William Lane Craig vs Peter Atkins (HQ) 4a/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

[patrckhh20]

Why does this nothing talk about nothing in a universe of nothing as if they're were truth which in his world must be nothing?

[lantern256]

Lol. His whole arguement is I am smart you are dumb.

[KoBred1]

On and on about how much his science is better than belief..but never the actual reason

[CharlesDilkes]

@MrGunwitch I seriously can't get over 'point' 4 - it's too funny. A normal, intellectually sophisticated person would have the candour to say: 'Oppy? Never heard of him, oh, an atheist you say? I'll be sure to note him and read him at some point in the future. Thanks for the heads up.'

But no, not this spastic, his response is: 'ohhhh, no, couldn't possibly read an AUSTRALIAN [lol], especially one that works at Monash.'

Haha - do one mate.

[CharlesDilkes]

@MrGunwitch OUCH! He's done it AGAIN - this spastic has belied his ignorance...AGAIN. Fucking hell mate, you're too much!

It has no effect because it's an ONTOLOGICAL argument, not a COSMOLOGICAL argument. LOL. Go school yourself you moron.

[CharlesDilkes]

@MrGunwitch 1) No it isn't, 'authour' is common in British English you spastic.

2) No it shows how vexing talking to twats like you is.

3) Yes it was implicit (keeping digging that hole).

4) He is - but how the fuck would know? You thought he was a theist! hahaha. What a fuckin' retard you are. And LOL - so you denigrate him because he's AUSTRALIAN - yes that's right everybody, this spastic doesn't think Australia can produced anybody of high calibre. Fuck off mate.

[MrGunwitch]

@CharlesDilkes

Lets cut to the chase...in 500 words or less describe to me how asymptotic variance in Planck density would affect the Ontological argument? Cmon bigshot, lets see what you've got aside from expletives

[MrGunwitch]

@CharlesDilkes

1) Actually no, its still spelt 'author'. Reference the Oxford ENGLISH dictionary

2) No, it just speaks volumes about you.

3) Not it wasn't, although you'd need basic secondary schooling to see that

4) Oppy a renowned philospoher?! Please stop now. In fact it was your referencing of this nobody that denounced your Australian heritage...only a local would think that this was somebody worth mentioning

[CharlesDilkes]

@MrGunwitch I'm laughing at 'point' 4. Literally. How someone can be so fuckin' deluded and dismiss a well respected academic like Oppy is beyond me: 'ohhh, Monash, har har har, no, I don't waste my time with those peons' - fuck off mate, who the hell do you think you are?

[CharlesDilkes]

@MrGunwitch 1) It is in British English you muppet.

2) No, it belies my vexation - here's another: you're a tosser.

3) That was implicit in your comment, otherwise you would have said: 'I don't care for those apologists, barring Oppy & Smith, of course, who are athiests'. but you didn't - why? Because you know fuck all about the literature.

4) Mate, are you kidding me? Oppy - a renowned philosopher- not good enough for you? You're a fool mate, and a dumb one at that, absolute fool.

[MrGunwitch]

@CharlesDilkes

1) Authors is not spelt 'authours'

2) Swearing profusely doesn't prove a point, it merely belies your lacklustre intellect, weak education, and no doubt non-existent social standing

3) I never said Oppy and Smith were apologists, once again, show my post to someone with basic comprehension skills for some help with this one

4) Even quoting Oppy shows you are a neophyte...Professor at Monash? Are you kidding me? Don't waste my time with this crap

[CharlesDilkes]

@MrGunwitch You don't have a point you spanner.

You haven't knocked anyone to the canvas: you have both hands on your cock, intellectually masturbating ferociously. You're all mouth, s fool. If we were face to face having a discussion you'd have been laughed out of the room - why? - because you waved off the likes of Oppy & Smith as 'insipid' apologists. You're a joke. Then you hide behind some pathetic caricature, as if my citing of these men was some sort of 'argument'.