The universe didn't came out of nothing" he states many times while talking about the big bang "from nothing, nothing comes" but the theory of big bang doesn't say that at all. Mather & energy can not be destroyed, E2=m2c4+p2c2, => the universe always existed just in another form before the big bang. It's long to explain

[16thunder]

@thetheistexperience1 Yes i recall that argument quite good. The argument he makes does demonstrate that Jesus and his friends existed, although the historians that wrote about him wrote it ages after the crucifixion. He does make arguments for Jesus being divine, but they are just playing with words. How do I know? I mentioned a muslim using the same arguments but instead of Jesus he used Mohamed And he does use "PHILOSOPHICAL" arguments which fail.

[crucisnh]

@thetheistexperience1 I don't believe that there's any possible proof that god exists. And no words that Craig could utter can change that for me. It's an improvable proposition to me. Thus, I do not believe that Hitchens or anyone else in his position needs to come up with a "better" answer beyond saying that it's simply impossible to prove the unprovable.

[farrell2k]

@AlexiusMoore - HAHA, No! That is called argumentum ad ignorantiam, the argument from ignorance which is a logical fallacy that proposes that if you cannot disprove something, then it must be true. A great example of this fallacy is bigfoot. You cannot disprove it exists, therefore it must. The same goes for aliens, the loch ness monster, etc. See the pattern?

[farrell2k]

@thetheistexperience1 - In order for evidence to be scientific, which is really just a meaningless adjective added to the word "evidence" (there is no other type of evidence), it MUST be not only demonstrable, but also falsifiable. Philosophical arguments are neither testable not falsifiable, thus they are not evidence; they're just arguments.

[farrell2k]

@thetheistexperience1 - Even if Jesus and his apostles were real, which is not a very fantastic claim and is quite probable, how does that in any way demonstrate the divinity of Jesus?