Does God Exist? William Lane Craig vs Austin Dacey 7/14

Three and a half thousand people gathered in the Elliott Hall of Music on the campus of Purdue University to witness this intellectual collision of two major competing worldviews in American culture: Atheism and Theism. This is the entire debate (including introductions and Q&A) between Dr. William Lane Craig and Dr. Austin Dacy from 2004. Enjoy

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Does
• God
• Exist
• Theism
• Atheism
• William
• Lane
• Craig
• Austin
• Dacy

[BattleshipAgincourt]

@mike

Interesting you say that, considering as I think exactly the same thing about you. You're so deluded by your dogmatic beliefs that you can't tell fiction from reality.

I reject Craig's bogus assertions because they're nonfalsifiable... it doesn't matter whether SOME are true or not. I reject Craig because he's a liar. I reject all gods because not a single religion has met its burden of proof.

It's clear you're not going to admit this, so I might as well stop wasting my time with you.

[mike10121996]

@BattleshipAgincourt Alright Im simply not going to debate this with you. You obviously don't understand history, philosophy, or science. This is like having a discussion with jr. highers, I stopped doing this 6 months ago because it's an exercise in futility, Im going to stop now for the same reason. Look at dominic crossan, bart ehrman. NT. Wright ect. ect. ect all of them cite the gospel accounts especially Q when writing about Jesus of nazareth, it's the closest accounts to the events.

[BattleshipAgincourt]

@mike

Very well then, historians don't treat the SUPERNATURALISTIC elements of the bible as fact. God isn't recognized outside biblical historians.

Certainly the STORIES of the bible have influenced a great many people, but that's not at all the same as claiming the stories are true. If a story is widely accepted as fact by people, the actions of those people in response to the STORY is certainly credible. The actual elements of the story which don't correspond to reality are rejected.

[BattleshipAgincourt]

@mike10121996

It IS true, whether you choose to believe it or not.

The bible is NOT recognized as a historic document any more than the Odyssey of Homer, or various other holy books supporting Krishna or Allah. What Craig asserts as fact are the STORIES of Jesus.

It is widely accepted that Caesar crossed the Rubicon, because historic events naturally follow from that event. If the records indicated that he rode in a chariot of fire, that supernatural element isn't accepted as fact.

[mike10121996]

@BattleshipAgincourt "Watch that debate. Seriously watch it and you'll see that Craig can't hold his own" I have watched it and I'm not going to get side tracked. The point is you said no serious historian cites the "bible", bart ehrman clearly does and so your point is clearly false. Changing the topic does not mean your good at debate. Stay on point.

[mike10121996]

@BattleshipAgincourt Ok I have seen that debate and you really don't pay attention. The point is NOT that craig has a "witness in his heart" its that sufficient evidence. Now way to totally ignore my point. Ehrman believes Jesus lived and died. No he doesn't believe in the resurrection, but your statement that there's debate about whether jesus lived or not is completely bogus. Bart Ehrman being case in point. Moreover Ehrman cites the gospel accounts, which you said NOT historian does.

[BattleshipAgincourt]

@mike10121996

Try Bart Ehrman. He debated with WLC about the single subject of whether Jesus rose from the dead and totally killed Craig's argument. The fool actually resorted to dodging the evidence and peeling to the witness of the holy spirit 'in his heart.'

Watch that debate. Seriously watch it and you'll see that Craig can't hold his own when it comes to debating just ONE point in his argument.

[mike10121996]

@mike10121996 BTW are you watching this discussion with battleshipagincourt? This discussion is so painful it actually hurts my head to participate in it. He actually thinks that WLC premise everything that begins to exist has a cause, that begins is "redundant" he hasn't figured out that beginning to exist and existing are two different things. he doesn't understand history enough to know that it non falsfiable. this is why I hate these discussions.

[mike10121996]

@BattleshipAgincourt BTW richard price is hardly a "respected" historian. he stands on the fringe of historical scholarship. I just thought I should point that out.

[mike10121996]

@BattleshipAgincourt "Actually the bible is NOT treated as a historic document.' That is simply not true. Historians like Bart Ehrman, Dominac Crossan, who are FAR CRIES from theists, cite the scriptures all the time. Where do you think Q comes from? It's a compolation of sayings collected from the synoptic gospels. Now do they accept Jesus rose from the dead? No. but they use and cite them as historical sources.